Greek Kiwi on the refs

[the gambler]

I hate when obstruction is not called in league but I thought the wallabies were very hardly done by on that decision. Especially when you saw the Boks do the exact same thing on every kick off, of which there were quite a few.

 

[Sully]

We can call it any name we want boring, monotonous, one dimensional, what counts for the Saffers is what their fans think of it. And looking at the crowd shot on Sunday morning it doesn't look like they can see anything wrong with it.

 

[Newb]

Problem with this last weeked is your forwards who'd be running to the landing area with the intention of securing the imminent ruck will be slower than the back who kicked it and therefore get penalised for impeding the chaser.

a la McCaw hovering under every high ball acting as a stone wall while Mils takes it down....

oh wait, except for the receiving a penalty part....

 

[Newb]

can't fault the Saffas for playing in a way that works. and they are damn good at it. having said that, i still refuse to credit PdV in any way give the credit to the senior players if you have to give it to someone.

i agree with many in thinking that the change from free kicks to full arms was a bad idea. i think that is the easiest and perhaps most effective fix. it rewards a forward pack for good work (in the boks case) but probably too much, as someone pointed out about 2 penalties not being equal in effort to scoring a try.

i always liked the idea of escalating calls too to give a team to get their act straight. now it's 3 points and then a card or sometimes a card out of nowhere. too harsh too often i'd say. and not much a ref can do to slow it down because they don't want to bin an entire side at once and teams know that. i think increasing the effect of an infringement has only caused more of them.

and giving the ref that much power over a game is also a mistake at this point. if it's obvious that refs aren't interpreting games the same (and it's clear they are not) then why increase the effect of their wonky calls? clearly the consequences should be lessened so that a bad call here or there doesn't swing a match.

but i think these points relate more to quality of the game overall. i think it's ridiculous to call for a change to the game because of one teams style. the game should not be changed because of the way the boks are winning. let teams try to figure out a way to beat them. i thought this too when there were people boo hooing over the amount of points a droppie gets you when morne was banging those over before. they're both valid tactics and i'm ok with all of it.

but something has to be done to clean up the structure of the game itself and i feel like it's gone downhill since super14.

 

[Blue]

Well it's obvious stating that I won't be as perturbed about the state of play as I would have been if we were losing with this style of play.

What I do like about the way the Boks are playing is the physicality and controlled aggression. It was what I was raised on so seeing it played this well is very, very satisfying.

However, there were many moments in the last three test where I was shouting at the TV when the boks kicked it. I know they can be more adventurous.

I do think that teams will develop strategies to counter this style of play. It' a matter of time. Talking rule changes is premature. Give it time. We are not that far off where we were pre-ELV's as far as the rule set was concerned. We saw soem good enterprising stuff back then.

The game will evolve. I didn't want to see changes. I want to see teams become more intelligent and I think they will.

The reason I am saying this is that the ABS and Wallabies were terribly naive and played poor game plan with pretty bad execution and skills. That has nothing to do with rules. Win lineouts. Protect the ball. Kick intelligently. Get peopel to run from deeper rather than trying to attack with a flat line which the Wobs seemed to do all the time.

Where were the decoy runners Aus are so good at? Where were the pick and go's? Why did the ball only fidn the wing for the second time in the match well into the second half? Why were ball runners like Palu not challenging Steyn in attack (has to do with no lineout ball I guess)?

The All Blacks were trying to run a slippery ball from their own in goal area all night and Rockoco saw the ball a lot and fucked it up all night. They also couldn't execute basic skills like their lineout.

While much of our problems stem from the breakdown problems and reffing interpretations, I wonder if Australia and the AB's did some really basic shit better, will the rules still be this much under question?

 

[PaarlBok]

Still cant understand this all of a sudden ref and bore gameplan qoutes that run now like water down a drain. You dont have to figure out the way to counter them and the BIL's set the perfect example and marker. Both the All Blacks and Wallabies havent test us even close compare to the BIL. That 2nd test against them we showed we can spin and strike but this three test we did not need it at all. If you dont want to give Snor any credit , well then you have to ask questions about Deans & Henry. They all have the example and the NH have been called cant play with the backs. BoD & Roberts test our backline defense to the limited, Nunu & Conrad or the Barnes & Mortlock dead fish compared to what they did.

