posted Oct 8, 2007

Not only the refereeing in the French game was poor. The refereeing of the SA game was atrocious. It is nice to see the Fijians run, but people forget about their illegal and dangerous tackling - Habana was not so much high-tackled as strangled, and there was the ridiculous incident in front of the Fijian line, when both Burger and Roussouw were hit, Roussow not even having the ball, yet nothing was done.
Fiji could well have finished the game with only 12 men, if you count their blatantly illegal tactics at scrums.
If the referees do not tighten up someone is going to be killed!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 8, 2007

I'm a big proponent of what Francois Pienaar once, aptly described as 'leaving that stuff between the white lines on the field'... when asked about citing, dirty play, etc etc.
Certainly, SA have never been big whingers after the game but the lack of any 'official' reaction to the attempted roundhouse on Danie Russouw, late, high and without the ball(!) - and in front of the linesman... certainly raises the issue of player protection from blatantly dangerous tactics.

SA are no angels (Burger in the first match) - happily the shame of Twickenham seems to have been buried by this current side. But when one considers the sanction handed out in the most stringent manner to Burger (originally a 4 match ban)... one wonders where the consistency is? (And at least there was a ball involved in Burger's challenge...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 8, 2007

Fiji plays dirty, simple. They tackle high as a rule, the Ref not seeing all of the infractions all the time is one thing, but how on earth both linesmen missed all the illegal tackles, especially the strangle tackle on Brian Habana, is beyond me. No doubt the Boks performance in the first stage of the second half left a lot to be desired. They really looked rattled, but that sort of thing tends to happen when the opposing team keeps committing illegal tackles, and the individuals tasked with enforcing the rules of the game seem to have their heads up their collective behinds. With more discipline and adherence to the rules of the game, Fiji is going to be a major player in RWC contests in the future, but for now, the play dirty, simple.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 8, 2007

whiteryno - from fategodconvert.

Nobody should ever wildly generalise I realise as that's plain ignorance but the impression at least gained from playing most if not all other nations is that it does go beyond just sheer competitiveness when countries play England at anything which is puerile in itself and real.

Please own up to this as I'm not a clown making boorish comments but just remarking on the reality as it can come over from the opposition we can face.

Oz are the worst in how Bodyline in cricket is never forgotten and the way any Ashes series (if it really needed it anyway now) is marketed with traditional but outdated images of Britain used to portray the UK.

Do you live in the UK or have ever lived here?

The UK is a truly modern country but as with any nation is fallible and has its faults.

The Empire was alive and well once and its legacy can still reverberate now but just as much if not more so when it comes to sport in the hearts and minds of other nations when they play England especially.

It's just an idea and not scientific in any way but maybe the Aussies and other teams do so well at Lord's because staring at the pavilion and the fogies in there embodies to them the old Empire and this fires them up??

Those old boys and gals if any get through are from another era mostly hanging on to life and do not represent the UK as it is now.

Sport and politics and history do become inextricably linked on occasion but why does it have to apply so much to sporting contests between England and the rest of the world it seems so much?

whiteryno - I welcome your view and am willing to be converted maybe too if you can persuade me.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 8, 2007

Listen here fatgodconvert, you fool. What utter drivell are you muttering about??? The old empire? Grudges and so on? You are the one that needs to wake the hell up its 2007! I mean really, you are nothing but a sore sour silly twit of an englishman. I mean come on? Pollock going for Pieterson on purpose? Look at the replay my friend. You're just a big baby that needs excuses to fall back on why his teams continously under perform. I hope the French give you the beating of a lifetime so you can go home and sulk some more.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 8, 2007

Referees are judged by the consistent application of the rules of the game. Good referees sometimes make bad decisions, but are seldom inconsistent.

I am afraid that Rugby Union like many sports suffers inconsistent officials. The rules are clear and they should be applied consistently and fairly by officials, who should be anonymous until it becomes necessary to become involved.

