Playing Not To Lose

[the magpie]

For the first time in 24 years, since the '87 final, a team has gone into a Rugby World Cup final with the intention of playing to win. By playing attactive, ball in hand rugby, the French were out there to win.

Sadly, like the 10 world cup finalists before them, the All Blacks played the boring, constantly kick the ball away, play not to lose formula that is a blight to rugby.

As a fan, I want to see a team go out there, especially in the biggest game in the world of rugby, and play to actually win the game. Sadly, like the previous 5 winners, the winner has been who wants to lose the least, rather than who wants to win the most.

Don't believe me? - Can you remember Conrad Smith getting the ball at all tonight? - Me neither.

In fact, can you remember Ma'a Nonu getting the ball?

Again, the IRB tries to promote rugby as an attractive game by providing referee interpretations to open up the game. But coaches come to the big game scared to allow their team to throw it around.

Again, another final, another black eye for rugby.

 

[Dixpat]

Perhaps the AB only played as well as their opponent allowed them too.

 

[OB..]

Again, another final, another black eye for rugby.

Glad you enjoyed it. (It was an All Black eye, of course.)

As a neutral I saw it as a typically intense knockout battle with tremendous defence by both sides.

(If you didn't see Nonu getting the ball, you weren't watching.)

 

[4eyesbetter]

The black eye for rugby is the horrendous treacle slowness when it comes to recycling the ball. How are teams supposed to put together any kind of attacking move when the ball's taking 5-10 seconds to appear from the base with no sniff of a contest and the numbers are something like 11 attackers to 14 defenders, the defenders having enough time to lay barbed wire and landmines along the offside line?

 

[crossref]

I think rugby needs to (somehow) remove the unedifying sight of a ruck, lasting 20 seconds, with only one team actually participating in the ruck.

perhaps the law needs to be that if all of one team (let's call them france) pull out of the ruck, then there is a no longer a ruck...

 

[OB..]

I think rugby needs to (somehow) remove the unedifying sight of a ruck, lasting 20 seconds, with only one team actually participating in the ruck.

perhaps the law needs to be that if all of one team (let's call them france) pull out of the ruck, then there is a no longer a ruck...

I would prefer to give the referee the power to say "use it" like at a maul.

 

[The Fat]

I would prefer to give the referee the power to say "use it" like at a maul.

Agree.
Would definitely help if when a ball is clearly "won" and there to be used for the ref to apply a 5 second "use it" rule.

 

[4eyesbetter]

Surely the issue is that that situation arises in the first place? To my mind, if it gets to the point where the referee feels the need to call "use it", it's already slow enough and the problem's the same whether the half takes it out immediately or stands around another 10 seconds scratching his arse.

 

[Taff]

I think rugby needs to (somehow) remove the unedifying sight of a ruck, lasting 20 seconds, with only one team actually participating in the ruck. ..

Can't we just rely on 10.2(b)? :chin:

I would prefer to give the referee the power to say "use it" like at a maul.

Given that there are so many other similarities between the ruck and maul laws, that makes a lot of sense.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Don't believe me? - Can you remember Conrad Smith getting the ball at all tonight? - Me neither.

In fact, can you remember Ma'a Nonu getting the ball?

You must have been watching different game

Conrad Smith
Kicks = 0
Passes = 4
Runs = 4
Metres over gain line 15

Ma'a Nonu
Kicks = 2
Passes = 4
Runs = 10
Metres over gain line 17

 

[Ian_Cook]

Surely the issue is that that situation arises in the first place? To my mind, if it gets to the point where the referee feels the need to call "use it", it's already slow enough and the problem's the same whether the half takes it out immediately or stands around another 10 seconds scratching his arse.

Agree.
Would definitely help if when a ball is clearly "won" and there to be used for the ref to apply a 5 second "use it" rule.

I would prefer to give the referee the power to say "use it" like at a maul.

I think rugby needs to (somehow) remove the unedifying sight of a ruck, lasting 20 seconds, with only one team actually participating in the ruck.

perhaps the law needs to be that if all of one team (let's call them france) pull out of the ruck, then there is a no longer a ruck...

The black eye for rugby is the horrendous treacle slowness when it comes to recycling the ball. How are teams supposed to put together any kind of attacking move when the ball's taking 5-10 seconds to appear from the base with no sniff of a contest and the numbers are something like 11 attackers to 14 defenders, the defenders having enough time to lay barbed wire and landmines along the offside line?

Can't we just rely on 10.2(b)? :chin:

Given that there are so many other similarities between the ruck and maul laws, that makes a lot of sense.

There is a simple answer and we all know what it is....

BRING BACK RUCKING

Players on the ground blocking the ball, shoe-em
Players with their hands on the ball, stand on the hands

 

[uncle fester]

The black eye for rugby is the horrendous treacle slowness when it comes to recycling the ball. How are teams supposed to put together any kind of attacking move when the ball's taking 5-10 seconds to appear from the base with no sniff of a contest and the numbers are something like 11 attackers to 14 defenders, the defenders having enough time to lay barbed wire and landmines along the offside line?

