RWC Quarter Final: All Blacks - Argentina (09-10-2011, 20:30)

[TRF_RC]

people can say whatever they want about the ref but the fact stands that they were 3 pts behind for 10 mins and kept going for tries when all they needed was 1 field goal to draw level. They should of done a field goal first to get level and then went for the try.

So they chocked they could and should of won but chocked.

Should HAVE!

Sorry, that was totally off-subject.

 

[donmcdazzle]

Should HAVE!

Sorry, that was totally off-subject.

You picked that up but let chock go? haha

 

[tittlemouse]

xD my spelling is just awful

 

[Isurus]

I love [strike]laughing at a[/strike] good conspiracy theory. Please, enlighten the rest of us.

I don't have any theory. Like I said I honestly don't know why this happened and I don't expect to ever know. I am with you laughing at any conspiracy theories. Why it happened I don't know. I guess the most likely and least objectionable theory is that a young referee got put onto a massive stage too early in his career and he was completely overwhelmed by the occasion. But like I said, I just don't know.

What actually happened though is there for all to see. New Zealand were screwed hard. Without lube.

New Zealand dominated the match - the stats hugely favoured us. We dominated the set pieces. We dominated posession. We dominated territory.

France defended superbly though - no doubt about it. All credit to them for what they did.

But the refereeing was not fair. Not even close.

There were several key decisions in the match that are worth mentioning:
1) The yellow card on Luke McAllister. If this was all there was to it then we wouldn't be having this conversation. The decision was marginal at best. I would describe the decision as very harsh. France scored a try thanks to numbers in the backline while we were down to 14.
2) The forward pass for the last try. I doubt anyone disputes this and if you do then discussion is pointless.
3) Ali Williams went over for a try in the corner while advantage was being played. The try was subsequently disallowed but the ref did not go back and award the penalty as he should have.
4) The one drop goal attempt also occurred while advantage was being played but the penalty was not awarded when the droppie missed. He only went for goal because of the advantage - this was obvious.

If any one of these 'mistakes' did not happen then we would have won (in all likelihood).

But these are only the most obvious decisions. The thing that really riled me and made it obvious that I was not watching a fair contest was the fact that France were simply not refereed in the second half. After the match Ali Williams said something along the lines of "17 penalisable offences ignored. That's bullsh1t!". I don't know about the count but his point was absolutely correct. And so obvious to see. It was happening right there in front of our eyes.

I remember watching the match with my wife and turning to her half way through the second half (while we were leading) and saying something along the lines of "This is looking bad, really bad. The ref is doing everything he can to help France." She, like most laymen (laywomen?), didn't see the complete absence of policing of anyone in a blue jersey, but I saw it. And so did most New Zealand fans who understand rugby.

And if you understand rugby and you paid attention then you would see it too. It is right there in front of your eyes.

Here's what I think. I think you guys like to have a laugh at us kiwis and our All Blacks. I understand that. I am not going to say you are jealous or anything silly like that because I think I would find the whole "choking" thing kind of fun in your shoes too. But I also doubt very much that you guys have actually watched this match with any objectivity. What's more I don't think you ever will. The narrative in your heads that the All Blacks choked is a lovely warm blanket that feels real nice. Honestly, I do get it.

But that narrative is not an accurate representation of reality. Or at best only a partial representation.

 

[Teh Mite]

There were several key decisions in the match that are worth mentioning:
1) The yellow card on Luke McAllister. If this was all there was to it then we wouldn't be having this conversation. The decision was marginal at best. I would describe the decision as very harsh. France scored a try thanks to numbers in the backline while we were down to 14.
2) The forward pass for the last try. I doubt anyone disputes this and if you do then discussion is pointless.
3) Ali Williams went over for a try in the corner while advantage was being played. The try was subsequently disallowed but the ref did not go back and award the penalty as he should have.
4) The one drop goal attempt also occurred while advantage was being played but the penalty was not awarded when the droppie missed. He only went for goal because of the advantage - this was obvious.

If any one of these 'mistakes' did not happen then we would have won (in all likelihood).

:lol:

 

[TRF_Olyy]

people can say whatever they want about the ref but the fact stands that they were 3 pts behind for 10 mins and kept going for tries when all they needed was 1 field goal to draw level. They should of done a field goal first to get level and then went for the try.

That's all there is to it, really.
Barnes wasn't great, but it wasn't as if France were 50pts ahead because of it - NZ could have easily gotten the points in the last 10 but didn't.



But anyway - that was 4years ago - this is now.
On to the Argentina match!

 

[TRF_RC]

But anyway - that was 4years ago - this is now.
On to the Argentina match!

I second that! Hoorah!

 

[Isurus]

The argument that we should have attempted drop goals at the end has merit. A lot of merit really. But you need to recognise that New Zealanders just don't instinctively go there. You guys are brought up with drop goal almost at the top of your list of options whereas New Zealanders just don't. It's not in the DNA like it is with you guys. It is not the way kids approach the game in the playground, it is not the way coaches approach the amateur game that happens on thousands of rugby fields up and down the country. I don't think you guys will ever really appreciate that. Right or wrong that is the way it is and I think our game is better for it.

