NationStates Jolt Archive

Pretty simple, who ya got?
Personally don't see England coming back from a 36-0 thrashing and I'm gonna back the Boks to win it by 13+.

Pretty simple, who ya got?
Personally don't see England coming back from a 36-0 thrashing and I'm gonna back the Boks to win it by 13+.

England to retain the cup. Simple, we's gonna do it.

I still think Ireland are in with a chance. All we have to do is invade England and take it over before the final. How hard could it be?

England to retain the cup. Simple, we's gonna do it.

Bahhh. Playing so damn averagely. How on earth Australia lost to you guys... I don't get it.

I still think Ireland are in with a chance. All we have to do is invade England and take it over before the final. How hard could it be?

Asterix in Britain put forward the idea that the Romans conquered Britain by attacking at 4pm, when we were all sitting down to a nice cup of tea.

That's where Germany went wrong, being all German and getting up early to get the best spot at the beach, not realising that we get really pissed if we have to wake up early.

Having said that, my historic tour of Ireland seemed to indicate that the Irish had numerous chances to defeat England but, since they were often a little late, those who came early went to the pub and were to pissed to remember what they were doing.

This is the version of history in my head.

England to squeeze it, South Africa to bottle it and start crying like the big babies they are.

Bahhh. Playing so damn averagely. How on earth Australia lost to you guys... I don't get it.

Heh umm perhaps because they played below average!:p

Heh umm perhaps because they played below average!:p

Mmm fair enough, haha. I guess, obviously, they did enough to win. Just was so damn ugly. South Africa have looked so quality.

Despite England's improvements since the start of the tournament, I don't think they are the standard to beat SA, unless the 'Boks really don't get it together.

As an Englishman I want to say England... but I just can't see it :(

However, unlike this time last month, I do now believe it's possible.

Just not very likely.

Bahhh. Playing so damn averagely. How on earth Australia lost to you guys... I don't get it.

Australia can't scrummage essentially. Until they sort that out they're going to be easy meat against strong packs.

To win England have to dominate in the forwards, I can't see them scoring tries and I can't see South Africa not scoring tries. The SA backrow is just going to be too good for England I think and SA will get enough ball to win by two scores, maybe 10 point margin.

Australia can't scrummage essentially. Until they sort that out they're going to be easy meat against strong packs.

To win England have to dominate in the forwards, I can't see them scoring tries and I can't see South Africa not scoring tries. The SA backrow is just going to be too good for England I think and SA will get enough ball to win by two scores, maybe 10 point margin.

Hmm, I guess the Aussie scrum wasn't that quality. They sure have had better packs than that one.
Habana looks so good at the moment, SA can score from practically anywhere. Great player.

Asterix in Britain put forward the idea that the Romans conquered Britain by attacking at 4pm, when we were all sitting down to a nice cup of tea.

That's where Germany went wrong, being all German and getting up early to get the best spot at the beach, not realising that we get really pissed if we have to wake up early.

Having said that, my historic tour of Ireland seemed to indicate that the Irish had numerous chances to defeat England but, since they were often a little late, those who came early went to the pub and were to pissed to remember what they were doing.

This is the version of history in my head.

It's pretty accurate.

if england can stay tight at the back then i think they could do well, they always seem to pull the best performances out of the bag in big games so i think they could sneak it against a south africa team who are probably better

It's pretty accurate.

It should be - I'm Professor Emeritus at Cambridge.

England to retain but it'll be close.

I hate to say it, but I think SA will edge us out, with their running game.

South Africa have had a relatively easy couple of matches. It is very possible that they will be off the pace. Otherwise, I don't think England have much chance.

I said in t'other thread that SA would win it about 20-12 (quite possibly with Wilkinson scoring all our points), and I still think that's about right.

But if that's going to be the case, I just hope it's not 13-12 going into the last few minutes.

I picked England to win the cup in the other thread several weeks ago and am still somewhat surprised that the prediction has actually got a chance of coming true.

England have to win it now. It's one of those the impossible is happening moments, where fate is chucking out something bizarre to keep itself amused.

I ask myself which team I dislike most and despite them both being arrogant over inflated one trick self important tossers at least the English are our arrogant over inflated one trick self important tossers.

I think it'll be tight, but the England front five and Wilkinson to just edge it by 3 - 5 points

Boks by one try or less.

Hmm, still not really rating Johnny's performance at this World Cup. There is no doubting what a classy player he is, but does he have enough in him to repeat last year? I think the Boks will be more intense than the Aussie's were last year and more aware of the danger Wilkinson poses.

Pretty simple, who ya got?
Personally don't see England coming back from a 36-0 thrashing and I'm gonna back the Boks to win it by 13+.

Well if it were a league I would be inclined to agree. However a Cup Final is very different and the past counts for nothing. In fact some use being the underdog to great effect.

So in a league I would not expect an upset. In a Final the chances are greater....esp a World Cup final. Of course even though I would love a England victory; reality tells me that the Boks will win.

I would love a victory because it would mean we final have achieved something the Aussies and Kiwi's haven't.

Yeah...we are in dire need of some bragging rights...esp after England lost to Russia 2 - 1

bugger.

I ask myself which team I dislike most and despite them both being arrogant over inflated one trick self important tossers at least the English are our arrogant over inflated one trick self important tossers.

I think it'll be tight, but the England front five and Wilkinson to just edge it by 3 - 5 points

I shall refrain from posting anecdotes related to sheep and the Welsh.

I shall refrain from posting anecdotes related to sheep and the Welsh.

That is a top secret long term strategy for rugby succes, primarily based on it seems to be working for the All Blacks.

*clicks random South Africa option*

Go the Springboks.

