A few terminologies of rugby.

After seeing this world cup to its conclusion, there were a few things that surprised me, such as the inability of Australia to look cohesive and dangerous with their back line when playing the top nations. The fact that the media in New Zealand was saying this world cup must be won by a running team to ensure the survival of rugby Union and then only to see new Zealand adopt a total "foreign" game plan.

Here are some terminologies to help with future tournaments.

When a South African player has his hand or fingers in the near proximation of an opponent’s face, the immediate call is “eye gouge”, when another team’s player does the same thing it is called “a rake across the face”

When South Africa kicks the ball to chase and put the opponent under pressure it is called “ not playing rugby”, if another team does it, it is called “ intelligent play”

When South Africa runs direct at opponents it is called “bashing the line” when another team does it, it is called “setting up the next phase”

When South Africa misses tackles it is called “their defences are in tatters”, when other teams miss tackles it is called, well it isn’t really mentioned much.

When South Africa throws a hint of a forward pass, it is called “forward”, when other teams throw a forward pass, it is called “ Ooooh, marginal, and is due to inertia”

When South Africa is committing foul play, the call is “thugs!”and will be used in any random discussion when foul play is the topic, when other teams commit foul play, evidence must first be found to undeniably prove guilt, and is then never spoken of again.

When South Africa is off their feet at a ruck or hands in the ruck or not releasing, it is called “penalty!”, when other players commit the same transgressions, it is called “ up for interpretation”

When South Africa doesn’t score tries it is said “they can’t score tries”, when other teams don’t score tries it is due to excellent defence.

When South Africa wins a close game, it is said “the opponent really should have won, SA was lucky”, when other teams win a close match, then it is said “Well, they took their chances.”

And two for the All Blacks.

When the all Blacks lose, they “choked”, other teams just weren’t good enough.

When the all Blacks almost lose, then “they semi choked”

Some cheese to go with your whine ?

Thanks, that would be nice.

the whinge-o-meter is twitching like a mo-fo this morning, beks

dogtooth, can you actually deny any of these?

Have you never read them on 606v2 or heard the media?

Bitterness doesn't suit you Biltong!

The big talking point for me this tournament has to be the referees (sadly). Quite a number of high profile knock-out fixtures were heavily influenced by poor decisions, certainly more so than I recall at prior tournaments.

Yes, in 2003 England were harshly dealt with by the ref in the final, particularly at the scrum, but they still won.

Yes, New Zealand were unpicked by a forward pass in 2007, but I'm struggling to think of any other high profile poor calls that tournament (my memory is probably off here though).

This time round there seems to be quite a few. Hook's kick that never was against SA, a bunch in the Aus vs. SA QF, the offside rule being disapplied for the crucial drop goal in the Scotland vs. Argentina game, the Warburton red card, and of course the final itself, in which the breakdown became the wild west and the scrum an old fashioned lottery.

Whilst true it works for all teams. One for each 6 nations team:

England: When they do ANYTHING they are called arrogant
Wales: If any other nations wins a grand slam it is because they are good, if Wales do then it is a false dawn because the other teams were rubbish
Scotland: If they win it's only ever because they "dragged the other team down to their level"
Ireland: Any other team has an average age of 27 they are all at their peak. If Ireland do they are old
France: If they play well or badly it's just "because they are French" (note this one may actually be true...)
Italy: OK, they don't really win often enough to have any of these...

"When South Africa throws a hint of a forward pass, it is called “forward”, when other teams throw a forward pass, it is called “ Ooooh, marginal, and is due to "inertia” "

I think you mean momentum, rather than inertia (the resitance of an object to a change in motion or rest)?!

funnyexiledscot, I am not bitter at all, I am just calling it as I saw and read it during the past few years.

I am merely being facetious.

screamingaddabs wrote:Whilst true it works for all teams. One for each 6 nations team:

England: When they do ANYTHING they are called arrogant
Wales: If any other nations wins a grand slam it is because they are good, if Wales do then it is a false dawn because the other teams were rubbish
Scotland: If they win it's only ever because they "dragged the other team down to their level"
Ireland: Any other team has an average age of 27 they are all at their peak. If Ireland do they are old
France: If they play well or badly it's just "because they are French" (note this one may actually be true...)
Italy: OK, they don't really win often enough to have any of these...