This is where having a ref enforcing the laws would help. A few penalties for going off the feet and lying about the French side of the ruck would have speeded up their ball immeasurably. It was so noticeable that the French played within the laws and didn't infringe like that so the AB ruck ball was so much faster.

 

[Ian_Cook]

This is where having a ref enforcing the laws would help. A few penalties for going off the feet and lying about the French side of the ruck would have speeded up their ball immeasurably. It was so noticeable that the French played within the laws and didn't infringe like that so the AB ruck ball was so much faster.

So I guess you chose not to see any WHITE jerseys on the ground then.

Funny how you see what you want to see, because I saw a LOT more French player infringing at the ruck than All Blacks.

 

[Toby Warren]

Ian, many of us miss rucking. But get over it it's not coming back. The 'maul' use it is the next best solution.

 

[The Fat]

There is a simple answer and we all know what it is....

BRING BACK RUCKING

Players on the ground blocking the ball, shoe-em
Players with their hands on the ball, stand on the hands

Ian,
If players had been allowed to do that last night, Richie would have been in the Intensive Care Unit by half time:hap:

 

[4eyesbetter]

This is where having a ref enforcing the laws would help. A few penalties for going off the feet and lying about the French side of the ruck would have speeded up their ball immeasurably. It was so noticeable that the French played within the laws and didn't infringe like that so the AB ruck ball was so much faster.

Both as bad as each other. There's a reason that neither side came within a parsec of having a try-scoring opportunity without something unusual happening.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian,
If players had have been allowed to do that last night, Richie would have been in the Intensive Care Unit by half time:hap:

Same could be said for Bonnaire, Dusutoir and Harryordinary, all of whom spent just as much time on the ground on the NZ side of the ruck as Richie did on the French side.

The reality is that people see McCaw infringing because they CHOOSE to focus on him, to the exclusion of watching other players doing exactly the same things. This is just another examaple of McCaw bashing IMO, a popular pastime among supporters of teams that play against New Zealand. TBH, I just get sick to death of the bullshit posted on this and other forums about McCaw. He does not infringe any more or less than the fetchers of any other team in the world, Pocock for Australia, Brussow for South Africa etc.

 

[The Fat]

Same could be said for Bonnaire, Dusutoir and Harryordinary, all of whom spent just as much time on the ground on the NZ side of the ruck as Richie did on the French side.

The reality is that people see McCaw infringing because they CHOOSE to focus on him, to the exclusion of watching other players doing exactly the same things. This is just another examaple of McCaw bashing IMO, a popular pastime among supporters of teams that play against New Zealand. TBH, I just get sick to death of the bullshit posted on this and other forums about McCaw. He does not infringe any more or less than the fetchers of any other team in the world, Pocock for Australia, Brussow for South Africa etc.

Lighten up Ian. Did you not notice the smiley?
Yes people do focus on RMC because of his reputation. I think that a lot of referees are intimidated by Richie. I also believe that he would get pinged more if he was not the captain. He plays to the limits of what refs are prepared to give him and good luck to him for being smart enough to take advantage of that but the "royal saint" status that is afforded to him is a bit much. He is no saint. There is no doubt that he is one of the all time greats of the game but I do find it amusing how you can get a Kiwi's blood pressure to instantly go off the scale if you dare to imply that he sometimes flouts the laws or heaven forbid accuse him of being mortal.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Lighten up Ian. Did you not notice the smiley?
Yes people do focus on RMC because of his reputation. I think that a lot of referees are intimidated by Richie. I also believe that he would get pinged more if he was not the captain. He plays to the limits of what refs are prepared to give him and good luck to him for being smart enough to take advantage of that but the "royal saint" status that is afforded to him is a bit much. He is no saint. There is no doubt that he is one of the all time greats of the game but I do find it amusing how you can get a Kiwi's blood pressure to instantly go off the scale if you dare to imply that he sometimes flouts the laws or heaven forbid accuse him of being mortal.

Did I say he doesn't flout the Laws? Of course not. What I said was he is no worse or better than others.

Much of his "reputation" has been generated by tall poppy syndrome...

I notice that the Aussie media have gone quiet about Richie lately, now that they have their own cheat... :booty:

This is something you are going to have to put up with in the future as Richie's light fades.

 

[The Fat]

Did I say he doesn't flout the Laws? Of course not. What I said was he is no worse or better than others.

Much of his "reputation" has been generated by tall poppy syndrome...

I notice that the Aussie media have gone quiet about Richie lately, now that they have their own cheat... :booty:

This is something you are going to have to put up with in the future as Richie's light fades.

In the context of the image you posted, could the highlighted text be a hint of an admission Ian?:hap: (Notice I used the smiley thingy again?)