Toulon: more, more, MOARRRRR RARRR !!

[CAB_for_ever]

lol

 

[FrenchFan]

The anti French rugby sentiment in the media at the moment is unbelievable.

which media? and why?

 

[gaston le gaff]

which media? and why?

do they need a reason!!!! the 100 year War is still going on against us in Blighty!!!!!

 

[Big Ewis]

Hardly.
You think he makes a return on his "investment"?

right. He's just a beautiful philanthropist man who just loved his hometown and wanted to bring tears of joy to it...
I don't know and care about business and even I know a business is a risk, an investment can go both ways and if you've got the CAPITAL to do it, might as well buy the best player at every position if you're a sports club owner and make sure you win something.

in fact he quoted himself that he no longer bankrolls Toulon it is now auto financed and actually makes a profit.

that's right. I've read that I believe in a magazine interview.

 

[Big Ewis]

We use to know that sentiment lol ... after all France is only tolerated in IRB by anglo-countries. They like french rugby champagne but they will never accept France winning a RWC... I reassure you, there always will be a Joubert in a final where France is playing...

I see what you mean, but in this particular case Joubert wasn't anti-French but pro-NZ in his decisions with the whistle (to remain diplomatic about it).

 

[FrenchFan]

right. He's just a beautiful philanthropist man who just loved his hometown and wanted to bring tears of joy to it...
I don't know and care about business and even I know a business is a risk, an investment can go both ways and if you've got the CAPITAL to do it, might as well buy the best player at every position if you're a sports club owner and make sure you win something.


that's right. I've read that I believe in a magazine interview.

yeah i read same. And I can't imagine a successful business man like him would not want to make the club self-sufficient financially. I mean the guy could go bankrupt if he kept pouring money in, why would he bankrupt himself for a rugby club?

 

[CAB_for_ever]

I see what you mean, but in this particular case Joubert wasn't anti-French but pro-NZ in his decisions with the whistle (to remain diplomatic about it).

Yes Big E, You have a point there !

 

[Shaggy]

We use to know that sentiment lol ... after all France is only tolerated in IRB by anglo-countries. They like french rugby champagne but they will never accept France winning a RWC... I reassure you, there always will be a Joubert in a final where France is playing...

I see what you mean, but in this particular case Joubert wasn't anti-French but pro-NZ in his decisions with the whistle (to remain diplomatic about it).

Yes Big E, You have a point there !

Gee, what a surprise ... Rugby, like life in general, doesn't always go your way ... rather than except your teams short comings, by not having a successful plan to overcome the perceived injustices against them, or, failing to execute the plan on the field , you should put the blame on the ref (or the coach)

... and yes, the All Blacks of 2007 were guilty of the same thing (not having a plan)

Yep ... or a Bryce Lawrence if South Africa is playing, or a Wayne Barnes if New Zealand is playing, or an Alain Roland if Wales is playing ... I'm over people putting the blame solely on the refs as though it's some form of conspiracy

Easy enough to dismiss my comment with a LOL Cab_for_ever, but the fact remains that after the 2007, a lot of NZ supporters did feel aggrieved with Wayne Barnes performance in not awarding a single penalty against France in the second half of their quarter final against the All Blacks (and missing that forward pass)

... some South African supporters were so disappointed with Bryce Lawrence's performance when their team lost to Australia in the last world cup, that they over looked that one of the reasons for losing the match was selecting one injured specialist openside flanker to counter David Pocock, and blamed it all on the ref, starting up hate pages on the ref

... and should Wales feel aggrieved for the Red Carding of their captain in the Semi-final of the last match ... it was the right call by the rule book IMO, but it took the game out of their reach.

Are there bad decisions by refs in some matches?, sure ... but they don't go against the same nation all of the time, and teams good enough to win the RWC need to be able to have something extra when things aren't going their way, if they want to be the champs

If you guys really believe that there's some form of Anglo conspiracy to prevent France from winning the RWC, why wouldn't they just use all of these refs to prevent France from making the final/ensure two Anglo teams are in the final

Of pretty please....do not let yourself down by paranoia such as this..............you should be above it!

