Just read the Dupont/Galthier comments and it’s interesting that the only incident they mention is when Etsebeth batted the ball down. I thought that was the correct decision and a brave call.
Rugby Union 21/22/23 Discussion | RWC time!
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran discuss a horrific month of December and a depressing FOUR defeats in a row - the latest coming against Wolves and Newcastle.
They discuss how much blame is on Ruben Amorim and rank our squad against other Premier League teams.
Do we have any chance of avoiding defeat at Anfield?
- Status
Just read the Dupont/Galthier comments and it’s interesting that the only incident they mention is when Etsebeth batted the ball down. I thought that was the correct decision and a brave call.
Yeah, that one. Didn’t know the TMO couldn’t intervene. I don’t blame him for missing it anyway. Hard to get every call right in the heat of battle and that wasn’t obvious in real time and from his angle.
Yes. The other team played like they had experience of only making it to the quarters
Your reverse jinx really not needed in this circumstance
What a game last night. There seemed to be 17 Boks on the field at times. They used their subs well and battered the French into submission in the last 15 minutes. Dupont could barley walk at the end of that match. It's disappointing that several teams are blaming the Ref. It's all about interpretation of the Laws. Take this obssession with head contact. Tom Curry got a red in the opening match for England and since then, there have been far worse head contacts that have either been a yellow or deemed to be accidental. The Welsh lad being taken out for instance against Argentina wasn't even a penalty. The TMO interveens when it suits them, it's getting like VAR. Still, sport is all about competing and discipline and also accepting the decisions of the officials. I was once lectured by a Ref at school many, many years ago that he will make mistakes and so would I but he doesn't moan at me when I make my mistakes. I'm hoping that last night's game had taken so much out of the Boks England may have an even chance of getting a result.
I had no idea anyone was blaming the ref - of course forums are where salty fans go. What a match last night. SA deserved it, incredible performance, they had that tiny little bit extra. An all-time match.
Personally think O’Keefe managed the game really well. Yes the Kwagga Smith pen was hands before, but over 80 mins and considering the speed and ferocity of the match he did an excellent job
Don't think I've ever seen a ref have to cover so much ground in a half of rugby as he did in the first half. Actually seriously impressive that he managed to keep up with play.
After yesterday, I just can't see anyone beating SA. They just look way too big and strong for anyone else to handle.
I think France was the best possible match up that could've beaten them in a knockout game.
I think France was the best possible match up that could've beaten them in a knockout game.
england v argentina nailed on for the trilogy.
I guess you never write off an AB team either - even moreso when they're "underdogs".
Yeah, I guess it's more just nitpicking/high emotions after such a tense affair and excruciating loss on home soil. I don't think any refs make 100% of the right calls anyway.
The French fans I'm reading are a bit peeved by the refereeing and sometimes also about suspicions of doping.
I think just like Ireland there was a feeling it was the year and the distress of losing by a point... I can't comment too deeply but I feel I agree with those who say you can't concede 3 tries in the first half and go to HT with such a small margin.
I think just like Ireland there was a feeling it was the year and the distress of losing by a point... I can't comment too deeply but I feel I agree with those who say you can't concede 3 tries in the first half and go to HT with such a small margin.
Yeah. There was a scrum about 3 minutes from the end. One point in it, Players all going mental, crowd going mental. And he was completely relaxed, just time off, quick word with the players, reset the scrum. It’s an amazing level of composure not to keep calm in that environment
To be honest, the size of most of these rugby players is unbelievable. I'm sure there is a lot of doping going on.
Oh I don't doubt it but as you can imagine it's more a partisan thing here, or a running allegation against South Africa (which indeed is a team that always is on top of the physicality scale).
Please humour me with some more moaning about Ireland’s exit. This is interesting. I didn’t realise Ireland only lost one lineout (two more were spoiled by NZ but we came away with the ball) Which makes our performance less error strewn than you’d think from all the coverage. I also didn’t realise how influential Wayne Barnes pinging us at the scrum was. Which is annoying when you consider how the ref in the France match was so much more patient, willing to reset multiple times to make sure the scrum had a chance to go ahead. Barnes is such an irritating ref. So fussy and whistle happy. Having him allocated to our match is just another bit of the shite luck we’ve had in terms of stuff that was out of our hands at this tournament.
That’s really good analysis. The first scrum looked like a bad call in real time too. It was like he couldn’t wait to give a penalty. So annoying.
EDIT: Second scrum penalty is ridiculously harsh too!
There 100% is but they’ll all be doing it so C’est La vie
There is zero doubts that France and SA are doping, these two teams have massive dudes running like long distance kenyan runners and hitting like trucks.
That’s why we’re shit, not cheating enough!
Or you are like french cycling teams. No drugs will turn a donkey into thoroughbred.
The only cycle I know about is the tren cycle….and I insist I got from eating contaminated donkey
Ireland and France peaked too early in the tournament IMO, while you can feel that SA and NZ are doing it just right. More experienced ( WC knockout games) teams and coaches. I hope the semi's are not mere processions and that Argentina and England can push them. No one wants to see a trashing in a semifinal.
The future of French rugby should be bright with their back to back U-20 WC's and what is undoubtedly the most robust national tournament in the game. Many core players are young too. Ireland has a great thing going but they have a lot of old players that are going on pension at the same time so I wonder how that will play out.
The future of French rugby should be bright with their back to back U-20 WC's and what is undoubtedly the most robust national tournament in the game. Many core players are young too. Ireland has a great thing going but they have a lot of old players that are going on pension at the same time so I wonder how that will play out.
Agreed. The French's future seems bright and Ireland should be alright too, although they should be losing a few key players due to age.
i don’t think the south africans are doping, i reckon they’re just drinking a lot of boar semen at their training camps.
Irish U20s also very strong. Beaten by France in the final of the WC but won a grand slam in the 6N. Their provincial/club sides are right up there with the best French teams too. They do have a tricky rebuild though. Stacks of talent in the pack. A little less stacked in the back line.
I don’t think France peaked too early. Their best performance of the tournament was in the QF. Ireland did look flat but three matches in quick succession against top opposition can do that to a team. They maybe showed Scotland too much respect by playing a strong lineup in that game but they could have been out of the tournament if they lost by more than 8 points. So would have been a huge risk to play a second string team.
Last edited:
Nah, it's definitely just all the pap en vleis.
Our local rugby club has 3/4 overseas players from South Africa. They have all done steroids at some time or another in their lives and some of them are only early 20s. They said it is rife at school age (14 onwards) in South Africa and everyone does it if they are playing rugby. It is not surprising when you see the size of the South African national team.
You spelled boer wrong.
No doubt England will show this to Ben O'Keeffe in the build up to their semi final against South Africa. Angus Gardner will referee the Argentina vs New Zealand semi final.
If selected, Jean Kleyn will become the first capped Irish international to play in a Rugby World Cup semi final.
The shittest team in the semis is the only team left in the tournament to have won all their games thus far.
He actually played for Ireland in the last World Cup too. I think it's fair enough when players qualify for a national team by residency but that commitment should be a one way street.
Did Andy Farrell just not fancy him?
Pretty much. Also his bad luck to play a position where Ireland are absolutely stacked.
Still fecking ruminating on our loss. I've been listening to the Ireland-NZ post mortem on a podcast I listen to (second captains) who have a bunch of pundits who are very knowledgeable about rugby (unlike me!) They have me a bit confused though.
The consensus is that:
1. A lot of NZ players put in 9/10 or 10/10 performances. Only Aki managed that for Ireland
2. NZ were completely dominant at the breakdown
3. NZ set pieces were better than Ireland
4. NZ preplanned attack plays were better than Ireland
5. NZ defence was better than Ireland's
6. NZ coaching on the day (subs. tactical adjustments etc) was better than Ireland
I completely agree with points 1-5 and am happy to take their word for 6 (that stuff is over my head)
What melts my head is how all of the above can be true and the game was still so close? I can't think of any close shaves at the Ireland try line but the held up maul and the cross kick which just evaded Sheehan's hand were two moments which could have won Ireland the game.
Most of the stats have Ireland as the dominant team too.
Can anyone make all of this make sense? How did Ireland manage to play so badly - and New Zealand play so well - without New Zealand winning comfortably?
The consensus is that:
1. A lot of NZ players put in 9/10 or 10/10 performances. Only Aki managed that for Ireland
2. NZ were completely dominant at the breakdown
3. NZ set pieces were better than Ireland
4. NZ preplanned attack plays were better than Ireland
5. NZ defence was better than Ireland's
6. NZ coaching on the day (subs. tactical adjustments etc) was better than Ireland
I completely agree with points 1-5 and am happy to take their word for 6 (that stuff is over my head)
What melts my head is how all of the above can be true and the game was still so close? I can't think of any close shaves at the Ireland try line but the held up maul and the cross kick which just evaded Sheehan's hand were two moments which could have won Ireland the game.
Most of the stats have Ireland as the dominant team too.
Can anyone make all of this make sense? How did Ireland manage to play so badly - and New Zealand play so well - without New Zealand winning comfortably?
Argentina lost their opener to 14 men.
I listened to that as well, and aside from me cringing seemingly every time Shane Horgan talked (did I imagine it, or did he call Sexton 'Sexto' at one point?), I found it relatively interesting. But half way through I couldn't help but thinking that if the Irish fella wasn't held up by Barrett, Ireland would've won and all of what they said would be flipped on its head, and they'd be saying how great Ireland were, NZ had problems, etc. I know it's common in sports to base the analysis on the outcome, but here it seemed even more extreme.
From a very casual viewer, it looked to me as though both teams played well, while making a few mistakes, and ultimately it came down to one 30 second period at the end of the game.
- Status