Yeah this is it. Right here. In the end both teams had ample opportunity to 'play rugby' in the last few minutes, but chose not to.
.
- Status
Yeah this is it. Right here. In the end both teams had ample opportunity to 'play rugby' in the last few minutes, but chose not to.
.
Rob42
John Solomon (38)
That's harsh on Scott's article. He makes it very clear in that article that he couldn't do what the refs do, and that speculation on whether the ref's decisions changed the outcome of the game is pointless. He raises a very reasonable point in as reasonable a way as you could hope for from a passionate Reds fan. What could he have done better? It's a point that cries out to be debated, and his article forces people to approach in a somewhat more rational fashion.
Richo
John Thornett (49)
I'm not criticising the quality of his analysis at all. It's excellent. I think it's great that we get high calibre writing like that. I'm just saying it LOOKS like sour grapes wen a fan spends a few thousand words critiquing the ref. it doesn't matter how many caveats are there. As a neutral I was on the edge of my seat for a great game. Why is so much of the focus on the ref?
This. If there's one thing G&GR should be known for it's having a balanced view of whingeing.
Ignoto
John Thornett (49)
I see both articles as covering two separate issues (but I'm sure people will just pass this off as being a Reds supporter).
Scott's article was concerned with the application of the law. That is, the line of events a Ref should follow through on regarding penalties. He wasn't discussing anything about missed penalties or wrong calls, more what the Referee should have done based on the calls he made.
On the other hand, the CT article is all about "missed opportunities" and only has certain snap shots of the game. It screams nothing but "what about me, we were cheated", compared to a logical analysis of the law and it's application.
I did notice during the game that the Reds were doing a lot of holding and blocking, but I would hold Smith back at every opportunity as well.
It took a Mowen complaint to get a penalty for the kick off blocking.
It is an interesting point on the mauls, dunno the answer
It took a Mowen complaint to get a penalty for the kick off blocking.
It is an interesting point on the mauls, dunno the answer
The longer this goes on and the more barbs that come out of either camp, the more of a feeling of schadenfreude that I'm getting.
What was a great game by both sides is now turning into a circus where everyone has spat the dummy and are making themselves look like petulant children (the Reds and Brumbies that is).
What was a great game by both sides is now turning into a circus where everyone has spat the dummy and are making themselves look like petulant children (the Reds and Brumbies that is).
Richo
John Thornett (49)
I probably shouldn't have lumped the two articles together that way. I agree with your distinction. And Scott has been supportive of the Brumbies play. But I do think it's not a great look overall (although worse for the Canberra Times!).
rugbyskier
Ted Thorn (20)
It's the Canberra Times. Most people down this way know not to take the CT too seriously. If you want to know what's going on in Canberra you read the RiotACT blog.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
Man I hate this stuff. There is no way that you can make the claim that his actions were deliberately intended to strike Dan in the head. I would say that you could confidently assume the opposite. In all my years of playing Rugby I've met very few seldom players, and even some absolute grubs, that would ruck someone's head intentionally.
I don't doubt that he got him - this much is pretty clear.
There was some sage advice that I was given a long time ago that both camps could benefit from. I'm rarely able to follow it but it goes, "Only answer your critics when they're right."
The Camberra Times is in the business of making money not news. It's writing for it's audience. GAGR, as far as I can see, makes fuck all money. At least that's what Gagger told me while holidaying in the south of France. So our objectives are different. Scott never criticised the ref he pointed out what happened and compared to the guidelines set up for refs to follow. I thought he was exceptionally calm considering the bashing the ref has got. and was just about the only balance opinion out there.
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD
Merrow
Arch Winning (36)
While the quality of the writing may be worlds apart, I have to agree both items reek of sour grapes. Both sides have a reason to be angry about the game, but ffs, it was just a game; a fantastic game which showcased both the attack and the defence that these teams offer.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
Let me preface my comment by saying that I doubt I will get this right, but I will attempt to minimise my Reds bias for this post.
I think that Brumbies fans will probably take the draw as a reasonable result as with the weight of possession and territory, a lesser team would've lost that game. The Reds on the other hand, through poor decision making, execution, whatever probably had ample opportunity to win that game. So it follows that a Brumbies fan will be less upset by that result than a Reds fan.
So it is easier for a Brumbies fan to say things like, 'sour grapes' and 'it was just a game'. At times, the outrage, whinging or whatever you like to call it may be entirely misdirected but that doesn't make it a whole lot less valid.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
Really?! Wow.
I'm not sure about that, he did call for the ref to be dropped. He was pretty harsh in his post-game review too.
I don't agree with the criticism, I thought Jackson was OK in very trying circumstances. But I don't think Scott was particularly out of line in anything he said.
I just get very uneasy when I see long analysis of refereeing decisions. Even as a ref myself I get a bit bored by it, and would much prefer to read about stuff done by the players. But again that is just me, and I am not having a go at Scott at all.
.
jay-c
Ron Walden (29)
http://www.foxsports.com.au/Rugby/h...626099828?subcat=1111112039622&site=FoxSports
100% look at the contrast between his right leg going down before the left stomp and tell me he was just rucking without the left being intentionally loaded
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Holy shit, I hadn't watched the video until now.......
He's pretty lucky this came out after the citing window.........
Horwill probably hasn't intended on the face, but he definitely stamps him on purpose with that left leg.........
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
I have seen the footage. I have seen numerous stills. None of which show what Horwill's brain is doing at the time. Like I said in my original post, it's pretty clear that Horwill got him in or about the head. No doubt. I simply take exception to claims that he deliberately intended to strike the head. All the footage in the world won't prove that.
- Status