• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

South Africa vs New Zealand

It was a pure master class by SA boys.
I've to reconise that I'm afraid by a possible kiwis reaction of proudness in 14 days.
 
No suspension for Barrett.

Decisions like this make me hope WR get used to oblivion. No true regard for player welfare.
 
No suspension for Barrett.

Decisions like this make me hope WR get used to oblivion. No true regard for player welfare.
If I were Owen Farrell I'd feel hard done by. Wonder if WR are going to appeal here as well. For some reason I don't expect it.
 
Everyone knows it's the Welsh that the kiwis admire and respect the most since the days of Barry John, Mervyn Davies, Gareth Edwards, JPR (insert any old Welsh legend) etc etc.
 
i think Barrett is bloody lucky, not only was the guy prone on the ground and barrett dove off his feet to hit him, although the initial contact is shoulder (IMO) i think it definitely slipped up to the head

I said the other week if i was an english fan id be a bit embarrassed when Farrell initially got off...im a bit embarrassed now
 
All blacks are listed first online. Did they use the England locker room? You can't escape that voodoo. I'm afraid they are done if so.
 
That's wild, would love to know their justification
I presume the same as the match officials justification for only giving a yellow - no direct head contact. Dumbness not factored in. But that's the rules.

Ps I will ignore all comments trying to tell me there was direct head contact , because I never said there was or wasn't. And I don't care. Imo the action not the impact should matter anyway, but that's not the rules.
 
Last edited:
What a pile of ignorant, bitter rubbish. Matt Williams should keep his archaic views about several rugby topics to himself. So you're now not allowed to maximise your subs bench to your advantage just because the opposition can't match it?. I bet he doesn't say anything about Ireland and Scotland having more foreign born players in both their back lines than Irish and Scots does he?. One-eyed idiot.
 
I agree with the suggested rule change to be honest, although I don't think it's much of an advantage, it worked once against a team they were already dominating. Big deal.

A uniform bench reduces chances of injuries because most injuries come about, in some form, as a result of fatigue. In addition if the Boks had two backline injuries and had a scrum half and a flanker on the wings it just seems to be asking for a dangerous mid air collision. As ever, Williams' delivery was poor, but he has a point.

I bet he doesn't say anything about Ireland and Scotland having more foreign born players in both their back lines than Irish and Scots does he?. One-eyed idiot.

First google result of "Matt Williams Residency"
 
I agree with the suggested rule change to be honest, although I don't think it's much of an advantage, it worked once against a team they were already dominating. Big deal.

A uniform bench reduces chances of injuries because most injuries come about, in some form, as a result of fatigue. In addition if the Boks had two backline injuries and had a scrum half and a flanker on the wings it just seems to be asking for a dangerous mid air collision. As ever, Williams' delivery was poor, but he has a point.



First google result of "Matt Williams Residency"
I've heard him refer to James Lowe as a local Dublin lad. He just says whatever.

How would you even enforce a rule, you have to be trained to play in the backfield? The ministry of backs must approve player's positions? He's essentially the Clarkson of rugby but he can't even make good television nor be funny every once in awhile.
 
I've heard him refer to James Lowe as a local Dublin lad. He just says whatever.

How would you even enforce a rule, you have to be trained to play in the backfield? The ministry of backs must approve player's positions? He's essentially the Clarkson of rugby but he can't even make good television nor be funny every once in awhile.
I'm not going to die on the Matt Williams hill, he's a big fan of Ronan O'Gara and by extension tasteless. Although I reckon he was being sarcastic when talking about Lowe.

I don't think it's too difficult to implement designate 5 subs as forwards and 3 subs as backs and any tactical substitution must be made accordingly. In the case of injuries, roll your starters who were taken off back on, it'd be fairly easy to spot abusers. I don't think increasing the frequency of fresh dynamic players colliding with fatiguing players is to anyone's benefit.

Edit: FWIW his motives are totally from disliking SA. He backed up the decision to bring Nic White back onto the pitch last year when he was clearly rocked. I just think his biased view has led him to a reasonable point here, however hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
No issues with reducing the number of subs in general, trying to tell coaches how to use them is BS in my opinion, some players (very few) can play in both will they have to make a note on which position they will be playing before hand. The term Tactical substitutions exist, let's not look to blow everything out of proportion simply because a team can field starters and finishers better than their oppositions first choice.
 
i have to add i dont get the outcry....i see 6/2 split all the time and yet 7/1 is headline making? strange

i am a big fan of reduced subs, introduce to fatigue into the final quarter

i think i would go for 8 on the bench but only allowed to make 4-5...so a coach has to make decisions base don how things are going rather than being large predetermined
 

Latest posts

Top