England suspend kicking coaches !!!!

First topic message reminder :

So it looks as though England have taken action for their misdemeanour on the weekend. I suppose they had to show that they were doing something about it and this is probably the least damaging thing they could have done. Still it is a little bit drastic I think, but there you go, as long as Wales keep their noses clean I am not really that bothered:-

The Rugby Football Union has suspended two of England's coaches for the Pool B decider against Scotland on Saturday.
Kicking coach Dave Alred and fitness specialist Paul Stridgeon were found to have illegally switched balls during England's 67-3 win over Romania.
England manager Martin Johnson said: "It's unfortunate that we have had to take this action but ultimately there was a breach of the laws of the game.
"But it's happened, some action has been taken and we have to move on."
The pair will be banned from entering Eden Park, the venue for the Scotland game, following an internal RFU review of the incident.
World Cup organisers Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) have investigated the matter and will take no further action.

aucklandlaurie wrote: gatts I in no way am ahypocrite
So if I got one of the trainers to get the scalpal out and give aplayer a nick,and get an extra adavantage of a blood bin,in your words that wouldnt be cheating because the referee didnt give apenalty.

what incident are you referring to and how does that have anything to do with your hypocrisy, making statements about 'Irish refs' and then making statements about 'hate'

Give it up, not even sure you know what hypocrisy is!

Changing the ball, to save the blushes of off-form Wilkinson against the laws of the game is pure arrogance, and obvious cheating. It's humiliating that England felt they needed to develop this strategy, and typical of their cynicism that they clearly had a pre-rolled plan to blame the scapegoats.

It's pathetic, especially against a minnow side like Romania. England should have been made an example of by the IRB.

Trying to compare this kind of dirt track underhandedness with being penalised by foolish referees too stupid to realise when one team just has a dominant scrum, is really scraping the excuse barrel. Especially trotting out that nonsense argument from the mouth of an Aussie has-been is just desperate.

Why not just put your embarrassed hands up, and try to move on from the ugly affair, rather than trying to defend it.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Pjholyoake
You are offensive and I find youre comments ar motivated by noyhing other than hate.
Again penalties awarded in a game bare no relevance to a cheating or are you too thick too understand that?

Then you clearly haven't followed this thread then have you?

I'm not offensive, you're over-sensitive.

My comments were motivated ny nothing more than a question raised by one of your compatriots, I was merely being helpful - a bit like a Golden Retriever?

Penalties are awarded in rugby for infringements against the Laws of the game, given that they are against the Laws and the Laws are there to uphold the principal of fair play, I think you'll find there's a direct correlation between penalties and cheating.

I've got an IQ of 167, so I can easily ride above accusations of being "thick".

On the subject of being thick though;

1. My username is PJHolybloke not Pjholyoake.
2. Your grammer and spooling are apalling (yeah that is totally on porpoise)
3. For all of the above I'd rather think of you as having fat fingers and a small keyboard than being plain thick.

Like I keep repeating, it's not me with the axe to grind.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Changing the ball, to save the blushes of off-form Wilkinson against the laws of the game is pure arrogance, and obvious cheating. It's humiliating that England felt they needed to develop this strategy, and typical of their cynicism that they clearly had a pre-rolled plan to blame the scapegoats.

It's pathetic, especially against a minnow side like Romania. England should have been made an example of by the IRB.

Trying to compare this kind of dirt track underhandedness with being penalised by foolish referees too stupid to realise when one team just has a dominant scrum, is really scraping the excuse barrel. Especially trotting out that nonsense argument from the mouth of an Aussie has-been is just desperate.

Why not just put your embarrassed hands up, and try to move on from the ugly affair, rather than trying to defend it.

You...advocating the abandonment of a tired old argument....inspired...try taking your own advice!

Hey mate, calm down with the personal insults.

Penalties are part of the game. On average a team concedes about 11. They are issued for infringements of the laws as determined by the referee, not for "cheating".

Cheating is an entirely different kettle of fish. Comprising things like bloodgate, sneaking 16 men on to the pitch, or illegally switching the balls to give your kicker an advantage.

Bonus points to someone with a hyperbolesque claim of IQ if they can tell us which country came up with all of those little gems of cheating.

TheGreyGhost wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:Answer the question: My example of England cheating and getting away with it is well publicised. Please provide your example of NZ cheating and getting away with it?

The figures are "total number of penalties", "average penalties per game" "number of yellow cards"

USA / 58 / 14.5 / 3
NZ / 40 / 13.3 / 0
ENG / 38 / 12.6 / 2
NAM / 50 / 12.5 / 1
RUS / 36 / 12.0 / 1
GEO / 24 / 12.0 / 0
TON / 34 / 11.3 / 3
JAP / 33 / 11.0 / 2
SAM / 33 / 11.0 / 1
CAN / 33 / 11.0 / 0
AUS / 32 / 10.6 / 0
ARG / 32 / 10.6 / 0
ROM / 41 / 10.3 / 1
SCO / 29 / 9.6 / 0
WAL / 29 / 9.6 / 0
IRE / 28 / 9.3 / 0
FRA / 28 / 9.3 / 0
FIJ / 27 / 9.0 / 0
ITA / 24 / 8.0 / 1
SA / 23 / 7.6 / 0


What do these figures tell us?

Well, given that penalties are awarded for teams "cheating", and yellow cards are supposed to be awarded for repetetive "cheating" I'd say the proof you're looking for is in the second line on the list, the one that starts NZ.

Anytime soldier, don't mention it.

Yawn. Tired old argument. Yellow cards are awarded for persistent offending often by one player, or collectively by a team of the same kind. NZ have suffered a lot of technical scrum penalties in various areas of the field and offensive breakdown penalties. You rarely see a yellow card for these, unless it's persistent scrum infringing to prevent a try.