To blame the ref, whining like usual from a losing ship.

 

[Cutter]

Paarl everytime I read your posts I regret it which is sad because I used look forward to them.

I agree that teams need to evolve to counter the Boks tactics. However, one of the reasons I was in favour of trialling the ELVs was that, since professionalism, players are stronger, faster and fitter, making the fields, effectively, smaller. Added to this is the liberal use of replacements, blood bins etc meaning that slower less fit players are no longer on the field to "create" space. I dont think the attack is any less innovative or effective, just that the defence is fitter, faster and more organised. As such, I applauded the move to trial laws which would counter balance the changes wrought by professionalism.

One of the criticisms of the way in which the ELVs were trialled is that they were not all trialled together. That meant that where laws were introduced to counteract, to varying degrees, the effects of another, they were not necessarily trialled together. This led to the effect of a law not having its own counterbalance. I fear that the same thing has happened with the adoption of some of the ELVs the consequence being that a game which already favoured defences is now weighted even further towards defence.

The counter to such a defensive game, is what the Fijians threw at the Springboks in the quarterfinal in 2007. However, it is a risky rugby strategy and the demand for success from the top teams means that the pressure is on administrators, coaches and players to lean towards conservative game plans. However, conservative game plans lead to grumbling from fans and administrators about "entertaining" rugby. Its a vicious circle.

Making tries more valuable and penalties/drop goals less valuable (relatively) might lead to there being more demand for tries, but that means there will also be more demand for defence to stop the tries. Given the congested field already, I dont think that would work. I also think that there isnt much appetite for any more new rules at the moment. As such, any
changes would need to be driven by the application of existing rules or by re-interpreting existing rules. Which rules and how that would work are beyond me at the moment but, even then, I find it hard to see how it would change things enough.

Other options are to reduce the number of players on the field (as a former backrower I'd rather drink my own vomit than advocate this) or increase the size of the field. This last option would cause problems at plenty of stadiums around the world.

 

[PaarlBok]

Sorry dont mean that you regret reading my posts but you have to forgive this Boer straight talking at times. Dont mean to offend and just tell it the way I saw things.


Now you going to the ELVs and that confuse me even more. You have to understand that Snor first objective was the wide game. We lost the first few tests and every mouse and dog was on his case altho we beat the All Blacks at home for the first time in many years.

I cant agree at all about problems of the current game plan. Remember I am a WP and Stormers supporter and we love the wide game. The Bokke strengths has always been forwards and Snor & kie just returned to SA unique way of play over a number of years. The Lions test us , you lot didnt neither the All Blacks and we could play safe and trust our defense. Like it or not, if you want to beat the Bokke you need to win lineouts, need to battle the breakdowns, need to keep the ball need to keep it up with our phisical play. You sure have the backline but they will mean nothing if you dont have their fair share of the ball.

Now thats the problems the Wallaby coaches should adress. Not about a NH ref desiccions or ELVs and all that kind of side shows.

I still would love to had SH refs for the 3 Nations just as everyone else and was wondering if we would not have put up a much bigger score if we had more advantage play at those penalties by scoring tries. If you think the Bokke cant score backline tries, you in for a big surprise, they dont need to take changes thus far in the 3 Nations because both teams havent push them there.

 

[the gambler]

I agree with nearly all your points in your last post here PB. Thats the first time in a while I can say that because for the most part your recent posts have been either childish baiting or arrogent gloating. Although they may have perhaps been deserved or as you say, simply calling it as you see it, their repetitious nature and your failure to even consider the points being raised were tiresome and clearly many of us were clearly getting sick of it. To call someone a whiner for talking about a ref or rules in the game is immature and below a true rugby fan, especially when you are doing it on an Australian thread where the focus will obviously be on Australian issues.

Most of us here are not criticising the Boks. In fact nearly everyone here is in admiration of how the Boks are playing, with Blue's mention of controlled aggresion hitting the nail on the head. They are playing very smart, efficient, effective rugby. I admire that and believe they are the best rugby side in the world at the moment. That doesnt stop me from having opinions on the development of the game.

