[2015 RWC] Quarter Final 4: Australia vs. Scotland (18/10/2015)

[woodwarj13]

i think if you run that scenario a hundred times the team with the attacking scrum would win the game maybe 10 times. Which team would you rather be, the team with the lead or the team with the put in.

I would also add that a lot of teams would rather have possession of the ball at this point, considering you can't do anything without it.

 

[valley commando]

Maybe I need to re-read the thread but it doesn't appear to me that there are masses of my countrymen/women bitter over Australia winning. The final acts of the game were controversial, so why isn't it okay to voice your disapproval (if you feel that way), regardless of which country you primarily support.

Are we worried we might lose to Australia in the final, well, we have to get past South Africa first, who are more than capable of beating us on the day, and Australia has to beat the Pumas, which isn't a given either.

I dispute that we are looking for excuses too. All week (and prior) I was reading about poor French selections, discontent in the camp, and even the length of the French domestic season (recently) as to why a French victory was unlikely over the All Blacks. During the course of the tournament, most of the comment regarding the Welsh was the injuries and how they would be disadvantaged. Are these legitimate reasons for failure to progress in the tournament? Probably, but I don't recall seeing any posts calling anyone out about making excuses.

To sum up (as I've stated many times on here before) should controversy appear that might effect the outcome/New Zealand progressing, it won't be the over riding reason NZ dips out, it will be because we put ourselves in the position that we could lose in the first place, and that we couldn't adapt/weren't good enough on the day; no excuses will be forthcoming from me.

Glad to hear it. You are right re the French pre match excuses, however defending Wales as always, we do only have 3 pro teams so generally a very small player base which means we are down to 3rd and 4th choice in some positions, however I am a firm believer in the scoreboard doesn't lie and we lost and so at least I can sit and watch the next 2 weeks games without the pressure of my team playing. Good luck to all fans of the remaining 4.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I think you are missing the point. I am saying that Australia would of had a scrum in an attacking position deep in Scotland Territory and therefore the game would of still be up in the air. The suggestion from a lot of people is that Scotland would of won if the knock on was given but its not like that at all. The fact is they threw to the back of the line out in the rain and put themselves in that position.

I am not missing the point, i just disagree with you.
At the time, had you asked the Scottish what would they prefer, a scrum or a penalty against them, i'm confident we would agree they'd pick the former 10 times out of 10.

Second, the suggestion of people is not necessarily that Scotland would have won, but that their odds of winning would have increased considerably. They worked for those odds, they deserved those odds, the rules granted them those odds and those odds were taken away from them unfairly.

Third, the fact that they threw to the back of the line is irrelevant to the point in question: the referee made a mistake that hurt Scotland's chances.

 

[woodwarj13]

I agree that is is irrelevant to the exact point in question, however the fact is by throwing this way and creating a complete mess of a line-out they opened themselves up to what happened and subsequently the ref made a split decision on what he saw. Having thrown to the front and wound down the clock Scotland could have kicked into touch and the game was won. You cannot deny that a large percentage of the result going that way at the end of the game was in Scotland's hands.

- - - Updated - - -

On a completely separate note, I hope you guys win the World Cup..last hope of a new winner. I want a New Zealand vs Argentina final with Argentina getting revenge for the pool match!

 

[celticc]

I would also add that a lot of teams would rather have possession of the ball at this point, considering you can't do anything without it.

That is laughable. You seriously think you'd find a team that would rather have possession than the lead with less than 2 mins to play? You must be on the wind up.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

That is laughable. You seriously think you'd find a team that would rather have possession than the lead with less than 2 mins to play? You must be on the wind up.

I have to agree, particularly because those aren't the relevant the choices. The choices here, for the sake of the argument in question, are a penalty against you vs a scrum against you. Being 2 points ahead with 1 minute to go, i think the answer is obvious.

 

[woodwarj13]

Yes I would, I think England won the world cup in this very situation against Australia. There is only so much you can do in defence, with the ball in the hands of a team with conviction you have the ball in your court..especially with that field position. How would you stop a drop goal from 20 metres out if you are Scotland. Granted you would rather this than the penalty but I am making the point that the game would still of been 50/50, lining a drop goal up in front of the posts is arguably easier than a penalty from the far right. I think certain people are basically saying Australia would not of had the conviction to finish that game off when they are up there with the best sides in the world at doing this.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Ask any neutral this question: would you rather be in Scotland's position with a scrum against you or in Australia's position with a scrum for you?