These are very true, particularly Scotland, whose high profile wins in recent seasons are (a) because the other team didn't show up, or (b) don't count because we didn't score tries.

Australia: If anyone else is winning the scrum battle then they are scrummaging well, whereas if Australia are ever winning the scrums it's because the other team are scrummaging badly or because of the ref.

Nice one ,Biltong a bit ascerbic but right .You missed out Ritchie Mc Cheat the invisible man.Or France won everywhere on the park but the score board.
IF your side wins by skilful number 7 play,Warburton,Pocock,Broussow,Back et al.HE[ insert name] ruled the breakdown BEST in the World.
IF your side loses to the All Blacks .McCaw greatest cheat in the game,got away with murder etc.
Referees are human,they make mistakes,THE best sides adapt to his rulings.
WHEN he gets it wrong ,we get REF robbed us THAT occurred in many RWC matches .DUE to rigid IRB guidelines instead of letting the officials use there common sense.
WE WUZ ROBBED BY THE REF,oldest one in the book NOT just this Final,in other RWCS and matches.Both rugby and soccer when your team loses.
It is plain that IRB needs to simplify laws around Scrum/Breakdown in particular.They are a minefield ANY Ref .could ping EITHER side for something under the current laws.
Also it makes sense to expand the TMO`s role,and maybe add sensors to ball and goal posts.
THAT at least would stop all this a vital goal kick went over/did`nt go over
because of a TV camera shot indicating otherwise.

Griff wrote:"When South Africa throws a hint of a forward pass, it is called “forward”, when other teams throw a forward pass, it is called “ Ooooh, marginal, and is due to "inertia” "

I think you mean momentum, rather than inertia (the resitance of an object to a change in motion or rest)?!

Inertia is the name for the tendency of an object in motion to remain in motion, or an object at rest to remain at rest, unless acted upon by a force. This concept was quantified in Newton's First Law of Motion.

biltongbek wrote:dogtooth, can you actually deny any of these?

Have you never read them on 606v2 or heard the media?

i'm not saying youre wrong.

just trying to cheer you up a bit

I am not down.

Not having a good morning are you petal? Try removing the South Africa bits and put in England. That works too & should make you feel better.

Here are a few more for you.

World Class Performance = Running in 10 tries against Namibia

An Epic World Class Performance (we really are going to win the RWC) = Losing closely to South Africa

1 - 15 World Class and definite starters for Lions 2013 = Beating a confused & aged Ireland.

WE ARE THE BEST TEAM IN THE WORLD = Losing to France. Because if we had 15 men we would have thrashed them and they only lost by 1 pt to NZ.

biltongbek wrote:

Griff wrote:"When South Africa throws a hint of a forward pass, it is called “forward”, when other teams throw a forward pass, it is called “ Ooooh, marginal, and is due to "inertia” "

I think you mean momentum, rather than inertia (the resitance of an object to a change in motion or rest)?!

Inertia is the name for the tendency of an object in motion to remain in motion, or an object at rest to remain at rest, unless acted upon by a force. This concept was quantified in Newton's First Law of Motion.

Exactly, so a rolling ball will slow down due to friction, or a stationary ball will only roll if a force is applied. What I think you're talking about is the theory of a flat pass being actually forward due to momentum, as demonstrated by the tests done in Australia which showed a flat pass thrown while running will drift forward, even when passed backwards, due to momentum. The only inertia in a rugby pass is the inertia overcome by the muscles to throw the ball, and the air resistance that slows the ball in flight!

Griff I am not a scientist and yes momentum in this case applies just as well as inertia which i have seen in articles.

But for the sake of the argument, you are more right than I.

But just out of interest, if momentum allows the ball to carry on in a forward line and inertia effectively does the same thing.,

Both will be slowed by wind resistance and eventually hit the ground because of gravity.

How is inertia that will keep the ball traveling forward wrong?

