• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Wales vs England - 16/03/2013

^ Domingo has been very, very underrated this tournament.

yes he has...it's a bit surprising he didn't get wayyyyyyyyy more mention, but not really at the same time because a player is only praised when he does a good job AND his team is winning. The Welsh scrum will get a whole lot of praise because they've won the tournament. They were fkn powerful though, no question.
Just like Picamoles would have gotten the best no.8 in the tournament spot would France have finished first or second.

And yeh, for props you do have to take the age factor in consideration. Cole and Marler are 25 and 22....and good props already. But their pride took a hit this tournament though...I'm sure they're crowding the hell out of the gym as we speak these days...
 
Last edited:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/rugby-victory-was-planned-to-make-wales-feel-good-about-itself-2013031863014?fb_action_ids=10151600007427189&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%2210151600007427189%22%3A428515963903137}&action_type_map={%2210151600007427189%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map=[]

Tehehe... Gotta love TDM...


Rugby 'victory' was planned to make Wales feel good about itself
18-03-13

ENGLAND deliberately lost the Six Nations to Wales as part of a plan to boost the smaller country's morale, it has emerged.


Wales's victory caused an upsurge in national pride for a country embattled by unemployment, inhospitable weather and the literary trend for **** books about talking dragons.

However excessive gloating by Wales fans caused England sources to reveal that they weren't actually trying.

Coach Stuart Lancaster said: "I had spoken with David Cameron who said it was time we did something nice for the Welsh, apart from filming Doctor Who there.

"He said he wanted the people of Wales to feel like they lived in a proper country and not just a Tolkeinesque tourist attraction.

"He showed me some pictures of Welsh children, their tears had made clean streaks on their coal-smeared little faces. I knew then we had to do something."

Television footage of the match has since revealed England players deliberately fumbling the ball while using the phrase "oops, butterfingers".

David Cameron confirmed: "We just wanted the Welsh to feel special for once.

"Unfortunately they got a bit carried away and ruined it. I hope they won't be too devastated that their moment of glory was a pity-inspired travesty.

"I think Wales is great. I had some lamb from there once, it was very juicy."
 
Last edited:
^ good stuff :D
"better to laugh than cry about it" as we say in french...
 
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/rugby-victory-was-planned-to-make-wales-feel-good-about-itself-2013031863014?fb_action_ids=10151600007427189&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%2210151600007427189%22%3A428515963903137}&action_type_map={%2210151600007427189%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map=[]

Tehehe... Gotta love TDM...


Rugby 'victory' was planned to make Wales feel good about itself
18-03-13

ENGLAND deliberately lost the Six Nations to Wales as part of a plan to boost the smaller country’s morale, it has emerged.


Wales’s victory caused an upsurge in national pride for a country embattled by unemployment, inhospitable weather and the literary trend for **** books about talking dragons.

However excessive gloating by Wales fans caused England sources to reveal that they weren’t actually trying.

Coach Stuart Lancaster said: “I had spoken with David Cameron who said it was time we did something nice for the Welsh, apart from filming Doctor Who there.

“He said he wanted the people of Wales to feel like they lived in a proper country and not just a Tolkeinesque tourist attraction.

“He showed me some pictures of Welsh children, their tears had made clean streaks on their coal-smeared little faces. I knew then we had to do something.â€

Television footage of the match has since revealed England players deliberately fumbling the ball while using the phrase “oops, butterfingersâ€.

David Cameron confirmed: “We just wanted the Welsh to feel special for once.

“Unfortunately they got a bit carried away and ruined it. I hope they won’t be too devastated that their moment of glory was a pity-inspired travesty.

“I think Wales is great. I had some lamb from there once, it was very juicy.â€

Or theres the other scenario........:p
BREAKING NEWS: South Wales Police have asked for witness's to come forward regarding a brutal crime against 15 English men on a recent visit to Cardiff who were robbed of a Grand Slam they had come to collect and also had their chariot badly vandalised during the visit to the Welsh
capital?

