Rugby World Cup

**joeSoap** · 18/10/2007, 9:41 AM

Can't help but feel that this is mostly anti-English bias and bitterness on your part ORA. It's just the way it comes across. How England winning the World Cup is going to destroy the game is totally beyond me. What I can see it doing is restoring competitiveness in a flagging 6 Nations, and also providing a huge kick in the arse to the smug and complacent Southern Hemisphere that they aren't the top dogs they think they are and that Northern Hemisphere rugby is very much alive and kicking.

I totally don't take your opinion that people wouldn't like to see Ireland winning ugly. Thats just crap. If Ireland won every game by penalties and drop goals yet got to the World Cup final the entire country would be ecstatic and behind them.

As for reducing points for drop goals and conversions-why? Conversions are a reward for attacking play and should be be accredited as that with the 2 points. Drop goals, particularly late on, make the game more exciting.

**osarusan** · 18/10/2007, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Also high time for the IRB to reduce penalties....to 2... points

(Edited by me)

Wouldn't doing this just mean teams are more likely to give away penalties, in the knowledge that the other team won't take the points?

This would slow down the game even more, and reward the

game-spoiling sloth of a team who succeed through negative tactics

that you mentioned earlier?

**OneRedArmy** · 18/10/2007, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by joeSoap

Can't help but feel that this is mostly anti-English bias and bitterness on your part ORA. It's just the way it comes across. How England winning the World Cup is going to destroy the game is totally beyond me. What I can see it doing is restoring competitiveness in a flagging 6 Nations, and also providing a huge kick in the arse to the smug and complacent Southern Hemisphere that they aren't the top dogs they think they are and that Northern Hemisphere rugby is very much alive and kicking.

I totally don't take your opinion that people wouldn't like to see Ireland winning ugly. Thats just crap. If Ireland won every game by penalties and drop goals yet got to the World Cup final the entire country would be ecstatic and behind them.

As for reducing points for drop goals and conversions-why? Conversions are a reward for attacking play and should be be accredited as that with the 2 points. Drop goals, particularly late on, make the game more exciting.

Clearly a difference of opinions. Despite being a forward in my playing days and admiring the odd dour forward battle, give me Du Preez, Habana, Steyn & Co over Gomersall, Catt, Tait etc the other 9 times out of 10.

I have no emotional attachment to the tournament therefore my interest is in seeing entertaining rugby.

There's a fine line between England's 10 man game and the Pacific Islanders 7's type rugby, with neither really being that satisfying, but I believe South Africa manage to straddle to two by combining a strong pack with lively backs.

I have a fear that if England win (again) by playing a limited 10 man game then this will led other teams to follow suit and make the sport into one where very broadly, contact is sought rather than avoided and the objective is to turn each match into trench warfare or a war of attrition.

Its no more complicated than this.

Oh yeah, and they can stick their f'in chariots up their hole....

**OneRedArmy** · 18/10/2007, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by osarusan

(Edited by me)

Wouldn't doing this just mean teams are more likely to give away penalties, in the knowledge that the other team won't take the points?

This would slow down the game even more, and reward the that you mentioned earlier?

The sin bin in theory negates this.

**Bald Student** · 18/10/2007, 4:27 PM

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Also high time for the IRB to reduce penalties, drop goals and conversions to 2 and 1 points respectively.

Have you seen the proposed rule changes? A lof of penalty offences are being replaced with free kicks which should limit the number of goal attempts and the rule about kicking to touch inside your own 22 is being tightened. You can only kick it out on the full if the opposition played it into your 22, you can't pass or run in and then kick.

**OneRedArmy** · 18/10/2007, 4:42 PM

Originally Posted by Bald Student

Have you seen the proposed rule changes? A lof of penalty offences are being replaced with free kicks which should limit the number of goal attempts and the rule about kicking to touch inside your own 22 is being tightened. You can only kick it out on the full if the opposition played it into your 22, you can't pass or run in and then kick.

I saw that they tried it out at South African Universities level (from memory, may be wrong) but haven't heard how it went or whether its going forward.

The changes sound sensible though.

**Bald Student** · 18/10/2007, 4:56 PM

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

I saw that they tried it out at South African Universities level (from memory, may be wrong) but haven't heard how it went or whether its going forward.

The changes sound sensible though.