I can see how people talking about law changes can be seen as sour grapes but I honestly believe I would be making the same statements if the roles were reversed and it was Australia playing the way SA currently are. I said throughout the world cup that the game was coming under threat with the way teams tactics were developing. I obviously wasnt alone with the IRB being forced to look at changing the laws to make the game more attractive. Unfortunately the handling of this process wasnt up to scratch and we find ourselves essentially back to where we were at the end of the 07 World Cup.

Cutters discussion on the effects of profesionalism and the improved defences has already been seen in league where now over 50% of tries are scored directly from kicks. I dont think this will happen in rugby but I do think we will see the "kick, chase, tackle till a penalty comes" tactic become more and more widespread and I do think this is an unattractive and limited form of rugby.

 

[PaarlBok]

Thats the first time in a while I can say that because for the most part your recent posts have been either childish baiting or arrogent gloating.

Now what did I post to deserve that?

 

[Scotty]

I do think that teams will develop strategies to counter this style of play. It' a matter of time. Talking rule changes is premature. Give it time. We are not that far off where we were pre-ELV's as far as the rule set was concerned. We saw soem good enterprising stuff back then.

Blue,

You are correct - teams will find a way to counter, but you are also incorrect, this tactic hasn't just been happening these last few games, it has been around since the last world cup, with the Pumas using it to the great advantage. Their matches at RWC 07 were some of the most boring games to watch I have ever seen, and we can not accept that in this great game of ours - we may as well be watching football (soccer). How do we expect to grow the game world wide and attract more supporters from other sports when teams are playing what amounts to force-em-back. Again I state this isn't the Boks fault - they are playing rugby that wins - its just that the rules allow such tactics to be highly efficient.

 

[Scotty]

Paarl,

Recently you have often ignored points of other posters, no matter how valid, and brought it back to Aussies whining. At the moment you seem to not read the post properly because you have already made up your mind as to what it is going to say.

An example is my post on Rolland after the game. In no way did I blame him for the Wallabies losing in that post (or any other) - but I did say that he is pedantic and affected the flow of the game, yet you assumed I was whining about him. Now in your last post in this thread you have somewhat agreed with me - if there was a Southern Hemisphere ref involved he would have played more advantage and likely the Boks would have scored more tries. (Prime example being when Moore was pinged for holding on, yet when Rolland blew the penalty Du Preez was about to pick up the ball in a perfect attacking position for the Boks.)

All of a sudden you are agreeing with my sentiment about the ref because it suits you!

 

[Blue]

I do think that teams will develop strategies to counter this style of play. It' a matter of time. Talking rule changes is premature. Give it time. We are not that far off where we were pre-ELV's as far as the rule set was concerned. We saw soem good enterprising stuff back then.

Blue,

You are correct - teams will find a way to counter, but you are also incorrect, this tactic hasn't just been happening these last few games, it has been around since the last world cup, with the Pumas using it to the great advantage. Their matches at RWC 07 were some of the most boring games to watch I have ever seen, and we can not accept that in this great game of ours - we may as well be watching football (soccer). How do we expect to grow the game world wide and attract more supporters from other sports when teams are playing what amounts to force-em-back. Again I state this isn't the Boks fault - they are playing rugby that wins - its just that the rules allow such tactics to be highly efficient.

Agreed re Pumas although their play has always been very one dimensional and even more so when they unearthed their first really good punter since Hugo Porta.

 

[PaarlBok]

Paarl,

Recently you have often ignored points of other posters, no matter how valid, and brought it back to Aussies whining. At the moment you seem to not read the post properly because you have already made up your mind as to what it is going to say.

An example is my post on Rolland after the game. In no way did I blame him for the Wallabies losing in that post (or any other) - but I did say that he is pedantic and affected the flow of the game, yet you assumed I was whining about him. Now in your last post in this thread you have somewhat agreed with me - if there was a Southern Hemisphere ref involved he would have played more advantage and likely the Boks would have scored more tries. (Prime example being when Moore was pinged for holding on, yet when Rolland blew the penalty Du Preez was about to pick up the ball in a perfect attacking position for the Boks.)

All of a sudden you are agreeing with my sentiment about the ref because it suits you!

No you totally wrong about this one. Suppose this is a Aussie forum but the way you lot get stuck into refs before and after matches and not giving the opposition enough credit when your team is losing dont help at all. If you lot want to call me arrogant and gloating for attack the ref attackers, so be it , SOME even before tests is just disgracefull. Wish many of this ref attackers can take a whistle in stead and ref a schoolboy rugby match.

