Moan about All Blacks here.

[smartcooky]

little cookie is a bit sensitive i see,and believe me i konw my rugby dont be deceived by the crap typing i aint been brought up by computers i was out workn in the fields

Gathering nuts with all the other little tree-rats no doubt]

 

[squirrel]

ha i take my hat off to that, i think your starting like me cookie dough

 

[TheBokke]

Logorrhea

Pretty much disagree with most of what you say.

Yes, there is offside on open play but NO, Franks did NOT have to go through the gate to join a tackle that has not yet gone to ground. The gate does NOT exist until the ball carrier is brought to ground. End of story., you are wrong. If you were right, there would be no way to legally tackle (or assist in a tackle) of a player once he got past you, because you would be tackling him from what you say is an "offside" position

As I said, Conrad Smith DID come in at the side BUT had he come in at the gate, he would have been entitled to clean Kirchner out. Happens at every ruck by all teams, you just don't normally see centres doing it.

Most of the phases that the narrator calls "rucks" are not rucks at all; they are tackle breakdowns, and there is no offside line, just a gate that ARRIVING players must enter through.

However, I return to my point that this video is a cleverly edited piece that selectively brings together about 1-2 minutes of action from an 80 minute game (I know the video is 8 minutes long but a lot of it is repeated slow motion replays)

There were 227 completed tackles in the match. The video shows about 15 of them (7%)
There were 182 rucks in the match. The video shows about 5 (3%)

The editor is very careful not to include very much play where the Springboks carry the ball into contact. I still have the whole match on my MySky, and I reviewed it last night. Anyone with an open mind can see that at the other 212 tackles and 178 rucks, both sides used exactly the same tactics, players standing ahead of the ball, running past the ball, driving over top of the ball off their feet.

He is also careful to edit out anything that might cast the Springboks in a bad light, however, he fails at 3:53 where you can see a Springbok player driving Brad Thorn to ground EXACTLY the same way that Read drove Habana out at the beginning if the video. The narrator ignores this completely, and instead focuses solely on what the All Blacks are doing.

The video is biased, totally one-sided, and ONLY looks at what happens when the All Blacks take the ball into contact.

In short its crap, and if I had the video editing skills, it would not be difficult to take the same match and prepare a video which show the Springboks doing exactly the same things.

Yes LLor if you do't agree with Cooky its crap. Very well balanced arguement and a little easier to take onboard, due to it coming from an unbiased eye. I think you will find Cooky saw nothing wrong in that video! So don't try.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes LLor if you do't agree with Cooky its crap. Very well balanced arguement and a little easier to take onboard, due to it coming from an unbiased eye. I think you will find Cooky saw nothing wrong in that video! So don't try.

Don't be a dick Bokke.

I saw plenty wrong in that video, but if you actually READ my post in its entirety instead of just picking out the bits you WANT to read, you would understand what I am driving at.

The video contains less than 5% of the total action from that match, and the person who created the video has deliberately picked and chosen ONLY those parts of the video that support his premise. The Boks had about 50% of the possesion in that match, yet how many times do you see them with the ball in hand taking it into contact?

If you are incapable of understanding that then I'm wasting my time even trying to debate this with you.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Don't be a dick Bokke.

I saw plenty wrong in that video, but if you actually READ my post in its entirety instead of just picking out the bits you WANT to read, you would understand what I am driving at.

The video contains less than 5% of the total action from that match, and the person who created the video has deliberately picked and chosen ONLY those parts of the video that support his premise. The Boks had about 50% of the possesion in that match, yet how many times do you see them with the ball in hand taking it into contact?

If you are incapable of understanding that then I'm wasting my time even trying to debate this with you.

Here's one for you ...

Insult someone again and your gone! Just to let you know one of TRF's rules from its own rulebook ... insulting members does not happen here or a warning / suspension / ban can follow.

I don't like being the bad guy but somewhere along the line im getting sick and tired of people's pathetic squabbling.

 

[Logorrhea]

The video is biased, totally one-sided, and ONLY looks at what happens when the All Blacks take the ball into contact.

Yes its a one sided analysis, yes its selective, yes he isnt showing the whole picture. But he said that at the start. Its a focus piece, surely you get that.

Logorrhea, Pretty much disagree with most of what you say.

Of course you do. I'd expect no less given the amount of posting your made on the topic. Your hardly going to accept that anyone else could be correct. Especially as you are 90 and your been refereeing for 6million years. I still think pretty much everything you posted below was either an intentional missrepresentation of the point being made, or an exercise in extreme pedantry.

For example;

Yes, there is offside on open play but NO, Franks did NOT have to go through the gate to join a tackle that has not yet gone to ground. The gate does NOT exist until the ball carrier is brought to ground. End of story. You are wrong.

So if its not a ruck, not a maul, and not yet a tackle, surely we are in general play? If so, the normal rules apply (Ive quoted them for you below but I'm sure you know them by heart), or is there some specific rule about the "non-tackle-non-ruck-non-maul-but-not-general-play" area that I'm not aware of.

Law 11: In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.
Law 11.1 (b) Offside and interfering with play. A player who is offside must not take part in the game. This means the player must not play the ball or obstruct an opponent.

Look at Franks, and look at Mealamu. They were clearly in front of the ball, they should not interfere with play, they must put themselves onside before competing for the ball.

As I said, Conrad Smith DID come in at the side BUT had he come in at the gate......