I watched a video about them on You Tube, I'll try and dig it up later. They were used in Scotish club rugby last year as well and will be in the Super 14s this coming season.

**inexile** · 18/10/2007, 5:43 PM

if anything they should increase the value of penalties to maybe 5, which might stop teams offending, especially at the break down therefore speeding the game up and making teams afraid to give away penalties

**OneRedArmy** · 18/10/2007, 6:45 PM

Originally Posted by inexile

if anything they should increase the value of penalties to maybe 5, which might stop teams offending, especially at the break down therefore speeding the game up and making teams afraid to give away penalties

Didn't know Wilkinson was a Limerick fan.....

**Schumi** · 18/10/2007, 6:58 PM

Originally Posted by Bald Student

the rule about kicking to touch inside your own 22 is being tightened. You can only kick it out on the full if the opposition played it into your 22, you can't pass or run in and then kick.

Sounds like a useful change. You can't run the ball into the 22 and then kick it out on the full now though.

**Bald Student** · 18/10/2007, 7:02 PM

The proposed rules:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2055166352

**onceahoop** · 18/10/2007, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Also high time for the IRB to reduce penalties, drop goals and conversions to 2 and 1 points respectively.

Was reading through previous posts and was going to suggest some of the above.
Wilkinson will sit in the pocket everytime England get inside the RSA 10 mtr line and hope for a drop goal. They'll just keep going through the fazes and sucker the opposition into conceding penalties. Wonder will Schalk Burger finish the game after the English pack try to sort him out. Would love to see an open game but bulk and brawn are winning out over brain. Sad but true. Above suggetion by OAR might help

**joeSoap** · 19/10/2007, 9:41 AM

'Hide the Ball' tactics have always been part of rugby and always will be. Regardless of the fact that it doesn't look flash, it requires an immense amount of skill and technique to scrummage and maul. There also is a little skill involved in dropping goals from 40m when under pressure I might add.

If you want flash, running rugby then go watch the Ba-Ba's the next time you're in town. I can't believe that people here are being critical of a side thats playing to its strengths to try and win the greatest prize in World Rugby. Amazing.

**Stuttgart88** · 19/10/2007, 10:07 AM

I was at Croker on saturday so didn't see England vs France. Is there any merit in the suggestions that England should have been penalised regularly in the maul on Saturday?

What type of referee is Rolland? Is he likely to be "sympathetic" to either team's style of play over the other's?

I agree that there is substantial merit in England getting to the final just by doing it their way. It's not far off playing for 0-0 and winning a shoot-out but if it works it's hard to knock especially when their "other game" rendered them very beatable.

However I have to admit that I just don't like England in sport! I had no big quarrel with them winning in '03 as they were the stand out team in the world for a long time but seeing this team win would really frustrate me and leave me very envious.

It also bugs me that they used to bang on about our plastic paddies but where would England be without Mike Catt, a South African?

**joeSoap** · 19/10/2007, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

It also bugs me that they used to bang on about our plastic paddies but where would England be without Mike Catt, a South African?

Same place we'd be without Ronan O'Gara, an American.

**endabob1** · 19/10/2007, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by joeSoap

Same place we'd be without Ronan O'Gara, an American.

Very different scenarios, Catt came to England specifically to play rugby due to the political restricitons in SA at the time, similar is true for Matt Stevens who was even capped at university & underage level for SA.

O'Gara just happened to be born in the US while his parents were living there, he grew up in Ireland.

**joeSoap** · 19/10/2007, 12:11 PM

Oh alright then....like Simon Easterby ...my point is that all countries do it. It's not just an English thing.

**Stuttgart88** · 19/10/2007, 12:35 PM

Isaac Boss too. I was just saying it wound me up them banging on about PPs when the likes of Pietersen and Catt were instrumental in their biggest sporting successes.

Anyway, I'd prefer answers to my other questions. I'm genuinely interested if criticism of England's maul tactics were fair or not.

**geysir** · 19/10/2007, 5:07 PM

I noticed in their game against Tonga, in the 2nd half a Tonga player booted the ball upfield, chased after it and tackled Wilkinson who had gathered the ball but was isolated. It seemed Wilkinson was allowed to hang onto to the ball on the ground for an eternity before releasing it when support arrived. No penalty was given, could have been crucial.

I�ll be up for England, Johnny is alright by me.