 

[nzlizard]

That is laughable. You seriously think you'd find a team that would rather have possession than the lead with less than 2 mins to play? You must be on the wind up.

That is why they never made it out of pool play

 

[woodwarj13]

Bit of an irrelevant dig at England

 

[ENZED-88]

Bit of an irrelevant dig at England

Not realy irrelevant Eng opted for possession instead of points vs wales and look where it got them... Your argument is rediculous.

 

[gamine]

Bias?

Yes, but given all the other **** they won't admit was obviously wrong it looks a lot more like pandering to their beloved home nations than any genuine desire to be accountable

Didn't a couple SH players once drop an Irish player on his head and injure him badly, without any sanction? I believe they were New Zealand players, one of whom is playing in this competition, although most people would think that he has no place on any rugby field.

 

[ENZED-88]

Not realy irrelevant Eng opted for possession instead of points vs wales and look where it got them... Your argument is rediculous, .

You must be the only one in the world besides Robshaw who would rather the ball with a minute to play instead of the lead with a minute to play.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Didn't a couple SH players once drop an Irish player on his head and injure him badly, without any sanction? I believe they were New Zealand players, one of whom is playing in this competition, although most people would think that he has no place on any rugby field.

You mean this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsXJyDHFKn0

 

[RoosTah]

Great piece on just how poor it was for World Rugby to come out and throw Joubert under the bus like they did:

[h=1]RWC 2015: World Rugby taints whatever Wallabies achieved[/h]World Rugby has, among other things, trashed referee Craig Joubert’s reputation.

So let’s see what World Rugby achieved by publishing its match officials performance assessment which found that South African referee Craig Joubert got it wrong in awarding Australia a 79th-minute penalty against Scotland …
One, it trashed Joubert’s reputation. Four years ago, this was the man who controlled the 2011 World Cup final and while there were complaints that he should have awarded France a penalty in the dying minutes when they trailed 8-7, one can understand him not wanting his decision to decide who would be crowned world champions. Still, no one took issue with his appointment on the grounds that he was anything but the best referee in the world.


So for all the mealy-mouthed wording in the statement that “despite this experience, Craig has been and remains a world-class referee and an important member of our teamâ€, they’ve effectively destroyed his reputation as a whistleblower. Do not expect to be hearing Joubert’s name read out when the refereeing appointments are made for this year’s World Cup final.


Two, they’ve now tainted whatever Australia achieves in the tournament. If the Wallabies somehow were to win the Webb Ellis Cup from here, the achievement would always be marked with an asterisk: “Should have been eliminated in the quarter-*finalsâ€.


Three, if one decision was reviewed, why not every contentious decision in the match? There were a string of penalties Joubert awarded the Scottish scrum when it looked for all the world like he had been duped by the men in blue. Time and again, Michael Cheika jumped out of his chair to complain about scrum rulings. What assessment was made of them?

Four, it’s made a mockery of its own rules. The review committee actually admits that Joubert could not invoke the television match *official for help. So in that split second when the ball was propelled forward off Josh Strauss into the hands of Scottish teammate Jon Welsh, Joubert had to make a call on whether Australia’s halfback Nick Phipps “intentionally†played at the ball as it whizzed past him. No one could help him.

Phipps, it must be said, has fuelled the conspiracy theories by admitting that of course he was trying to get the ball. Well, yes, but there were 30 players on the field who were desperately attempting to get the ball. He would have needed the reflexes of Spider Man to have deliberately played at a ball that suddenly appeared over his shoulder. And if he didn’t intentionally play at it, then Joubert was correct in his decision.

And five, it has changed nothing. It was dreadful that a controversial call decided the match, especially when Australia should have had it locked away easily by scoring five tries to three. But it is too late now to change the result.

And would Scotland have won even if the penalty had not been awarded? The supposedly “correct†decision reached by World Rugby’s committee of mind-*readers was that Australia should have been awarded a scrum feed. So Australia would have had two minutes â€" or rather as long as it liked if it did not turn over possession to the Scots â€" to kick a field goal, score a try or, heaven forbid, play for a penalty. It’s not as though Australia did not have try-scoring potential to exploit.