New Zealand were closing out the match the right way. They were controlling possession and territory and waiting to kick the inevitable penalties. You can argue that this may or may not have been the right approach but it was the one they were going with and it is reasonable. However, at some point McCaw and co should have recognised what was going on, that the French were not being refereed, and turned to the drop goal. Not in the last ten minutes when we were down, earlier than that, to close out the match. The ball was being kept in the forwards to control possession. They kept it very low risk and did not go for the try through the backs. They were playing, dare I say it, a very Northern Hemisphere style. A style that has shown to succeed in knockout tournaments.

And it would have worked all things being equal.

 

[JW.]

If they played it to your own account NH style they would've won. Seeing our kids/players don't want to score tries they just want to kick some DG's........

 

[Me 1]

The argument that we should have attempted drop goals at the end has merit. A lot of merit really. But you need to recognise that New Zealanders just don't instinctively go there. You guys are brought up with drop goal almost at the top of your list of options whereas New Zealanders just don't. It's not in the DNA like it is with you guys. It is not the way kids approach the game in the playground, it is not the way coaches approach the amateur game that happens on thousands of rugby fields up and down the country. I don't think you guys will ever really appreciate that. Right or wrong that is the way it is and I think our game is better for it.

New Zealand were closing out the match the right way. They were controlling possession and territory and waiting to kick the inevitable penalties. You can argue that this may or may not have been the right approach but it was the one they were going with and it is reasonable. However, at some point McCaw and co should have recognised what was going on, that the French were not being refereed, and turned to the drop goal. Not in the last ten minutes when we were down, earlier than that, to close out the match. The ball was being kept in the forwards to control possession. They kept it very low risk and did not go for the try through the backs. They were playing, dare I say it, a very Northern Hemisphere style. A style that has shown to succeed in knockout tournaments.

And it would have worked all things being equal.

please move on to Argentina

 

[Isurus]

That's all there is to it, really.
Barnes wasn't great, but it wasn't as if France were 50pts ahead because of it - NZ could have easily gotten the points in the last 10 but didn't.

No, that's not all there is to it. That's my point. It is very far from all there is to it.

Let me use an analogy. You are in a basketball match and leading 110 to 12 with seconds ticking down. Someone goes up to the scoreboard and puts a 1 in front of the opposition score so now it shows 110 v 112. Your argument seems to me to be that you could have got a 3-pointer at the end to win the match. "That's all there is to it really." Do you really think that is the most relevant issue in this case? That we didn't go for a 3-pointer at the end? That is why we lost the match in this fictitious scenario?

No, not going for the 3-pointer is not why we lost the match.

 

[Me 1]

No, that's not all there is to it. That's my point. It is very far from all there is to it.

Let me use an analogy. You are in a basketball match and leading 110 to 12 with seconds ticking down. Someone goes up to the scoreboard and puts a 1 in front of the opposition score so now it shows 110 v 112. Your argument seems to me to be that you could have got a 3-pointer at the end to win the match. "That's all there is to it really." Do you really think that is the most relevant issue in this case? That we didn't go for a 3-pointer at the end? That is why we lost the match in this fictitious scenario?

No, not going for the 3-pointer is not why we lost the match.

Please move on

 

[TRF_RC]

Hey, so...Argentina. They're gonna run rings around the kiwis.
Discuss.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

The argument that we should have attempted drop goals at the end has merit. A lot of merit really. But you need to recognise that New Zealanders just don't instinctively go there. You guys are brought up with drop goal almost at the top of your list of options whereas New Zealanders just don't. It's not in the DNA like it is with you guys. It is not the way kids approach the game in the playground, it is not the way coaches approach the amateur game that happens on thousands of rugby fields up and down the country. I don't think you guys will ever really appreciate that. Right or wrong that is the way it is and I think our game is better for it.

Your view of Northern Hemisphere rugby is incredibly skewed.
We're not coached to take drop goals all the damn day, though our players sometimes take the initiative to take the shot at goal when you only need 3 points to avoid being knocked out of the RWC prematurely....

 

[Isurus]

Ok, I'm done. Thought there might be some substantive debate but doesn't look like it. And this is the wrong place for it anyway. My bad.

So, those Argies. How many times have they beaten us.......?

 

[TRF_RC]

Ok, I'm done. Thought there might be some substantive debate but doesn't look like it. And this is the wrong place for it anyway. My bad.

Go back 4 years on this website and see the countless amounts of "substantive" debates that exist regarding this topic.
We've long ago exhausted it. Sorry, you're a bit behind the times.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I can't see anything other than a large New Zealand win

Argentina came into the tournament looking fairly unimpressive and they've since lost players to injury
Contepomi is half the player he used to be, and now he's playing with broken/bruised ribs as well

New Zealand by 40+ I think, unfortunately

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I can't see anything other than a large New Zealand win

Argentina came into the tournament looking fairly unimpressive and they've since lost players to injury
Contepomi is half the player he used to be, and now he's playing with broken/bruised ribs as well

New Zealand by 40+ I think, unfortunately

I hope you're right but i cant help but think the whole carter missing thing will change our game plan, maybe force us to tighten up so i still think we will win but will not be surprised if much closer

 

[Isurus]

Go back 4 years on this website and see the countless amounts of "substantive" debates that exist regarding this topic.
We've long ago exhausted it. Sorry, you're a bit behind the times.

Yeah, got it. Thx.

 

[Isurus]

Go back 4 years on this website and see the countless amounts of "substantive" debates that exist regarding this topic.
We've long ago exhausted it. Sorry, you're a bit behind the times.

Hey, you couldn't point me in the right direction could you? How do I go back and find 4-year old threads?