I shall refrain from posting anecdotes related to sheep and the Welsh.

I've been out on a saturday night in Birmingham and quite frankly the sheep look a better option :D

I still think Ireland are in with a chance. All we have to do is invade England and take it over before the final. How hard could it be?

Now that's what I'd like to see! :D

I see The Times has done its bit to keep the national rivalrly friendly and sportsmanlike:

http://timesonline.typepad.com/rugby/2007/10/warning-offensi.html

For the benefit of anyone too young to remember: That's what we had before political correctness was invented.

Deserved victory for South Africa, Cueto was close but certainly in touch and the Springboks deserved the victory.

Deserved victory for South Africa, Cueto was close but certainly in touch and the Springboks deserved the victory.

they did deserve it, but I don't understand why that wasn't a try. At least it could have made the final a little bit more interesting. All that kicking is a little bit boring after a while. I heard they want to reduce the points scored with penalties etc., I hope that will help.

they did deserve it, but I don't understand why that wasn't a try. At least it could have made the final a little bit more interesting. All that kicking is a little bit boring after a while. I heard they want to reduce the points scored with penalties etc., I hope that will help.

His foot clipped the line before he got the ball down.

photos (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/7054741.stm)

In nine you can see his foot touch the line before he touches down, and eight you see the mark he leaves on the line.

I hope they do reduce the points scored by penalties, make it a more interesting game.

lulz.


http://www.stuff.co.nz/images/335224.jpg

His foot clipped the line before he got the ball down.

photos (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/7054741.stm)

In nine you can see his foot touch the line before he touches down, and eight you see the mark he leaves on the line.

I hope they do reduce the points scored by penalties, make it a more interesting game.
I think it was a tough call. Even from that still photo, it's damn hard to be 100% positive he's on the line.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44188000/jpg/_44188781_cueto300.jpg
It looks like barely a toe on the line at the most. That mark in photo 8 was from the SA player. Unless I'm totally wrong, the tackled player has to be in touch as well, not just the tackler.
Considering the time taken to decide (4-5 minutes wasn't it?), it shows the vid ref wasn't 100% sure and thus I feel he should have given England the benefit of the doubt (as was standard in these cases in previous years) and awarded the try. (and this from a diehard england-rugby-team-disliking Kiwi!)
I think they should bring in a time limit for making these decisions. Too long disrupts the game too much. After 2 minutes maximum, if the vid ref can't decide, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the try-scorer, or the decision passed back to the ground ref who makes a judgement call.


As for penalties, they should stay at 3. Otherwise we'd never see tries being scored. As soon as a team gets close, the defending team would do a professional foul and kill the ball. It's drop kicks which should be reduced in points. Preferably to 1 pt, like in League.

I think it was a tough call. Even from that still photo, it's damn hard to be 100% positive he's on the line.
It looks like barely a toe on the line at the most. That mark in photo 8 was from the SA player. Unless I'm totally wrong, the tackled player has to be in touch as well, not just the tackler.
The SA player's foot's on the outside of line, the mark's on the inside so it had to be Cueto's foot.



As for penalties, they should stay at 3. Otherwise we'd never see tries being scored. As soon as a team gets close, the defending team would do a professional foul and kill the ball. It's drop kicks which should be reduced in points. Preferably to 1 pt, like in League.
At 2 points it'd still add up, either that or increase tries' value.

What I've heard is that they're considering making refs give a lot less penalties, with more infringements causing free kicks to be given and penalties for serious or repeat infringing.

As for the time

There is a lot of definitive footage there. Factually it is indisputable.
With the language barrier between me and the French TV producers, I wasn't able to get frame-by-frame pictures. The producer didn't slow it down for me so I had to make the judgment in real time. That's why it took so long."

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/7055964.stm)

At 2 points it'd (penalties) still add up
Not really. Think about it. Even the best goalkickers out there don't do much better than ~80% kicking success: i.e. 4 out of 5 kicks at goal are successful.

Which means, at 2pts a penalty, a team which is just 7pts (ie. a converted try) ahead could afford to have 5 penalties awarded against them before the other team gets it's nose in front. They could afford to delibrately kill the ball 5 times when the other team is close to their line before it would make a difference to the final outcome of the game. If they were 9 pts ahead (ie. < two unconverted tries), it would mean at least 6 penalties at 2 pts each (5/6 being successful) whereas now just 3 successful penalties would tie the game.
If they were 10pts ahead, they could afford to have 7 penalties awarded against them before they'd start losing the game (assuming 6 of the 7 were successful - an 86% success rate, which I doubt even Johnny Wilkinson averages).

Add up the time it'd take for a team to get within a try-scoring opportunity, foul, penalty to be awarded and kicked, followed by the kick-off again. Easily 5 minutes each time. At 2pts a penalty we could (and let's face it: would) end up with teams spending the last 20-30 minutes of a game doing little more than continual delibrate fouls in order to ensure the other team doesn't score a try, rather than playing any postive interesting rugby.

Does not make for good viewing (or playing).

Not really. Think about it. Even the best goalkickers out there don't do much better than ~80% kicking success: i.e. 4 out of 5 kicks at goal are successful.

Which means, at 2pts a penalty, a team which is just 7pts (ie. a converted try) ahead could afford to have 5 penalties awarded against them before the other team gets it's nose in front. They could afford to delibrately kill the ball 5 times when the other team is close to their line before it would make a difference to the final outcome of the game. If they were 9 pts ahead (ie. < two unconverted tries), it would mean at least 6 penalties at 2 pts each (5/6 being successful) whereas now just 3 successful penalties would tie the game.
If there's persistent fouling the ref can say 'next one gets yellow carded' or if close to the linee threaten to award penalty tries.