Famous English humourist PG Wodehouse’s famous line about it never being hard to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine comes to mind, but this surely was a grievance that could never be resolved.

It’s all based on what World Rugby officials think was going on in the mind of Phipps. “It is clear that after the knock-on, the ball was touched by Australia’s Nick Phipps and Law 11.3 (c) states that a player can be put on-side by an opponent who intentionally plays the ball,†the report stated.

So this whole face-saving exercise is predicated on whether Phipps did or didn’t intentionally touch the ball. If the ball touched him rather than him touching the ball, then Joubert’s decision to give a penalty wasn’t wrong. Watch it for yourself on YouTube. It all happens in the blink of an eye.


These are hair-splitting calls, the kind World Rugby employs referees to make. Had Joubert not signalled a penalty, had Australia not made something of those last two minutes, then no doubt there would be some Australians who would be eagerly seeking scapegoats. James Slipper or, perversely Foley himself, would be prime candidates for giving away the intercept and the chargedown try.


The outstanding work the Wallabies had done in advancing so brilliantly to the quarter-finals would be forgotten and Australia would be rueing a wasted opportunity, just as they did in 2007 when Stirling Mortlock’s team slipped up in the quarter-finals. I wonder, just as a matter of interest, what would have happened had Mortlock kicked that last-second penalty to win the match in Marseilles. Would England have demanded an explanation, an apology? That’s the only difference here … Mortlock just missed, Foley never looked like missing. Actually, there’s another difference. Australia didn’t deserve to win in 2007. It didn’t deserve to lose on Sunday.


World Rugby has succeeded in sucking much of the pride Aust*ralia felt at battling their way through to the quarter-finals. Yes, it was only one refereeing decision. Heaven knows it wasn’t the only dodgy decision made in the match. But, in releasing that *report, World Rugby has ensured it will be the only one that is *remembered.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...allabies-achieve/story-e6frg7v6-1227576237571

 

[gamine]

You mean this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsXJyDHFKn0

Yes, that's the one, it really does look horrible!

- - - Updated - - -

Great piece on just how poor it was for World Rugby to come out and throw Joubert under the bus like they did:

Don't worry, most of us, at least those of us who are not Scottish, have already forgotten it, and are looking forward to the next round. Australia is a good team but not awe-inspiring, on the whole better than Scotland, but probably not the best team in this competition as their scrum is not the strongest of those left in. May the best team win, and remember it is just a game!!

 

[ABs2011]

Didn't a couple SH players once drop an Irish player on his head and injure him badly, without any sanction? I believe they were New Zealand players, one of whom is playing in this competition, although most people would think that he has no place on any rugby field.

I'm sorry, WHAT? I know this is getting really off topic, but to say that most people think Mealamu has no place on a rugby field is ridiculous!

 

[gamine]

I'm sorry, WHAT? I know this is getting really off topic, but to say that most people think Mealamu has no place on a rugby field is ridiculous!

Oh, sorry, I should have said that I don't think he should be on a rugby field.

I don't know if you play rugby, but if you do I wonder if you would be happy playing against someone who is capable of doing something which could result in a broken neck- your neck?!

I brought this up because someone said the powers that be in the rugby world punish only those who are not white and who don't belong to the home nations. I don't believe either of these players were sanctioned.

 

[celticc]

Not sure what the point of that article is SANZAR. Whether WR published their review or not, it has already been widely accepted what the correct call would have been. Anyone who thinks whatever the Aussies accomplish this tourney is tainted are going to think that anyway. For what it's worth, I don't. It's not their fault what happened and who knows, maybe they would have gone on to score anyway, I'd like to think they wouldn't have but hey ho.

 

[ABs2011]

Oh, sorry, I should have said that I don't think he should be on a rugby field.

I don't know if you play rugby, but if you do I wonder if you would be happy playing against someone who is capable of doing something which could result in a broken neck- your neck?!

I brought this up because someone said the powers that be in the rugby world punish only those who are not white and who don't belong to the home nations. I don't believe either of these players were sanctioned.

Yeah, I think you might have the wrong man though. At the risk of bringing up the emotions accorded to that tackle again, for me Mealamu really wasnt the culprit, it was Umaga. Anyway, I wont comment any more on that one.