... Apparently this heinous crime was carried out by a gang of 15 Welsh guys dressed in bright red shirts in broad daylight in front of 75,439 people who gathered around the gang attack and just stood there cheering, clapping and singing hymns and arias as if they were encouraging the gang.

A police spokesmen for the South Wales force said this "This sort of attack is just sickening....On e of the victims was a young lad called Owen Farrell who was on his first trip to Wales and has been traumatised by the whole shocking experience and to make matters even worse his father was forced to watch the entire crime from start to finish and could not lift a finger to protect his son from the sickening and relentless battering meeted out by the conspicuously dressed red shirted gang".

The police spokesman continued, "We are following a number of leads and believe this crimson shirted gang may be linked to a similar attack in
Twickenham a year ago"
 
Just like Picamoles would have gotten the best no.8 in the tournament spot would France have finished first or second.

Agree. picamoles in my eyes should of won at least 2 man of the match awards in the 6N. But becuase france was playing away and losing the home team player got the award.
 
So basically "Walsh was out to penalise England" is the message to take away from that? :p
 
I'd wager that Rowntree knows a little bit more tbh. I still don't understand where people are getting the sour grapes angle from.
This is in all likelihood a fairly inconsequential series of events that probably should have been kept private, but it's hardly a travesty that they have been made known to us.

He's also talking about the scrum, but not actually making any points. He's just analysing Walsh's communication with the England FR. If anything he is agreeing with Rowntree...
The second example looks to me like Wales collapse it. England win the hit and are going forward, Wales' heads drop and the scrum collapses, Jones is blatantly pulling Mako's arm down.
In all fairness, that is very good scrummaging from the Welsh in the context of the modern game. The ref has already made his mind up, so they may as well collapse it straight away.

Again though, a lot of people seem to have interpreted the situation as the England management thinking that they would have won the match had it not been for a couple of scrum decisions.
 
To be honest. England ought to be quiet. You can't blame the referee for the loss when the margin of defeat was 27 points. The coaching staff need to just admit their players were outplayed on this occasion.

I don't think that there is any pulling arms down or collapsing on purpose as said in the post above, Wales have already said that gamesmanship isn't true. It's just that a lot of scrums collapse in all matches. When a scrum just collapses and neither side is going forward, then very often the next penalty is just a guess really and Wales got the luck in this match. It was the opposite in the France match for Wales, where nearly all scrums just flopped.

This is what needs to be eradicated from rugby. Penalties for the scrum just flopping. When one team is very good at scrummaging and can push the other side back, then fair enough they benefit. But it's not right that you earn the same amount of points for just a guess by the referee after the scrum collapses as you putting the opposition under big pressure after some good attacks and them conceding a penalty after sustained pressure.
 
Last edited:
To be honest. England ought to be quiet. You can't blame the referee for the loss when the margin of defeat was 27 points. The coaching staff need to just admit their players were outplayed on this occasion.
a) Literally nobody is saying that the ref won Wales the game.
b) They have.

Of course telling some Wales fans this is like talking to a brick wall.
 
To be honest. England ought to be quiet. You can't blame the referee for the loss when the margin of defeat was 27 points. The coaching staff need to just admit their players were outplayed on this occasion.
I agree, the result doesn't change. But when the England coaches sat down with the England players for the last time at the end of the 6N, and if/when they conduct a video session at the beginning of the summer tests looking back at the Wales match, what are they supposed to tell their players? You can't learn from your mistakes when you don't know what your mistakes are.

The other thing is that the IRB needs to know if a referee is particularly or consistently poor so that they can take action sooner rather than later. If Walsh isn't good enough for this level (I'm not casting any judgments myself, I'm just saying "if") then he should be replaced now that his performances have been brought to light, and not after he's had time to affect a much closer game.

