08 Oct 07
Originally posted by RagnorakThe rotation in theory is great but was taken too far.
No doubt Carter would have dropped into the pocket to put over the drop goal when NZ were on France's goal line in the last few moments. The lack of a player to take that position ultimately cost NZ the win, IMHO.
I don't think you can knock the rotation policy. It looked like he needed them all in the match against France. Eddie O'Sullivan is getting ...[text shortened]... ouple of years, so when our 1st 15 didn't perform, we had very few experienced options.
D
Graeme Henry was given a four year contract to try his rotation plan but didn't at any stage allow a playing 15 to become evident. (totally paranoid about other nations guessing our combinations) The result was that when pressure came on mistakes were made.. 20 dropped balls against Scotland and 10 against the French. The previous level of acceptance was 3 per game.
In fact they haven't ruled it out here the BBC reports were corrected here.. there is to be an inquiry into it's worth with replace coaching staff by Xmas. Deans is the hot fav.. if he doesn't get it he'll go overseas and he's to good to let go.
I think if you look at The Premiership Soccer or Top level European Pro teams, they have a core playing 15, a bench and reserves waiting to come through. The bench changes regularly but the playing core get to know their team mates instinctively.
Our best teams in history have had (for instance) a tight five from a top nation team and the back line of the best runners. Those guys gel really well.
Here the word is that the Canterbury or Auckland provincial teams would have presented better and played with more bottle at the world cup.
The atmosphere here is is funereal at present.. lol our team went down the WC.
Sale RFC have Luke McCallister coming their way.. you are going to love him there... 24 and still improving... enjoy.
I'm still buoyant about the English Win and text constantly with English Cousins on game days... Go England!!
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by buffalobillLike i said before i brought this issue up before a ball had even been kicked.
I've read what you have to say and I don't have a problem with three points for a penalty or drop. So, England didn't score a try but that's not unusual for England.
It's a perfectly legitimate way for the attacking team to score points when the opposition infringe. Reducing the number of points won't cut down on penalties awarded, which surely is the ...[text shortened]... is one.
It's notable that this issue usually comes up when a team loses by penalties.
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by mtthwYour a funny man.
I completely agree with this. I've always found it strange that when a team wins by scoring penalties it's somehow their fault for spoiling the game, rather than the team that keeps offending.
Decrease the number of points for a penalty and you increase the incentive to commit fouls to prevent tries.
You really want to increase "attacking" rugby ...[text shortened]... g offside etc.
(And no, I wouldn't actually do this, but it does demonstrate the point).
There are times when you get penalised for being trapped in the ruck and cant get out,or being held over the ball so it cant be released.So making a penalty worth 7 is just plain ludicrous.
There has been many games over the years when clearly the better team has lost out to penalties.
08 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Crowley2 penalties will beat a try ...6 points to 5.
I don't know why you would bring up something like that when speaking about a scoring issue?
When talking about technical issues like prop technique, you may know more about it than I do. I played 12 years at flank/lock, so I have some experience there (and the game in general), but seriously, what's the significance of our relative experience on this issu .
Disciplined sides who score tries and defend well will win games. What more do you want?
the conversion is worth the extra 2 points ,but if tries are scored out wide its not a given 7 point try.
I notice that a lot of comments on this issue are from the supporters of teams that win by penalties or drop goals.
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by boarmanPoint taken. However, I believe a nice balance has been struck. Remember that the try value was increased from 3 to 5. A team that is defending heavily has to, in the end, infringe in order to prevent the try. In many cases will give away 3 points deliberately to prevent the try. If the attacking team chooses to take the 3 points, I don't have a problem with that.
I notice that a lot of comments on this issue are from the supporters of teams that win by penalties or drop goals.
Far and away the most games are won by teams that can score tries and kick well. It's a rarity to find games won just on penalties.
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by buffalobillYeah my posts on this issue are clearly not with international matches ,it goes all the way to the weekend hackers,
Point taken. However, I believe a nice balance has been struck. Remember that the try value was increased from 3 to 5. A team that is defending heavily has to, in the end, infringe in order to prevent the try. In many cases will give away 3 points deliberately to prevent the try. If the attacking team chooses to take the 3 points, I don't have a problem ...[text shortened]... y teams that can score tries and kick well. It's a rarity to find games won just on penalties.
Yes you will get the teams that repeatedly infringe,in that case there is the yellow card,and it doesnt just have to be for the actual player that infringes,3 offence who ever does it is off for 10,after that then its the red card,teams will soon stop infringing at crucial times.
Im still playing and have witnessed many games won solely on penalties,we scored 3 tries one day to the oppositions none and we lost on penalty kicks ,not a fitting result,and on the other hand i have kicked numerous drop goals and won us games,but we were clearly not the best team on the day although the scoreline didnt say that.And drop goals are easier to get than the penalties,you just get your players to work for the posts and bingo your in front ,simple 3 points ,but thats not the way rugby should be played.
Oh well i have had my gripe,
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by boarmanIn a chess match the aim of the game is not o capture the opponents queen. It is to checkmate. In rugby the aim is not to score tries, -it's to score points. This can be done via tries, penalties, or drop goals. Tries account for the most points because it is the most difficult way to get points. But a try is not "more rugby" than a drop goal or a penalty kick.