Unfortunately the referee ans one of the linesmen had most influence on the outcome of the South Africa Fiji game. South Africa benefited from their inconsistent application of lineout and rucking rules.

In summary the best referee is usually the anonymous, quiet, efficient type who above all else applies the rule consistently when the situation requires.

Do Messers Lewis and Walsh fall into this category?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 8, 2007

Hi Wallace, I also put a bet on SA after the tri-nations and am still confident they'll come through, however after listening to the media out here posing the question: 'The world cup is only ours to lose now' one really wonders whether the saffas are falling into the Aussie/Kiwi trap so despised by us pommies: Arrogance. A bit of advice: Don't go there lads, don't be so naive.. especially after the recent matches. This is a knockout tournament and not the free running tri-nations spectacle your used to, the world cup is a only a cup to WIN, and not one which is there to lose; grit, determination, handling pressure and control evidently count for just as much as flair and speed. And whose SA to judge who they'll be playing in the final... England/France has been a tight affair in 2007, apart from the debacle in Marseille of course

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 8, 2007

SA are going to lose to the Argies, stone cold cert. They have played their one big game against eng (where Eng played terribly). Since then their defence has been exposed and got away with it last week due to a few good mauls. Wont work against argentina who have a great defence. Steyne is a massive liability and will cost you the world cup. He's played 3 games and thinks he's dan carter.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 9, 2007

Steyn is no laibility, he's one of the best backs in the bok team. There's no sure winner but as a South African I would bet on the french to win the competition. Argentina could beat the boks, no question about that.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Oct 9, 2007

To Sl1ckN1ck.

Hello

I'll try not to be a fool as I'm always happy to be corrected believe me.

During my second comment to whiteryno I made it clear that it wasn't a scientific explanation and just an idea.

Call it drivel if you want as I have to accept your point of view as is agreed on this messageboard.

I don't like being called names though by you or the other guy as that's not nice and you don't know me really at all and have never spoken to me.

If you ever did you might then have a go at me for being too much of a woolly liberal maybe?

I've nothing against other nations as that'd be really small-minded and I just enjoy watching and being able to appreciate really good sport whoever performs it - honestly.

There is something in what I say though as OK it's a few years ago now but during the 2002/3 Ashes tour a lot was made of the fact that it was the seventieth anniversary of Bodyline with the attendant stories in the Aussie media condemning England all over again for it - this is fact.

Fair enough I can understand that it was a significant moment in Australian sporting history and it was somewhat below the belt by Jardine etc. but it's the fact that it can appear not to be left alone that bothers me.

As regards your comment about me not being able to handle the under-performance of English sides you are wrong as I'm one of the fiercest critics when it seems that the players have sold themselves short or let the opposition walk over them and not put up at least some resistance.

That's not taking anything away from the opposition being just too good for England and outclassing them as happened in the Ashes from 1989 to 2005 and then 2006/7.

As for Shaun Pollock in this particular instance I'm not saying that he deliberately obstructed KP but he and Smith could maybe have gone to the umpire and said that it'd been difficult for Pietersen at least as Pollock was in the way and then let the umpires decide what to do next.

Likewise I'd want Collingwood or Vaughan in Tests to do the same and that included any instance in which even the Ashes could be decided by the decision.

I'm not just saying the right things here.

Is it just my imagination then that there seems to be a greater animosity when other teams play England? Is it solely because of numpties as you perceive me to be?

Why did the Aussie director of rugby, misquoted or not as I know the media can twist things, say everyone "hated" the English if he didn't mean it?

It was a daft thing to say otherwise.

All I'm saying is that maybe just maybe some other nations have an outdated view of the UK? I'm not saying it's categorically the case but apart from putting numpties as you see me in my place how else do you explain the extra venom it appears when England are the opposition?

Please explain to me what the motivation is and not abuse me in the process as frankly that belittles you.

OK I've said provocative things but as I've also said I'm happy to be corrected by constructive criticism - abuse does not come into this.

add comment | complain about this comment