Official 2011 Rugby World Cup Thread

[sand_man]

So much for an automatic ban. Nope - the citing process is supposed to deal with this.

Hey, it's a work in progress. Automatic ban if the card is found to be justified from between 3 and 6 games depending on severity. The citing process is essential cause the ref misses a lot of off the ball incidents but if dirty play is being investigated after the match so to can incidents that have occurred during the course of the match and were identified by the ref and penalized by the ref.

So come WC final time - we put in the biggest thugs we can find and smash the opponents into a pulp. We win the world cup and take the money. Those players only get sanctioned after the game but by then they have the dosh.

No, as I suggested in an earlier post...

If a yellow card is issued to the defending team in the red zone, the attacking team should be awarded a penalty try.

If a yellow card is issued any where other than the redzone the guilty party/team should concede a penalty at the prejudiced parties area of choice. So if they want to kick it over from right in front so be it. Either way the infringement results in points.

Red card results in a penalty try and a 10 minute binning of the guilty player but 14 vs 15 has to be the exception to the rule rather than the norm.

Nope - being sent off in a game makes sure that we try and keep people honest. Take a look at Samoa - how much did it take before one of them was sent off? 7 minutes left in the game?

Again the card system is very flawed. Nigel gave no cards until the 7th minute where Alain would have given 2 or 3 long before the Brussouw incident. Then Nigel gives Smit a laughable yellow. Imagine that yellow cost us the game and a place in the next round of the world cup??

The thing about players is that they have contracts and are probably being paid even if not playing.

They also get sizable match fees...

 

[sand_man]

Having the TV ref involved in the Warburton case would not have changed the outcome in the slightest - he would have been sent off.

Red or yellow?

 

[Ronjay]

You do raise an interesting point because a head high tackle is also dangerous. Too often we've heard about instinct having a player sticking an arm out - or we have the cases where the person being tackled ducks into, or slips. Most of the time the refs get it right and you have either cautions, penalties or yellow cards. I can't recall a red but it could happen especially if Brain Lima was involved.

But let's just say that the IRB has been particular about tip tackles because they are potentially seriously dangerous and invariably will cause damage and there is a very fine line after having tipped someone up and driving them into the ground as a spear tackle.

Having the TV ref involved in the Warburton case would not have changed the outcome in the slightest - he would have been sent off. But the downside of the TV ref is that he can see things in slow motion, and whilst slow motion is good for a lot of things it can also distort a perception.

Not if the law is that a dangerous tackle that can result in potential injury is a red card. All I'm wanting is consistency. according to the rules if a tackle is a tip tackle it must be a red card, correct? I'm not disputing that, but I've seen players get yellows and some only get warnings because the ref's/touch judges call is that little word that changes everything "intent". And that is unacceptable in my book. Like I said, any tip tackle that is potentially dangerous should then be penalised in like manor and red carded. It should not be at the discretion of the ref and therefore should be judged by the 4th, and only to see if it is indeed a tip tackle. If the player does lift a player above the 90, then it is a red card offence and the 4th must advise the ref to issue the red. Intent then has nothing to do with it and then the consistency wont be an issue.

 

[Creag]

Off topic slightly, as I am at the bottom of the logs in SB, I have gone with Wales and France to win.

I have nothing to lose

 

[Ronjay]

Off topic slightly, as I am at the bottom of the logs in SB, I have gone with Wales and France to win.

I have nothing to lose

I was at 80% on Superbru until the QF's. All went south from there. So don't feel bad.

 

[undesign]

I was at 80% on Superbru until the QF's. All went south from there. So don't feel bad.

Same here. 2nd on our log, top 10% overall...then everything went to **** from the QFs...

Also went for Wales to see if I can make up a few. As to France...well...even if the AB's were only 13 players they'd still beat the frogs.

 

[Ronjay]

Same here. 2nd on our log, top 10% overall...then everything went to **** from the QFs...

Also went for Wales to see if I can make up a few. As to France...well...even if the AB's were only 13 players they'd still beat the frogs.

Yeah, the QF's were responsible for a lot of heartache I think. Anyway, I wouldn't put odds against NZ. They'll waltz around Frenchie with blindfolds and both arms tied behind their backs. Sucks though. I'd like to see an upset like the ones France has dished out before.

 

[Albereth]

Hey, it's a work in progress. Automatic ban if the card is found to be justified from between 3 and 6 games depending on severity. The citing process is essential cause the ref misses a lot of off the ball incidents but if dirty play is being investigated after the match so to can incidents that have occurred during the course of the match and were identified by the ref and penalized by the ref.


No, as I suggested in an earlier post...

If a yellow card is issued to the defending team in the red zone, the attacking team should be awarded a penalty try.

If a yellow card is issued any where other than the redzone the guilty party/team should concede a penalty at the prejudiced parties area of choice. So if they want to kick it over from right in front so be it. Either way the infringement results in points.

