General rugby thread
Discussion
ellroy said:
For what it’s worth I think that defeat may be a better result longer term than a close win. That will hurt, the lessons should be easy to learn as a result and some of the newer members of the team are actually growing into the shirt.
More positives than negatives for me.
Really need to see the o/s again. It was very, very close.
I enjoyed the match. Lots of hope, although lots of dissappointment as well. Give what I expected, it was something of a relief.More positives than negatives for me.
Really need to see the o/s again. It was very, very close.
JonChalk said:
XCP said:
Can't believe that the hit on Halfpenny was legal.
Not sure it was, really - the ref applied a different view than 99% other refs would have within the current guidelines - think it would have been a red in the Premiership.England looked really good when the ABs kept kicking it back to them instead of hanging on to it ... some sloppy hands from the ABs at times too, threw the ball away far too much. Credit to England for coming out with an attacking game though, it paid off in that first 20.
The offside looked pretty clearly offside to me, but of course you lot will have your patriot-glasses(tm) on
... if we're playing the complain-about-the-ref game, what about Barrett getting penalised for a perfectly legitimate clean-out 5' out from his line though? Apparently the player touching the guy with the ball was "too far from the ruck"? 
The offside looked pretty clearly offside to me, but of course you lot will have your patriot-glasses(tm) on
... if we're playing the complain-about-the-ref game, what about Barrett getting penalised for a perfectly legitimate clean-out 5' out from his line though? Apparently the player touching the guy with the ball was "too far from the ruck"? Joey Ramone said:
In other news, those demanding that Georgia replace Italy in the 6N might want to rethink. Easy win for Italy.
Who has been demanding that Georgia replace Italy in the Six Nations?I'm one of many voices demanding that Georgia at least be afforded the opportunity to try and get in to the top tier, but that's not at all the same as demanding it happen immediately.
Let's look at the facts...
Italy went down to a humiliating slaughter against a second string Irish team last week. This week, they managed to beat Georgia by 11 points.
Georgia is a team who get to play a top tier opposition maybe once a year or so if they're lucky outside World Cups. Italy is a team who gets to play all the Northern Hemisphere tier 1 teams at least once a year, and at least a couple of the Southern Hemisphere tier 1 nations annually as well.
You improve by being pushed and challenged. Italy are afforded that opportunity constantly, whereas Georgia hardly ever get it.
Italy have played 90 games in the Six Nations since they joined in 2000. They have won on only 12 occasions (and only twice away from home), and you have to go back to 2015 to find the last time it happened. Georgia, on the other hand, have only ever been given the opportunity to play against Six Nations opponents ten times in their entire history!
Would Georgia improve to the point where they could challenge for Six Nations or even World Cup honours if they were given the chance to play top tier opposition on a regular basis? We have no way of knowing, but they'd have to really work hard to squander the opportunity more dismally than Italy have.
An 11 point victory at home against a team that they should be burying every time they play them isn't going to change my opinion that Italy should be embarrassed to be constantly preventing the Georgians from having a crack themselves.
GravelBen said:
England looked really good when the ABs kept kicking it back to them instead of hanging on to it ... some sloppy hands from the ABs at times too, threw the ball away far too much. Credit to England for coming out with an attacking game though, it paid off in that first 20.
The offside looked pretty clearly offside to me, but of course you lot will have your patriot-glasses(tm) on ... if we're playing the complain-about-the-ref game, what about Barrett getting penalised for a perfectly legitimate clean-out 5' out from his line though? Apparently the player touching the guy with the ball was "too far from the ruck"?
A good game, but the ABs weren't on top form (or at least not as clinical as they are usually expected to be).The offside looked pretty clearly offside to me, but of course you lot will have your patriot-glasses(tm) on
... if we're playing the complain-about-the-ref game, what about Barrett getting penalised for a perfectly legitimate clean-out 5' out from his line though? Apparently the player touching the guy with the ball was "too far from the ruck"? The offside was fair enough - very tight though, and is having your hands on the ball playing it or not? If it isn't, it leaves an awful lot to subjectivity.
It was extremely close and almost impossible to tell given the angle of the camera. I have read vehement assertions for both calls in the last 24 hours. However, a couple of observations:
1) It is actually against protocol for the TMO to call the ref back for this offence, if there was one. The referee had an excellent view and recent guidelines are for the referee to have more authority on the field. The TMO doesn't actually have the the remit to call him back to review a potential offside.
2) If this was offside, then NZ were offside in almost every play they made (as would have been England). Or is it only offside if a try is scored?
1) It is actually against protocol for the TMO to call the ref back for this offence, if there was one. The referee had an excellent view and recent guidelines are for the referee to have more authority on the field. The TMO doesn't actually have the the remit to call him back to review a potential offside.
2) If this was offside, then NZ were offside in almost every play they made (as would have been England). Or is it only offside if a try is scored?
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff