[2014 Mid-Year Tests] New Zealand vs England (1st Test)

[smartcooky]

umm you know why there are laws? As they are the standards, they should be very well written and therefore do not require interpretation. So your or my interpretation of it means jack all.

I am only new here but i quite enjoy his posts as i normally learn something new and am happy to be proven wrong, you on the other hand seem to don't want to know about it unless it supports your train of thought.

this^^^

 

[donmcdazzle]

Re. English press saying England will win the RWC on Sunday I read the Sunday mail, the Sunday telegraph and the rugby paper and none even mentioned winning the RWC there was a few mentions of good depth and hitting form well but that was it . What paper said they would win ?

Ps. If you have been reading the sun or the mirror from the other side of the world and listening to it you're a plank

Is this the same Telegraph? Articles like this crack me up: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...-they-no-longer-carry-the-swagger-of-old.html

 

[smartcooky]

Is this the same Telegraph? Articles like this crack me up: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...-they-no-longer-carry-the-swagger-of-old.html

That really is a load of sanctimonious claptrap isn't it. My God, Cleary is such a douchebag!

Some of the things he seems to miss are

1. The England team of second stringers had absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain, while NZ had everything to lose and nothing to gain. We were expected to win, England were expected to lose (TAB odds 16/1, reducing to 8/1 on the night with heavy betting.

2. Just about every bad bounce of the oddshaped ball went in England's favour. (for example, Kaino's missed try, Barrett's near stuff up on defence)

3. Despite having, 56% territory, 56% possession, superior metres gained 361 v311, ruck/maul wins 76 - 56, clean breaks 8-5, defenders beaten 22-13 and offloads 8-4 and despite NZ missing 22 tackles and making 21 unforced errors, England still were unable to score a try!!!

The fact that NZ missed 22 tackles and still didn't concede a try is testament to their cover defence. I doubt that NZ will miss as many tackles and/or make as many unforced errors this coming Saturday.

 

[goodNumber10]

Umm you know why there are laws? as they are the standards, they should be very well written and therefore do not require interpretation. So your or my interpretation of it means jack all.

I am only new here but I quite enjoy his posts as I normally learn something new and am happy to be proven wrong, you on the other hand seem to don't want to know about it unless it supports your train of thought.

He certainly knows his stuff and never misses an opportunity to demonstrate it, even when the discussion is not about the actual law but about someone elses interpretation.

What he and yourself seem to be missing, and my whole point is, we're discussing how a third party has interpreted the laws on this occasion, not the actual Laws. Does that make sense?

At no point have i said the law is such and such and different to the IRB law book, i have said all along why I think OWENS not me, gave the ruling.

Now if you're both intelligent guys you must be able to see that it's not about the law, and the actual law in black and white here is mostly irrelevant.

Proved my point nicely thank you. A player who has one or both knees on the ground, or is sitting on the ground is "on the ground" (thats black letter Law, Rugby 101) therefore he cannot be tackled, therefore its a Law 14 situation, not a tackle.

It doesn't prove your point it proves that OWENS thinks the tackle complete if we're going by your interpretation of the letter of the Law VITO should be penalised for falling on the player on the ground without letting him get to his feet.

I believe that OWENS thinks it is still within the tackle sequence. Smith try's to make the tackle, Cipriani is still falling Vito completes the tackle he then clearly calls "RUCK NOW" when Thomas joins and can opens VITO.

Hence HE, not me, thinks the tackle complete and that a ruck has been formed.

You can argue all the letters of the law, but as i said i'm not discussing the laws with you i'm discussing a third parties interpretation of the laws.

You get that don't you?

 

[goodNumber10]

1. And you can tell this from my tone of voice?

well there in lies the rub. maybe it's just your written tone - but as Gaston and Ewis pointed out in the other thread your post come across as quite rude - you even offered to tone it down.

What i would say is you're completely unwilling to discuss things, and constantly pull up the law book in an imaginary war of one up manship - even when we are not discussing the actual law as in this case.

If you think Owens got it wrong by the letter of the law then complain to the IRB reffing comm, because I can't change how he interprets the law.

2. Ad hominum attacks aren't permitted on this forum, you are stepping close to the line?

why are you asking me a question?

If you believe that was an attack rather than an observational comment to someone else (note i said you come across as, not that you are), as you have done below, then crack on and report me as you threatened in your PM to me. I on the other hand am just going to add you to the blocked list... much easier for all involved as they don't need to read our continual wittering about who's right and who's wrong.

I would also point out you were not slow to chuck insults about in the self same thread I mention above.

3. And I wouldn't be the first person to point out that you are arrogant!

Sometimes I am, yes. No complaints there.