Red card results in a penalty try and a 10 minute binning of the guilty player but 14 vs 15 has to be the exception to the rule rather than the norm.


Again the card system is very flawed. Nigel gave no cards until the 7th minute where Alain would have given 2 or 3 long before the Brussouw incident. Then Nigel gives Smit a laughable yellow. Imagine that yellow cost us the game and a place in the next round of the world cup??

They also get sizable match fees...

The alternative to sending off is far worse. Daniel Carter is worth more than 3 points to the All Blacks. That's what you are saying he is worth.

And after the match is too late.

The John Smit incident is one of those that shows what dicks some of the refs are. The real problem is that South Africa will never get the best refs for their games - our top refs are the best in the world

A sizeable match fee? Do you not think that compensation would carry on even while the player sits out? It happened before the professional era and it has happened when Bakkies got an unfair suspension. The problem is that the win bonus is enough incentive for foul play.

 

[Albereth]

Red or yellow?

Red - no doubt.

Sorry that it messed up a game - but that was Warburton's fault. Nobody else.

Sort of like the soccer - the rules were known but Pitso is an idiot. SAFA are idiots. And we tried to blame CAF. Same here, Warburton was an idiot and we're trying to blame the rules.

Yes - we'd rather SA had gone through in the soccer. We'd rather Wales went through in the rugger. The red card for tipping is fair - it's there to get players to think before they act.

 

[Albereth]

Not if the law is that a dangerous tackle that can result in potential injury is a red card. All I'm wanting is consistency. according to the rules if a tackle is a tip tackle it must be a red card, correct? I'm not disputing that, but I've seen players get yellows and some only get warnings because the ref's/touch judges call is that little word that changes everything "intent". And that is unacceptable in my book. Like I said, any tip tackle that is potentially dangerous should then be penalised in like manor and red carded. It should not be at the discretion of the ref and therefore should be judged by the 4th, and only to see if it is indeed a tip tackle. If the player does lift a player above the 90, then it is a red card offence and the 4th must advise the ref to issue the red. Intent then has nothing to do with it and then the consistency wont be an issue.

Intent when is comes to a tip tackle is a BS excuse. What can make a difference is what happens after the tackle. Take the Warburton tackle - he tipped the Frog and let him crash down on his head and neck. Red card was a good call. Take Larkham's tackle from a season or two ago - tipped and speared a Bok. Should have been red card and don't bother cleaning your boots - you'll never need them again. Take De Villier's tackle earlier in the WC. He tipped a Fijian but eased him to the ground. He should have got a yellow card.

All tackles are potentially dangerous but we were all taught how to tackle and how to be tackled. And if you rememer, your were more likely to get hurt doing a half-assed tackle than you would making a committed one. I think that this is understood in rugby.

It's when we get into those situations were we are unable to protect ourselves that the laws have had to assist. It started with line outs - you can't walk under the opposing jumper, and more recently, you can't interfere with him. Then it was tackling someone who catches a ball in the air. And more recently it has been the tip tackle.

The head high tackle rules are because of the vunerability of the neck.

That being said, a ref can only blow what he sees (along with assistance from the linesmen). And he sees it in real time. There is so much going on on a field that quite a bit does get missed (or a whole game if you are Bryce Lawrence). If we had the 4th official butting in we'd be playing gridiron. The 4th official's job is to assist in determining if a try has been scored. If there are other incidents (and these can only be limited to foul play), they have to wait until after the game. Seeing a forward pass aftger the event is not going to change the score.

 

[Arthur]

Kickoff! Go Wales!

 

[B@rrels]

A B A (Anybody But Australia)!!

 

[sand_man]

Welsh haven't arrived for this game. They not up for it. Pity.

 

[Ronjay]

So, any chance of an upset?

 

[MickeyD]

So, any chance of an upset?

TBH with the French you never know!!!

All the pressure is on the All Blacks as they are the overwhelming favourites. This frees up the French and that is when they are at their most dangerous!

 

[killadoob]

So, any chance of an upset?

History would suggest no. Should be a 20 point win . I hope the all blacks cream them. They deserve to be world champions, we all know they have had the best team year after year but sadly they have not won the most important trophy for awhile but they deserve it.

Go NZ pomp em!!!

 

[killadoob]

Oh well, at least the All Blacks get a WC despite the tourney being fixed. They worked hard for this final

Yup similar to our easy 2007 world cup. Luckily for them the aussies couldn't pay the ref in the semi .
Perhaps they paid the ref to get an easy game

 

[Alan]

Craig Joubert having a bit of a shocker so far

 

[Ronjay]

Craig Joubert having a bit of a shocker so far

Yip, a few poor calls. But still not on par with Brycie.

That knock on in the line out was pretty clear, but at least it didn't impact on the game. NZ are just to strong for the French.

 

[killadoob]

Could be an upset