Jog on with your Aussie stats, son.

It's not an argument old bean, it was a genuine attempt to answer your initial question.

Yawn? Tired old argument? Surely you can't be suggesting that you're suffering the effects of boredom from monotonous repetition? With your reputation?

You lives by the sword - I don't see as you can have any complaints when someone takes your sword off you and pops it somewhere sensitive.


Oh, and almost incidentally, Biltongbek is a Saffer not an Aussie, so jog on yerself and pick up an atlas.

Casper
The problem with people like Gatts and PJholyoake, they dont have any idea where the rules of the game start and end,let alone that cheating is of much wider boundaries.
Their only motivation is ti be childish and hurtful as possible, I dont know why?

TheGreyGhost wrote:Hey mate, calm down with the personal insults.

Penalties are part of the game. On average a team concedes about 11. They are issued for infringements of the laws as determined by the referee, not for "cheating".

Cheating is an entirely different kettle of fish. Comprising things like bloodgate, sneaking 16 men on to the pitch, or illegally switching the balls to give your kicker an advantage.

Bonus points to someone with a hyperbolesque claim of IQ if they can tell us which country came up with all of those little gems of cheating.

You have just cut your own throat by being so subjective GG. Forgive me for saying so but it shows a very immature attitude and indicates that like many of your countrymen, you think you have the right to make your own rules and decide what is and what is not cheating. not so.

The rules of the game are documented and designed to preclude subjectivity, everyone knows them except some try and break them, they cheat, the only interpretation that can be placed on them is that of the ref and therefore also subjective.

Hands in the ruck is cheating in the same way bloodgate was. I accept the degree is different but you cannot measure objectively what cheating is and therefore we defer to the ref to make that decision.

Infringements are cheating, of course they are. it is the degree of cheating that makes the issue emotive but do not think that they are not all somewhere on the same spectrum.

Gatts
Some Irish referees dont know the rules....

aucklandlaurie wrote: Casper
The problem with people like Gatts and PJholyoake, they dont have any idea where the rules of the game start and end,let alone that cheating is of much wider boundaries.
Their only motivation is ti be childish and hurtful as possible, I dont know why?

Pathetic reply laurie. i can see no evidence of my being childish or hurtful, this is the argument of an old woman...you love to play the victim don't you yet it is you that starts slagging of people based on their national heritage or are you going to deny that xenophobic comment?

aucklandlaurie wrote: Gatts
Some Irish referees dont know the rules....

OMG you plumb new depths. check your fire fella...think you mean some referees don't know the rules...either name the specific ref or please shut up as the fact that you have identiifed them by their national heritage is highly embarassing and offensive.

please withdraw that comment

TheGreyGhost wrote:Hey mate, calm down with the personal insults.

Penalties are part of the game. On average a team concedes about 11. They are issued for infringements of the laws as determined by the referee, not for "cheating".

Cheating is an entirely different kettle of fish. Comprising things like bloodgate, sneaking 16 men on to the pitch, or illegally switching the balls to give your kicker an advantage.

Bonus points to someone with a hyperbolesque claim of IQ if they can tell us which country came up with all of those little gems of cheating.

Honestly? OK I'll take a freebie - it was England! I'll ignore the "hyperbolesque claim" reference because I can, really easily.

You're such a giver TGG, if there's one thing I really admire about you, I'm sure it'll come to me one day.

As we're now onto the semantics of "cheating" allow me to indulge myself; I put the word in speechmarks on purpose, not because it isn't cheating but rather because giving away penalties through cheating is considered to be an occupational hazard in rugby nowadays.

I made my post on penalties in response to your request for proof that NZ get away scot free with cheating, ask and you shall receive, I can understand that you don't like the evidence, but that does not in anyway undermine it's veracity in anyone's mind but yours.

For the avoidance of doubt:

Cheating: present participle of cheat (Verb)
1. Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination.

Pick the bones out of that: just because NZ are cynical enough to commit their penalty offences by rota, and tend to do it on the 10 metre line as opposed to England's rather dull and stupid efforts in their own 22, doesn't make it less of an offense, it it were it would be down-graded to a free kick wouldn't it?

Penalties are given for unfair play that would, if it went unpunished, gain the offending team an advantage, it happens in the game of rugby and that's why penalties were invented.

NZ have P for plenty of them, and if only England were as good at the art of cheating, the examples you gave of England's pathetic attempts above wouldn't have been noticed.

Like I've said before and will repeat again, it's not me with the axe to grind is it?

gatt
So you say that any one that adopts a contrary opinion to yours is "playing the victim" come on son wake up, If I abused you like some New Zealanders get abuse by the idiots on here you would be the first one to take offence.

1. I have not abused you
2. You are playing the victim...you turn debate into childish and hurtful if you are challenged and yet seem to be so obtuse as to not recognise that?
2. I have asked you to withdraw the comment about 'Irish' refs which constitutes abuse, that is all

Seriously, withdraw it

aucklandlaurie wrote: Casper
The problem with people like Gatts and PJholyoake, they dont have any idea where the rules of the game start and end,let alone that cheating is of much wider boundaries.
Their only motivation is ti be childish and hurtful as possible, I dont know why?

My grasp of the Laws of the game are about as clear as my grasp of English, I suspect it is a similar situation for you and I am starting to re-evaluate my thoughts about your fingers, but I'm always happy to give the benefit of the doubt.

The truth often hurts aukland, but you can't blame the people who deliver it, the truth will remain long after they've been and gone, I certainly disagree with the accusation that Gatts is childish and hurtful, he's a cat lover.

you guys will never understand competitive rugby played at a serious level..

aucklandlaurie wrote: you guys will never understand competitive rugby played at a serious level..

... and there goes the benefit of the doubt.