 

[goodNumber10]

Is this the same Telegraph? Articles like this crack me up: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...-they-no-longer-carry-the-swagger-of-old.html

To be fair he doesn't say England will win the world cup.

He also says despite all the back slapping England lost but that going forward people shouldn't be fearful of the AB's.

He also points out that England could very well get spanked next week but the underlying point is the reputational damage is already done and people like SA etc... Will fancy their chances.

 

[Maverick1987]

That really is a load of sanctimonious claptrap isn't it. My God, Cleary is such a douchebag!

Some of the things he seems to miss are

1. The England team of second stringers had absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain, while NZ had everything to lose and nothing to gain. We were expected to win, England were expected to lose (TAB odds 16/1, reducing to 8/1 on the night with heavy betting.

2. Just about every bad bounce of the oddshaped ball went in England's favour. (for example, Kaino's missed try, Barrett's near stuff up on defence)

3. Despite having, 56% territory, 56% possession, superior metres gained 361 v311, ruck/maul wins 76 - 56, clean breaks 8-5, defenders beaten 22-13 and offloads 8-4 and despite NZ missing 22 tackles and making 21 unforced errors, England still were unable to score a try!!!

The fact that NZ missed 22 tackles and still didn't concede a try is testament to their cover defence. I doubt that NZ will miss as many tackles and/or make as many unforced errors this coming Saturday.

Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with what he says if you look past the headline . In the last 3 games England have out scored NZ by 6 points overall . I get they have lost 2 of those and also 2 were at home but still I believe this England team hold no fears at playing NZ that's where the aura has diminished . Wether NZ have gone backwards or England have just come a long way remains to be seen . Personally I believe it's the latter .

Also does anyone think NZ are coming to a bit of a crossroads with the team now especially with a fair few of their players getting on a bit (mccaw, Nonu, C smith, woodcock, mealamu, carter) there's a lot of big names and talent to replace there . Not that NZ won't do it as they usually do but they are big boots to fill

 

[goodNumber10]

Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with what he says if you look past the headline . In the last 3 games England have out scored NZ by 6 points overall . I get they have lost 2 of those and also 2 were at home but still I believe this England team hold no fears at playing NZ that's where the aura has diminished . Wether NZ have gone backwards or England have just come a long way remains to be seen . Personally I believe it's the latter .

Also does anyone think NZ are coming to a bit of a crossroads with the team now especially with a fair few of their players getting on a bit (mccaw, Nonu, C smith, woodcock, mealamu, carter) there's a lot of big names and talent to replace there . Not that NZ won't do it as they usually do but they are big boots to fill

A bit yes... the fact they are trying to extend players careers with sabbaticals etc... to me means Hansen et al haven't got the required confidence in the next generation of talent.

I wonder if they've maybe left the refresh (as such) a year too long.

I mean make no mistake they'll be there or there about, but they will lose this year for certain.

 

[smartcooky]

He certainly knows his stuff and never misses an opportunity to demonstrate it, even when the discussion is not about the actual law but about someone elses interpretation.

Actually mate, it was MY post, I posed the question, and I wanted to discuss the Law. It is you who have diverted it into a discussion about what Owens might have been thinking. I'm not actually interested in what Owens was thinking, since, we can never know unless someone actually asks him.

 

[goodNumber10]

Actually mate, it was MY post, I posed the question, and I wanted to discuss the Law. It is you who have diverted it into a discussion about what Owens might have been thinking. I'm not actually interested in what Owens was thinking, since, we can never know unless someone actually asks him.

And in my opening reply to you I say "I THINK that" not that it "IS"......

Further I have at no point made a definitive statement of fact about the events nor said OWENS was right in his call, i have said all along I think this is what he's doing and explained why i think that is the case, I've not said you were wrong, or that the rules were not a specific way.

Ultimately what's the point in trying to have a discussion if all it is you want to do is say "these are the laws, end of discussion". Lets be clear here you're not discussing the law you're hiding behind them to make your point in that everyone else is wrong. You are clearly completely unwilling to discuss how they have been interpreted.

Absolutely anyone can get the laws and quote them as you do, that doesn't mean you understand them any better than anyone it just means you've got a good memory. But the point is that the laws have to be interpreted by a referee in every single game of rugby around the world and this is no different.

The discussion has to be around his interpretation of those laws and NOT the laws themselves because the implementation of those laws are discretionary and that is clearly where everyone else went in this discussion.

Read this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...ls-us-it-is-almost-impossible-to-achieve.html

he makes some good points about discretion, he discusses it with the very self same Nigel Owens every week on his show - the laws may be down in black and white but as long as a human being is in the middle of the pitch they are open to interpretation, and all discussions around that refs decisions have to be made on the basis of what, and how, he is interpreting.