Yeah my posts on this issue are clearly not with international matches ,it goes all the way to the weekend hackers,
Yes you will get the teams that repeatedly infringe,in that case there is the yellow card,and it doesnt just have to be for the actual player that infringes,3 offence who ever does it is off for 10,after that then its the red card,teams will ...[text shortened]... ,simple 3 points ,but thats not the way rugby should be played.
Oh well i have had my gripe,
A good team needs a good kicker in the same way that it needs a tall lock, and a strong prop.
08 Oct 07
2 edits
It's nice not to have to listen to the incessant comments in the media any more about how innately superior southern hemisphere rugby is. Three factors stand out for me:
1) The World Cup started at the beginning of the northern hemisphere season. The southern hemisphere teams were better prepared at the start, but preparation only gets you so far.
2) New Zealand and Australia had pretty easy passages through the group stages, whereas England and France had to scrap their way out of their groups. England had just won two hard must-win matches and were battle-hardened and ready for the Aussies. The fact of the matter is that the All Blacks and the Aussies simply couldn't cope with pressure when they were subjected to it for the first time.
3) There's a lot more really hard high-pressure must-win rugby in the northern hemisphere domestic competitions (e.g. the English and French leagues and the Heineken Cup), where choking simply isn't an option.
08 Oct 07
Originally posted by boarmanWhen I played, we had a guy who could bang penalties from our ten yard line and this was in the days of leather balls. He could have been a fearsome weapon if: 1) We ever saw enough of the ball to get the penalties 2) He could get the ball between the posts.
Yeah my posts on this issue are clearly not with international matches ,it goes all the way to the weekend hackers,
Yes you will get the teams that repeatedly infringe,in that case there is the yellow card,and it doesnt just have to be for the actual player that infringes,3 offence who ever does it is off for 10,after that then its the red card,teams will ...[text shortened]... ,simple 3 points ,but thats not the way rugby should be played.
Oh well i have had my gripe,
Once he fluffed his kick so badly it turned out to be a beautiful corner kick which we scored from. I've often wondered if that could be used as a tactic and whether the ref would allow it.
Our best secret weapon was a field called the Paddock which we used when it rained. A quarter of the field would then be under water and the centre just a mud patch. It was a great leveller and we won some good victories we would never have otherwise enjoyed.
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by Northern LadI allso thought the NH teams were a bit wanting, but after this weekend i have to admit that the Southern Hem. teams seems to be on par, and can win big matches when it matters the most. I allso think that the Boks can eventually win this tournament, but not if they underestimate the French, the English, or the Argentinians.
It's nice not to have to listen to the incessant comments in the media any more about how innately superior southern hemisphere rugby is. Three factors stand out for me:
1) The World Cup started at the beginning of the northern hemisphere season. The southern hemisphere teams were better prepared at the start, but preparation only gets you so far.
...[text shortened]... the English and French leagues and the Heineken Cup), where choking simply isn't an option.
If we get France in the final, it would be a tough match. After this weekend France is rated by the IRB as the no.1 team in the world.
If it's an England final, the boks will have to remember that it's going to be a diffenrent English side they play than what they got in the group stages, one with Wilkinson who have tasted victory. Both will be tough matches against teams that must not be underestimated.
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by buffalobillOnce he fluffed his kick so badly it turned out to be a beautiful corner kick which we scored from. I've often wondered if that could be used as a tactic and whether the ref would allow it.
When I played, we had a guy who could bang penalties from our ten yard line and this was in the days of leather balls. He could have been a fearsome weapon if: 1) We ever saw enough of the ball to get the penalties 2) He could get the ball between the posts.
Once he fluffed his kick so badly it turned out to be a beautiful corner kick which we scored ...[text shortened]... . It was a great leveller and we won some good victories we would never have otherwise enjoyed.
Yes it would be allowed - or at least it used to be - at school (20yrs ago) we were taught this tactic however you can not deliberately fluff the kick - so the kicker has to be a good actor as well!
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by Mat KelleyAbsolutely.
I could be persuaded to reduce drop goal to 2.
Teams that infringe should be penalised, but drop goals are opportunistic, so they shouldn't really count the same. Maybe it should be like basketball - 2 points for drops from inside 40m out and 3 points for drops from further away 😛
Another thing that has been irritating me these past couple of seasons and in the WC has been the advantage rule. There is absolutely no consistency by different refs and even by the same ref in a game.
I believe the IRB should look into it - teams need to know they have 5 phases of play advantage (or whatever - but it needs to be a number of phases) and when they kick the ball, whether a kick for position or a drop, advantage OVER.
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by Mat KelleyThen theres the ploy of being awarded a penalty in front of the posts and the kicker points to the posts,but the captain tells the ref i'll take a tap,whilst the opposition are thinking of a penalty kick ,a quick tap is taken and you can usually score from it.this has worked for us in the past.
[b] Once he fluffed his kick so badly it turned out to be a beautiful corner kick which we scored from. I've often wondered if that could be used as a tactic and whether the ref would allow it.
Yes it would be allowed - or at least it used to be - at school (20yrs ago) we were taught this tactic however you can not deliberately fluff the kick - so the kicker has to be a good actor as well![/b]
09 Oct 07
Originally posted by buffalobillI would've thought if a penalty kick went dead it's a 22 drop-out? I must say I'm not sure about the rule...
Once he fluffed his kick so badly it turned out to be a beautiful corner kick which we scored from. I've often wondered if that could be used as a tactic and whether the ref would allow it.