Autumn Internationals 2009

Not my fault if you want to be a cock

Better a cock than a qunt.

taipan wrote:Well clearly the ideas were crap.

And when has union ever really been a running game?

I'd agree with the point that it's generally more a "territory" game than a running game, with one exception - France.

Not so much recently - but in the 80s/90s, their backs were almost unstoppable when they threw the ball around. They should have had far more success than they actually did - but their forwards could never resist having a pop and conceding penalties which ultimately cost the game ..... a truly brilliant side but so indisciplined.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

League craps all over union as a spectator sport.

Eyes of the beholder mate.

League fans find the number of mysterious penalties to be a blight. Mostly these come at the tackle when possession is up for grabs. Many of them are a mystery and many of them are wrong, but I'm far happier watching a continuous contest.

Despite being in a strong rugby league area, my grammar school only played union - but I also played league at club level. As a forward, both codes are equally brutal when you're getting splatted from all directions. Backs usually have a slightly easier time in union, simply becaust there are fewer 1 v 1 or 2 v 1 tackles during the course of a game.

I'm too old and crocked to play now of course, but I still like to watch both codes - but I'll admit to a preference for RL. I've seen many superb games of union, but also too many go thus .......

ruck - s/half - f/half - touch kick - line out - gain a yard or two - ruck - s/half - f/half - touch kick - line out - gain a yard or two .......... ad infinitum - 10 man rugby where the backs are shivering and lucky to handle the ball twice each half. Or the ping-pong we saw on saturday against Argentina .... aimless hoofing upfield.

Whilst open, flowing running RU is one of the best sights in any sport, the scrappiest game of league is, IMNSHO, far more interesting than the type of game I described above.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

Not my fault if you want to be a cock

Better a cock than a qunt.

Depends on your POV doesn't it?

Shoeshine wrote:

taipan wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

beamer wrote:

JKLever wrote:Got a feeling the ever improving Argies will beat England this weekend...

They're missing their two star backs (Hernandez and Contepomi), and I think they've lost a fair few others from the side that reached the World Cup semis - England should have enough. Having said that, Argentina tend to be strong in the scrum and we're down to about our 15th choice front row... I think it will depend on whether Argentina have a reliable goal-kicker, I don't expect many tries.

The weather is going to be dire as well - so it'll be a forward battle.

And that is different to normal English rugby, how?

We might not win, that's how. Though it's noticeable that the utterly craven stupidity that caused the South Africans to accept the idiotic ELVs against their better instincts and give them enough momentum that we're still left with a fair few of them has had the impact of reducing the amount of running rugby and increasing the amount of kicking. Well done. What on earth possessed you to listen to the Australians?

As far as I can recall we were outvoted

Depends on your POV doesn't it?

aye, particularly in the cinematic context, but in life Shoeshine would always play the qunt.

Shoeshine wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:

the idiotic ELVs

Feck! Your reactionary gin swillers didn't have the balls to trial them. You're not entitled to an opinion.

Because they were aimed at emasculating the forwards because Australia don't have any.

They weren't aimed at emasculating the forwards at all.

The ELVs made scrums more important. Teams invariably took the option of the scrum when awarded a free kick. Coupled with the five-metre offside rule it made good scrums a potent attacking weapon.

But people in England never saw that because the RFU refused to trial the sanctions law (by far the most important of the proposed changes).

Claims that it would be a "cheat's charter" proved false. Some referees lost control when they refused to hand out yellow cards. When referees did issue yellow cards the cheating quickly stopped.

Despite the divide, I think there is one rule change the north and south can agree on: bring back rucking. Technically rucking has never been banned, but it's been stamped out by the officials none-the-less.

Players don't need referees to tell them to roll away or to keep their hands out of the ruck when they've got sharp studs pressing down on their body. Take a stern line against stomping, but get honest rucking back in the game.

Hass wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:

the idiotic ELVs

Feck! Your reactionary gin swillers didn't have the balls to trial them. You're not entitled to an opinion.

Because they were aimed at emasculating the forwards because Australia don't have any.

They weren't aimed at emasculating the forwards at all.

The ELVs made scrums more important. Teams invariably took the option of the scrum when awarded a free kick. Coupled with the five-metre offside rule it made good scrums a potent attacking weapon.

But people in England never saw that because the RFU refused to trial the sanctions law (by far the most important of the proposed changes).

Claims that it would be a "cheat's charter" proved false. Some referees lost control when they refused to hand out yellow cards. When referees did issue yellow cards the cheating quickly stopped.

Despite the divide, I think there is one rule change the north and south can agree on: bring back rucking. Technically rucking has never been banned, but it's been stamped out by the officials none-the-less.

Players don't need referees to tell them to roll away or to keep their hands out of the ruck when they've got sharp studs pressing down on their body. Take a stern line against stomping, but get honest rucking back in the game.

Well, despite the teasing point, there was an element of neutralising forward play in the ELVs, because those behind it felt that it was in itself an undesirable part of the game from the spectator perspective, not least in Australia where league is more popular. The removal of the rolling maul (since returned) is a good example of that. Some of the ideas did seem worthwhile, such as the 5 metre gap, but I have to say the law of unintended consequences seems to have applied here and we are getting less running and a lot more kicking. If by the sanctions law you're talking about downgrading of offences to free kicks (?) that was a terrible idea, it really would have been a cheats charter, and had it gone through it absolutely would have demolished the importance of the forwards. You see, though it was said that it made the scrum more important because that was the option at a free kick, it also meant that the scrum could be collapsed, or binding removed, or wheeled - absolutely anything because there was no penalty option. It actually didn't transpire because the northern hemisphere point-blank refused to adopt it. One of the big issues the proponents of ELVs didn't take into account was that during a nasty storm in January up here, forward play is all you're going to get.

Rucking, proper rucking, won't come back - there's too much fear about injury.

What a clown.


First he rubbishes Dickinson to the AB's. Now he apologies to him.

http://www.supersport.com/rugby/article.aspx?headline=O`Brien%20apologises%20to%20Dickinson%20&id=324013

Are we actually playing.... ok?

Can it last....

Shane Williams is unstoppable.

vilkrang wrote:If we stopped the game now then we wouldn't lose, so technically we have already won.

Alas...

Better performance than against the Argies though.

South Africa scrape past Italy by 22 points.