This is great advice Tony ... it's really not a lot of use being bitter about past disappointments

 

[gaston le gaff]

Hey Shaggy, what goes round comes around you are generalising against a couple of comments, everybody is hard done by the refs from time to time of course the French v All Blacks was a forward pass and the red card for Wales was red whether it unbalanced the match ot not, the injury could have been tremendous and then what!!!! are you saying the tackle on BOD by Umanga was legal of course it was not but the refs are human and make mistakes. Nobody is dwelling in the past (well some are) the Refs have a very difficult job and rarely do you see a ref keeping both teams happy but the respect is still there and hopefully will stay if rugby ever loses respect to the ref then we will have a big problem, but next WC coming up shortly and you never know there might be some brilliant refereeing

 

[FrenchFan]

Boudjellal's insatiable. His unquenchable thirst for moaaaarrrrrrrrr is just shocking, although it shouldn't be. When you have the money, you're going to spend it...and seeing how a lot of the Top 14 works, if you don't do it somebody else will...and anybody in his shoes would do the same...although he is particularly trigger-happy....

Vosloo leaving Clermont at the end of the season. Bam. Already solicited by Toulon. Some weeks ago, de Marchi already solicited by Toulon because he's starting to play a bit well at loosehead. Immediate interest, absolutely stunning. He refused of course...

I mean wtf would Gerhard Vosloo even do in Toulon ? seriously. What. The. Fk. Would. He. Even do in Toulon ?!
- Steffon Armittage is fetching ball like a beast there
- they've got Fernandez Lobbe (i.e. the best player on the Argentinian national squad)
- Juan Smith is a big ball carrier and doing a good job there, very powerful
- and they've even got Danie Rossouw (old now), Virgil Bruni (who's leaving though...), and Pierrick Gunther who's seldom given a chance but is a solid flanker.

At no. 8 they've got Masoe and Van Niekerk.

It's just amazing.
Moneh moneh moneh mohhhhnehhhh.....
MOHHHNEHHH !!

and on the same Toulon theme...this is what Moura thinks of les dirigeants de la Fede, classic!!

http://video.lequipe.fr/video/1c3f2324676s.html

 

[Big Ewis]

uhmm this recurrent argument of comparing the 2007 RWC to the 2011 RWC AB vs France matches is a blatant fallacy that should never (but will) be brought up again.

Wayne Barnes missing the forward pass, as forward as it was, just one play as important as it was - was but one play, and an honest mistake. Nothing would show there's a tendency to favor the French that match, which would imply things of a much, much higher ground.

Joubert in the 2011 Final is an absolutely entirely different affair, in a specially different setup/context...which for decency's sake I won't discuss here, despite its foul and obvious nature.

 

[gaston le gaff]

Boudjellal does often talk a lot of common sense, sometimes when angry is does not always come out how it should but like ir dislike this guy rugby needs people like him, and as far as the FFR , he is spot on they live in a time warp and try and keep hold of their positions and thats all a lot of them have!!!! if someone like the Toulon President ever becomes FFR Big Chief it will be carnage.!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Shaggy]

Hey Shaggy, what goes round comes around you are generalising against a couple of comments, everybody is hard done by the refs from time to time of course the French v All Blacks was a forward pass and the red card for Wales was red whether it unbalanced the match ot not, the injury could have been tremendous and then what!!!! are you saying the tackle on BOD by Umanga was legal of course it was not but the refs are human and make mistakes. Nobody is dwelling in the past (well some are) the Refs have a very difficult job and rarely do you see a ref keeping both teams happy but the respect is still there and hopefully will stay if rugby ever loses respect to the ref then we will have a big problem, but next WC coming up shortly and you never know there might be some brilliant refereeing

Yes, nobody gets the rub of the green all of the time, which was my point ... I wasn't implying that the Red was incorrect, it was the correct decision ... but some didn't see it that way at the time ... many thought it should have been a yellow, and thought that Wales had been hard done by the ref ... the inference by some is that France has/was singled out, and that there is some kind of bias in place against France ... my point was that a case can be made for bias against any country, if you look hard enough for poor or controversial ref decisions.