It may also be that a poor performance brings to light a deeper issue in the way the game is refereed. For example, since the scrum engagement routine changed to crouch-touch-set, it seems that the frequency of early engagements has increased by a lot. I think this might be in part down to small pauses that referees are putting between the words. Also, good binding is crucial to a scrum and props on the far side from the ref seem to bind wrongly more frequently and that the IRB should explore bringing in one of the touch judges to look at binding.
 
Last edited:
I agree, the result doesn't change. But when the England coaches sat down with the England players for the last time at the end of the 6N, and if/when they conduct a video session at the beginning of the summer tests looking back at the Wales match, what are they supposed to tell their players? You can't learn from your mistakes when you don't know what your mistakes are.

The other thing is that the IRB needs to know if a referee is particularly or consistently poor so that they can take action sooner rather than later. If Walsh isn't good enough for this level (I'm not casting any judgments myself, I'm just saying "if") then he should be replaced now that his performances have been brought to light, and not after he's had time to affect a much closer game.

It may also be that a poor performance brings to light a deeper issue in the way the game is refereed. For example, since the scrum engagement routine changed to crouch-touch-set, it seems that the frequency of early engagements has increased by a lot. I think this might be in part down to small pauses that referees are putting between the words. Also, good binding is crucial to a scrum and props on the far side from the ref seem to bind wrongly more frequently and that the IRB should explore bringing in one of the touch judges to look at binding.

tbh though, the main problem I have with the England coaches in this situation is the fact they brought it up with the media. Sure, they have every right to question the ref and the IRB, but they should have kept quiet about it. What's the point in saying a ref had a poor game to media outlets? It just makes a coach look like a sore loser and brings a ref's reputation into question in the public eye when they haven't necessarily done anything wrong or made wrong decisions. I just think the whole situation should have been something that was kept under wraps. The England setup gain nothing from going public about it.
 
tbh though, the main problem I have with the England coaches in this situation is the fact they brought it up with the media. Sure, they have every right to question the ref and the IRB, but they should have kept quiet about it. What's the point in saying a ref had a poor game to media outlets? It just makes a coach look like a sore loser and brings a ref's reputation into question in the public eye when they haven't necessarily done anything wrong or made wrong decisions. I just think the whole situation should have been something that was kept under wraps. The England setup gain nothing from going public about it.
This is a classic case of media distortion. Take the BBC. They started the story under the headline, "Lancaster queries ref performance": read here. This would give anyone the impression that Lancaster made comments about the general game of Walsh. But when you read the article, you notice that Lancaster never said that Walsh had a bad game, or even commented on Walsh's general game. They were asking about particular incidents.

The BBC must have realised they messed up, because they kept the entire contents of the article, but changed the article headline to, "Stuart Lancaster seeks referee 'clarification'": read here.

Even now, that article is misleading. It mentions 'clarification' but doesn't expand on what that means. Clarification in the academic sense (they want to better know how to go forward)? The BBC and Guardian posted articles on the same interview. The Guardian article adds something that the BBC one didn't:

Rowntree, meanwhile, has conceded more Welsh players than English ones are likely to feature in the Lions squad in Australia in June and July. "What you can say about that last game is there were more Lions on the field wearing a Wales shirt than an England one, but we'll just have to wait for selection," said the former Leicester prop.


Why didn't the BBC include this?

The Sun's article is hideous: read here. "Furious?" "Rowntree believes Kiwi Walsh whistled them off the pitch?" Speculation based on tidbits. It's no surprise to me that people are angry when this kind of thing is being printed.

It's worth pointing out that before the story broke, the England coaches had already admitted Wales played better: read here.

As to why Lancaster and Rowntree went to the media in the first place? Maybe they felt it would put more pressure on the IRB for them to get back to them with an answer instead of sidestepping the issue? More likely, I think, is that the media caught wind of the story and asked them about it. They answered, knowing that they weren't outside of their boundaries in doing so. (They weren't - what they said was perfectly legitimate.) Another theory - it is a deflection of criticism: they lost 30-3 and instead of facing that, they bring a controversial story out which generates so much discussion that it saves themselves from being in the headlights. But there isn't a quote anywhere from them saying that Wales didn't deserve the win, or anything that can be clearly implied that way.
 
a) Literally nobody is saying that the ref won Wales the game.
b) They have.