Stop, your making me laugh now. The original video guy said Smith couldnt do that, you said he could, now your saying you agree with the original poster

 

[Jer1cho]

So good seeing you back Logorrhea! ^_^

Smartcookie, nobody is saying that the All Blacks approach every instance in the game wrong. We are just saying that many of it has gone unpunished. It's not sour grapes, it's not being whingers or sore losers. It's the cold hard truth. You however, try to take anything anybody says and throw a bunch of 'i know everything's' in there. Obviously i agree there must be many instances where the Springboks and Wallabies also used such tactics, and it's unfortunate that they were not represented either. Still though, half of those instances in that video i don't even notice in real time, and if the Boks actually bothered to play the game that day, they would have found some way of preventing it, or perhaps capitalizing on it.

The number one factor that i have seen the All Blacks and Wallabies guilty of and unpunished on numerous occasions, where both Francois Louw and Ryan Kankowski were permanently pinged for, is not releasing the tackler so that he has a chance to place the ball. Pocock did it a thousand times against us, and McCaw did as well. In fact, i think McCaw has perfected it. I seem to remember Corey Jane being very good at that as well. It is a new law though, and players need to adjust to it, so whether or not it's intentional, i do not know.

There are just a lot of inconsistencies, which i hate. Like when BJ Botha was sent off against Aus for being on the wrong side and deliberately slowing the ball down. He was even holding himself up to make sure the ball was available to Genia. When Pocock did the EXACT same thing, all be it he actually interfered with the availability of the ball, nothing happened. NOTHING. It's the only thing i want from the referees. Consistency. It's just an example, but yeah.

 

[Sam Owen]

They should just stick to one set of rules, every year they adjust certain rules. If they just stick to one set then I feel it'll be better for the players and us spectators. Players wouldnt have to go in half hearted or check with referee's at breakdowns and rucks and us spectators and fans wouldnt be having these Rugby law wars on this forum. After all these years is Union's rules still a work in progress??..

Its like... 'the Springboks are the best at Rugby'09 but the All Blacks are better at playing Rugby2010????'...it sounds like a playstation game lol

 

[smartcooky]

Here's one for you ...

Insult someone again and your gone! Just to let you know one of TRF's rules from its own rulebook ... insulting members does not happen here or a warning / suspension / ban can follow.

I don't like being the bad guy but somewhere along the line im getting sick and tired of people's pathetic squabbling.

I see, so people are allowed to insult me, but I'm not allowed to insult them?

Well Cymro, if those are your rules then there no need to fire me... I resign.

 

[Sam Owen]

I see, so people are allowed to insult me, but I'm not allowed to insult them?

Well Cymro, if those are your rules then there no need to fire me... I resign.

smartcooky I dont agree with your name calling but I do enjoy reading your posts (I learn heaps thats why lol) just continue posting because I'll definately continue reading.

 

[durbutter]

smartcooky I dont agree with your name calling but I do enjoy reading your posts (I learn heaps thats why lol) just continue posting because I'll definately continue reading.

I agree, good poster, interesting point of view. do stay.

 

[Logorrhea]

Wheres he going?

 

[TRF_Cymro]

I see, so people are allowed to insult me, but I'm not allowed to insult them?

Well Cymro, if those are your rules then there no need to fire me... I resign.

You are a grown man and calling people playground kids name is not acceptable. Act your age. Its not MY rules its the FORUM's rule and people should respect them.

At times you go OTT. You can stay or leave makes no difference to me but when insulting members occur then it does cause a problem.

You bring some great information to the table but at times you get quite aggressive towards people when your opinions differ from there's, and sometimes when their is a margin of 50% either way you make it out its your view or no one else's, which is not fair.

 

[Sam Owen]

Wheres he going?

Hes gone to do something to your cars ignition lol....

 

[Sam Owen]

You are a grown man and calling people playground kids name is not acceptable. Act your age. Its not MY rules its the FORUM's rule and people should respect them.

At times you go OTT. You can stay or leave makes no difference to me but when insulting members occur then it does cause a problem.

You bring some great information to the table but at times you get quite aggressive towards people when your opinions differ from there's, and sometimes when their is a margin of 50% either way you make it out its your view or no one else's, which is not fair.

Hey come on Cymro maybe you shouldve private messaged him.

 

[Feicarsinn]

You are a grown man and calling people playground kids name is not acceptable. Act your age. Its not MY rules its the FORUM's rule and people should respect them.

At times you go OTT. You can stay or leave makes no difference to me but when insulting members occur then it does cause a problem.

You bring some great information to the table but at times you get quite aggressive towards people when your opinions differ from there's, and sometimes when their is a margin of 50% either way you make it out its your view or no one else's, which is not fair.

 

[TheBokke]

I see, so people are allowed to insult me, but I'm not allowed to insult them?

Well Cymro, if those are your rules then there no need to fire me... I resign.

Oh no please come back Cooky...... Just kidding mate, nobody minds your interpretations on the IRB rules as most of the time they are pretty spot on, however in this case and on a couple of other occasions you dismiss others arguements as dribbel. Surely you must realise that playing a player without the ball or obstructing that player from competing for the ball is illegal.

Don't misunderstand us as we are all in agreement that the All Blacks are playing good rugby and it is not their fault that they are not getting penalised. We are only asking for unbiased consistency from the Refs.

p.s as for the dick comment :lol: come on Cooks you claim to be 50+......

 

[woodward]

we should all learn from Robbie Deans on how not to get in trouble, from now on I'm gonna start all my posts with "some people might think" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iICqWNvWms

 

[squirrel]

the cookie crumbles
big cookie is fantastic to have around,good laugh and all,we cant be too sensitive to name calling around where all adults

 

[Feicarsinn]

the cookie crumbles
big cookie is fantastic to have around,good laugh and all,we cant be too sensitive to name calling around where all adults

Well in that case: Learn to use a full stop, learn to use capital letters and learn when to use the words "we're" and "where". Geez, the standard of grammar in this thread is shocking.