... like I said, good teams have tactics to counter when things go wrong ... for example, in 2007, the All Blacks should have had someone in their match squad that could drop goals, and they should have practiced for that eventuality (they said as much themselves)

@BE ... 2007 (along with my other examples) was only brought up to show that anything can be perceived as bias. As I mentioned in the 2007 example, not one penalty was awarded to the All Blacks in the second half (in addition to the forward pass that lead to the try), that CAN be perceived as bias IF YOU REALLY WANT TO LOOK at it THAT WAY ... so yes it's relevant from a PERCEPTION point of view ... if you don't want to discuss perceived bias, maybe you shouldn't have commented on the 2011 RWC final.

As I said above, the All Blacks weren't good enough to win in 2007 ... neither were France in 2011 ... lets just move on, and look forward to the controversies that the 2015 event will undoubtedly bring

 

[Big Ewis]

Ooh boy, I sense more agitation than there should be there. I respectfully disagree with your perception argument. One cannot just come to me and say "the All-Blacks didn't get a penalty in the 2T", that's far, far too generic. In stead, if someone came along and gave me evidence of the specific moments that could have or absolutely should've been penalized, then as someone praising objectivity I'd have to agree if it is really so.

But leveling everything and calling it just a question of subjective scopes and different opinions or "perception" is a monumental fallacy, and I'm not saying you're being fallacious yourself.
But the 2007 1/4F and the 2011 final are absolutely incomparable in how the referees respectively "judged" those games, that's just an indivisible objective reality, and one is in perfect right to feel the latter was clearly, to say the least, on the dubious, suspect side of things.
In fact, if you want evidence, there's a couple of very good videos on YT for that, or you can just rewatch the whole match itself.

Just a quick word about that. :mellow:

 

[Shaggy]

Ooh boy, I sense more agitation than there should be there.

I'm not sure I get what you mean here … I'm certainly not agitated, and it's not my intention to agitate you … we are having an online discussion expressing different points of view.

I respectfully disagree with your perception argument. One cannot just come to me and say "the All-Blacks didn't get a penalty in the 2T", that's far, far too generic. In stead, if someone came along and gave me evidence of the specific moments that could have or absolutely should've been penalized, then as someone praising objectivity I'd have to agree if it is really so. .

Normally I'd agree with you about providing quantifiable evidence and specifics to support an a point of view, and indeed if I was trying to prove bias against the All Blacks in 2007 (which I'm not), that the All Blacks in 2007 were at least equally as hard done by as the French of 2011 (which I'm not), or that the French would never win an RWC because of the bias against them by "Anglos"(I'm not, but it's what I originally replied to), then yes counting every mistake made per game, for and against, and expressing it as a percentage/statistical fact, would be a great way to provide evidence to support my argument.

But leveling everything and calling it just a question of subjective scopes and different opinions or "perception" is a monumental fallacy, and I'm not saying you're being fallacious yourself.

I appreciate that you are addressing the issue, and saying that my argument may be floored, rather than saying I'm being fallacious myself. There are a few that lose sight of the difference between offering up strong argument against someone's point of view, and attacking the person … you are the former, and I appreciate that.
… my point(s) were that, depending on which country you support (and remember, I gave a number of examples, not just two games involving France and New Zealand at RWC's), you could find reasons to suggest bias against the country you support, I'm not trying to say or prove that one person's reasoning based on statistics from a match/matches is greater than another person who supports another team, I'm merely suggesting that it's natural for people to react to losses by the team they support, and look for reasons for the loss, and sometimes, blame the loss on some kind of bias against them … hence, it's how those people "perceive" what is happened/happening.