Of course telling some Wales fans this is like talking to a brick wall.

I worded it wrong. Maybe not blaming the loss, but taking away the credit from Wales and covering up their own players failures.

England got some bad luck at the scrum lottery. But England themselves were gifted a match by an enormously worse ref performance by Joubert against France. And Clancy against Italy also was clearly favouring England to win and being more generous to them and more harsh to Italy with his whistle. Also when it looked like Italy could seriously have a chance of winning a draw in the final minutes he bottled a decision for Italy and ignored it and allowed England to clear their lines.

Both those matches, the referee impacted the result far more than this in favour of England.

Nothing was heard then of poor referees, and contrary to that Rowntree said he had "submitted glowing reports" (http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,3551_8578516,00.html).

On the balance of things, England have had more luck from referees this 6 Nations. And a 27 point point tonking is the wrong match to be pointing fingers at referees, when they were hardly robbed by a particular decision.

The other thing is that the IRB needs to know if a referee is particularly or consistently poor so that they can take action sooner rather than later. If Walsh isn't good enough for this level (I'm not casting any judgments myself, I'm just saying "if") then he should be replaced now that his performances have been brought to light, and not after he's had time to affect a much closer game.

I can guarantee you that whoever you would replace him with there would be the same issues. The scrum is a farce, regardless of the referee.

Just look at it. I am sure a lot of the time the scrum just collapses and nobody is really at fault, and there is a penalty which nobody has a clue about. The same penalties would happen whatever referee unfortunately.

Lol at inferring that I was blaming our loss on the ref...

Was talking about the coaches not you.
 
Last edited:
England got some bad luck at the scrum lottery.
I can guarantee you that whoever you would replace him with there would be the same issues. The scrum is a farce, regardless of the referee.

Just look at it. I am sure a lot of the time the scrum just collapses and nobody is really at fault, and there is a penalty which nobody has a clue about. The same penalties would happen whatever referee unfortunately.

That is precisely the point that I think Rowntree is trying to make.
While I would certainly commend him for doing so, it is not up to him to raise issues on behalf of the other teams; hence the "glowing reports".

Was talking about the coaches not you.

The point remains...
 
That is precisely the point that I think Rowntree is trying to make.
While I would certainly commend him for doing so, it is not up to him to raise issues on behalf of the other teams; hence the "glowing reports".

He could have made that point about the scrum farce in many matches though. Wales conceded a few in France in similar circumstances where the scrum just flopped and it was impossible to tell but the ref favoured France. This time the luck reversed and it favoured Wales, probably even more than it hurt them in France. There was just one scrum early on when Wales got a bit of forward momentum, and it seemed to put all penalties that were just guessed in favour of Wales the whole match.
 
Yes he could have, as could all of the coaches, which to be honest I wish they would do.
I guess my point is that the scrum is a farce at the moment, and I would encourage high profile people to put as much pressure on the IRB to sort it out.
So I don't really care who says anything about the scrums, if it means that the IRB is made do deal with it then I want it to happen.
Even if it means the IRB turns around and blames coaches for encouraging penalty winning tactics rather than "proper" legal scrummaging.
The issue has been around for a number of years now, and no-one seems to be that bothered by it in the higher ranks of world rugby administration (IRB and Managements).
But let's face it, it's a bit like a nuclear stand off at the moment, no one is going to adopt tactics on the grounds of fairness or aesthetics (disposing of their arsenal), it is up to the IRB to manage the return to the old (entertaining) scrummaging. And I'm not talking about the sort of scrummaging we saw in the pre-professional era, where it was akin to 8-man league scrums, but the sort we saw between 1995-2003ish.
 
Last edited:
Top