I teach my own kid to NEVER use the ref excuse when his team is losing and rather concentrate to better his own rugby skills and game. If he is winning I would listen to his ref critics but losing is just a no goer in my books.

Sorry Boet, maybe you want me to join some of these Aussie ref whiners because its a Aussie forum, sorry I wont wear a Wallaby beanie just for the sake of it and if this owners of the forum (Doc, Gagger, Moses)feel I dont belong here, please give me the hint and I'll go in free will.

 

[Scotty]

PB,

You haven't really read the post again? I think I'm giving up on us coming to some understanding.

Or maybe we have a different definition of 'whining'?

What I did after the AB test could be considered whining - I'll give you that.

What I posted after the Boks test is critism of a reffing style - and in no way did I say that he affected the outcome, in fact the Boks may have been up by more if a different style of ref was in place - so this is in no way whining. You are dead wrong on this.

 

[PaarlBok]

What I posted after the Boks test is critism of a reffing style - and in no way did I say that he affected the outcome, in fact the Boks may have been up by more if a different style of ref was in place - so this is in no way whining. You are dead wrong on this.

Ja you right about that one but hey refs make mistakes all the time and I used the SH one just to show there is always another side of the coin. I have no problem if a ref benefit only one side all the time but if they make mistakes, hell thats never going to end.

But to say I am arrogant and gloating because of this ref critics whining all the time, I dunno. Maybe I miss something somewhere. Its like have a different opinion but these days if you dont go my way , you gloating or arrogant.

Vok even me and Blue or Biffo disagree at times but that dont mean I qoute Blue or Biffo as arrogant or gloaters. We agree to disagree, how difficult can that be?

I'll neverpost here just to keep Aussie rugby supporters happy, I give my honest opinion , sometimes right , sometimes wrong.

 

[Scotty]

Thats cool PB - say it as you see it. I didn't call you arrogant, and if you want to gloat a bit I don't care either - you are well within your right with what the Boks have achieved so far.

 

[PaarlBok]

Thats cool PB - say it as you see it. I didn't call you arrogant, and if you want to gloat a bit I don't care either - you are well within your right with what the Boks have achieved so far.

No, I am not satisfied with the Bokke performance just yet before I'll gloat about them. Like me and Lee discussed on the other Bok comparison thread I'll want them to win the 3 Nations first and foremost. Then I'll say this group is special . If they stay unbeaten on the next 3 I'll rate them as one of the best Bokke teams in history. Then I am within my rights.

 

[the gambler]

Dont over react to my comments PB. Im not suggesting you should leave. Im simply getting sick of you calling us whiners for talking about an aspect of the game. You have made your point 1,000 times already, and as Scotty and Cutter have said we are not taking anything away from the Boks. The better team has won every game. This is a very good Bok side, the best in the world at the moment, but let us talk about aspects of the game that are topical and open to discussion without calling us whiners.

It is also wrong to label all Aussies as ref bashers. You yourself have criticised refs and assistant refs after losses in the past so so while you may teach your son not to talk about refs after a loss you can't claim any moral high ground in this debate.

 

[PaarlBok]

Dont over react to my comments PB. Im not suggesting you should leave. Im simply getting sick of you calling us whiners for talking about an aspect of the game. You have made your point 1,000 times already, and as Scotty and Cutter have said we are not taking anything away from the Boks. The better team has won every game. This is a very good Bok side, the best in the world at the moment, but let us talk about aspects of the game that are topical and open to discussion without calling us whiners.

It is also wrong to label all Aussies as ref bashers. You yourself have criticised refs and assistant refs after losses in the past so so while you may teach your son not to talk about refs after a loss you cann't claim any moral high ground in this debate.

Well I just cant help myself when the constant ref busters keep on coming. Maybe its a Aussie thing (and I honestly dont try and generalise here)but I'll remember, I'll leave you lot in future, dashing on the ref thing. In my books its a kak habit. If you cant realise refs/umpires make mistakes in every match , then you dont know the game. I do critise them, when on the winning side and you welcome to point out when the Boks were losing and I did that.