But the 2007 1/4F and the 2011 final are absolutely incomparable in how the referees respectively "judged" those games, that's just an indivisible objective reality, and one is in perfect right to feel the latter was clearly, to say the least, on the dubious, suspect side of things.

In fact, if you want evidence, there's a couple of very good videos on YT for that, or you can just rewatch the whole match itself.

Just a quick word about that.

[/QUOTE]
Agreed J … the two games are incomparable in how the games were "judged" by the referees … there are too many variables that come into play, such as rule changes/rule interruptions etc. If we were trying to justify that one game somehow cancels out the other one (statistically speaking), we could go back and view the footage, count up the refereeing errors (but even these are open to debate), and compare percentages, but that's not what I'm trying to prove. Yes,(I agree again)people have the perfect right to feel aggrieved at a certain result, and I can't stop anyone from suspecting anything … for my part, I tend to go to refereeing incompetence/inaccuracy, rather than malicious/intentional bias against a particular team.

In fact, if you want evidence, there's a couple of very good videos on YT for that, or you can just rewatch the whole match itself.

Just a quick word about that.

There's not a lot of point in me doing that. As I detailed above, I'm not trying to prove or disprove bias in that particular match.
Not that anyone needs to convince me, but to prove that France would never win an RWC because of Anglo bias, they would have to show the following:
A pattern of errors made against France, since the RWC's inception in 1987, that didn't match up with similar errors made against other sides.
Proof that these errors were made intentionally.
… As it's unlikely, that anyone's going to provide that, or that it's likely that I'm going to convince anyone, it's probably best to agree to disagree (thanks for the discussion though)

 

[Big Ewis]

well as you can tell I was merely making the point that the 2007 and 2011 games are categorically different. So I picked that part of the talk and gave what I'd call clarity on it, as if it needed any.

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal", Aristotle.
Amen to that Greek, as pedophile as he was.

What CAB Brive says about France not getting chances at the RWC is probably wrong, but it's true we've been fkd over at least a couple of very notorious times. 1995 against the Saffas and of course 2011 in the final. I don't think there's much discussion to actually be had around the "they won't let France win at the RWC" topic...

 

[Tony Manx]

...................for gawds sake how much further is this thread going off topic or even going on too long!!!

 

[nickdnz]

uhmm this recurrent argument of comparing the 2007 RWC to the 2011 RWC AB vs France matches is a blatant fallacy that should never (but will) be brought up again.

Wayne Barnes missing the forward pass, as forward as it was, just one play as important as it was - was but one play, and an honest mistake. Nothing would show there's a tendency to favor the French that match, which would imply things of a much, much higher ground.

Joubert in the 2011 Final is an absolutely entirely different affair, in a specially different setup/context...which for decency's sake I won't discuss here, despite its foul and obvious nature.

Umm, not a single penalty in the second half. You are dreaming if you think Joubert was even half as bad. The forward pass was bad but forgivable. Not penalizing France for the entire second half however (when there was good cause to) is not. In the France vs New Zealand match in 2007 France conceded 10 pentalties to New Zealand's 7. Hardly particularly one sided. And if France managed to kick two of their kickable penalties instead of missing them - I doubt we'd be hearing anything about how bad Joubert is.

 

[Big Ewis]

Umm, not a single penalty in the second half. You are dreaming if you think Joubert was even half as bad. The forward pass was bad but forgivable. Not penalizing France for the entire second half however (when there was good cause to) is not. In the France vs New Zealand match in 2007 France conceded 10 pentalties to New Zealand's 7. Hardly particularly one sided. And if France managed to kick two of their kickable penalties instead of missing them - I doubt we'd be hearing anything about how bad Joubert is.

right. My mistake.