 

[squirrel]

I think the two of you can debate your differences via pm or something, the both of you look a bit pathetic with this *** for tat replying

 

[goodNumber10]

I think the two of you can debate your differences via pm or something, the both of you look a bit pathetic with this *** for tat replying

it doesn't really matter mate, I've just added him to my blocked list better for everyone.

 

[donmcdazzle]

To be fair he doesn't say England will win the world cup.

He also says despite all the back slapping England lost but that going forward people shouldn't be fearful of the AB's.

He also points out that England could very well get spanked next week but the underlying point is the reputational damage is already done and people like SA etc... Will fancy their chances.

What makes me laugh though is that we have gone through seasons where we lost numerous games to SA and Aus, 1998-2000 we were pretty bad and lost a fair bit. If those seasons didn't diminish this imaginary aura, I really don't get how this game spells the end.

or did we lose the aura and then regain it or something? SA fancy their chances every single time they play us, we don't have any sort of mental advantage over them.

In 2011 we laboured past Fiji and looked poor, Ireland almost drew with us in Christchurch a couple of years ago (and we had Carter and McCaw). Is it just because it was an English team and this author has to anoint England as the team to break through the mystique? Even though SA and Aus have gone full seasons with the wood on us?

 

[goodNumber10]

What makes me laugh though is that we have gone through seasons where we lost numerous games to SA and Aus, 1998-2000 we were pretty bad and lost a fair bit. If those seasons didn't diminish this imaginary aura, I really don't get how this game spells the end.

or did we lose the aura and then regain it or something? SA fancy their chances every single time they play us, we don't have any sort of mental advantage over them.

In 2011 we laboured past Fiji and looked poor, Ireland almost drew with us in Christchurch a couple of years ago (and we had Carter and McCaw). Is it just because it was an English team and this author has to anoint England as the team to break through the mystique? Even though SA and Aus have gone full seasons with the wood on us?

I think you have to take the article in the context of the NH, and the fact that the teams here have such little belief in beating the AB's consistently. I don't think it's really a point that is world wide, i don't think they've ever had that aura of invincibility to SA and Australia.

 

[donmcdazzle]

I think you have to take the article in the context of the NH, and the fact that the teams here have such little belief in beating the AB's consistently. I don't think it's really a point that is world wide, i don't think they've ever had that aura of invincibility to SA and Australia.

Yeah true and we don't play you guys anywhere near as much. It's just weird to read as a NZer that this is the specific game that allows others to believe they can beat us when like I said SA and Aus (although we have a good winning streak against them at the moment) already do believe that. Maybe there were similar articles written after Ireland's near miss a few years ago I'm not sure.

 

[nzlizard]

I think you have to take the article in the context of the NH, and the fact that the teams here have such little belief in beating the AB's consistently. I don't think it's really a point that is world wide, i don't think they've ever had that aura of invincibility to SA and Australia.

Yeah pretty valid point, and like said above we don't play you enough to get that same thing going on.

I can certainly say that SA believe they can beat us every time they run out on the field, and while we have had the wood over Aus for the last few years I have no doubt they believe they can win each game as well.

Remember we also play super rugby together so the players get even more exposure against each other and more importantly beating each other.

 

[barkinghooker]

I remember back in '97 when we got spanked by the abs at Old Trafford and done a lap of honour at full time and cheered with the fans like it was a win. :s

 

[goodNumber10]

You have to remember that the UK is very different to those individual nations we mention.

We have a collective psyche as the UK, so even thought we play and batter each other every february to april in the 6Nations we feel losses to the SH collectively far more than you guys do in reverse. For the NH it's a collective failing rather than a single nation.

So i think it's just ingrained deeper, I don't think France suffer from this as much as the home nations.

I remember back in '97 when we got spanked by the abs at Old Trafford and done a lap of honour at full time and cheered with the fans like it was a win. :s

Number 3:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10851142

 

[barkinghooker]

Ha. It was awful. We played really well for about 20 minutes playing 15 man rugby. I think that's the reason why. Ha @10.. Lomu bulldozing Catt was nothing compared to what the media and fans put him through for missing kicks..

 

[Peat]

3. Despite having, 56% territory, 56% possession, superior metres gained 361 v311, ruck/maul wins 76 - 56, clean breaks 8-5, defenders beaten 22-13 and offloads 8-4 and despite NZ missing 22 tackles and making 21 unforced errors, England still were unable to score a try!!!

The fact that NZ missed 22 tackles and still didn't concede a try is testament to their cover defence. I doubt that NZ will miss as many tackles and/or make as many unforced errors this coming Saturday.

It's easy to have good cover defence and difficult to score tries when the defending side is only receiving bare minimum sanctions for professional fouls in try scoring situations ^_^