If you're English and your side is playing on TV then the smug presenter will talk about Jonny and 'that kick'.
If you're Scottish or Welsh and your side is playing on TV, but england are not, the smug presenter will talk about Jonny and 'that kick'.

Apparently it´s choking, win or lose mate.

Just a bit of fun this post, even though it does have an underlying serious side. What people think of your country is not what you think. We all wear blinkers to some degree. But some run around blindfolded all the time. They usually make up for their loss of sight with the loudest voice...

They didn't really do tests did they? That's basic physics! an object has vector speed [0 5] and you apply a vector speed of [5 0], the resultant is [5 5] obviously. You hardly need to test it - air resistance isn't going to make that much difference.

Griff wrote:If you're English and your side is playing on TV then the smug presenter will talk about Jonny and 'that kick'.
If you're Scottish or Welsh and your side is playing on TV, but england are not, the smug presenter will talk about Jonny and 'that kick'.

As sure as death and taxes

testing this thanks button, have you guys seen it?

biltongbek wrote:testing this thanks button, have you guys seen it?

Nope, where do I find it?

I think you can only do it if you start a thread.

I don't know if it only comes on the articles you write, but it showed next to the quote tag on your post.

But now that i clicked it once it still shows but not available.

This post is funny beacuse it is true!

Some sterotypes just dont go away; South Africa playing a boring physical armwrestling type of game plan (even when scoring tries), France being mercurial exciting runners (even when they grind out victories), England being boring, arrogant and relying on 3 points (See SA). Theres one for every country!

Here you go screamingaddabs and Biltong. Even if you thrown the ball over your head backwards while running at pace, it can still be a forward pass due to momentum, which is what I thought Biltong was referring to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMlDy2jP9s&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLA375899938FDE78A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

However, with inertia I can't see how the term would be used by any rugby fan to describe why a forward pass is OK, or even by scientists for that matter. The terms iteslf doesn't make sense in this context, does it?

Oz, exciting backline powderpuff forwards, good to watch but never wins anything against a real team

I don´t think you´ve got the point of this post OzT.

Just kidding mate. Just out of curiosity what would people say about a Pacific Island team like Samoa or Tonga? Good at tackling and open play but no set piece or structure?

If you're English and your side is playing on TV then the smug presenter will talk about Jonny and 'that kick'.
If you're Scottish or Welsh and your side is playing on TV, but england are not, the smug presenter will talk about Jonny and 'that kick'.

If Lawerance Dalalligio is commentating on England he will mention he captained them and how they were more talented/passionate/focussed in his day, if Lawerance Dalalligio is commentating on anybody else he will mention how 'he' (never 'we') beat them whilst playing for England and if Lawerance Dalalligio is commentating on a RWC Final he will mention he has played in two of them (repeatedly) and probabley try and claim he made/created/came up with the ide for 'that kick'.

Griff wrote:Here you go screamingaddabs and Biltong. Even if you thrown the ball over your head backwards while running at pace, it can still be a forward pass due to momentum, which is what I thought Biltong was referring to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMlDy2jP9s&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLA375899938FDE78A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

However, with inertia I can't see how the term would be used by any rugby fan to describe why a forward pass is OK, or even by scientists for that matter. The terms iteslf doesn't make sense in this context, does it?

It does kind of make sense (I am currently doing a PhD involving Inertia), though I'm beginning to side with momentum being the choice of word in this case. Basically if you have high inertia then more force is needed to change your current motion. As the rugby ball is already travelling forward with the player it requires force in the opposite direction to stop it from continuing to move forwards.

Assuming the ball is travelling at 10m/s forwards and has a mass of roughly 0.5kg, to be stopped from moving forward within a second would require a force of:

v = u +at
therfore a=(v-u)/t

a=(0-10)/1
a=-10 (an acceleration of 10 m/s/s in the opposite direction)

F = ma
F = 0.5*10
F = 5N

This is about 0.5 kilograms force to use non metric but more easily understood units. That's going to be quite a strong breeze and even then that only stops the ball moving any further forward. It's still travelled:

s = ut +0.5at^2
s = 10 +0.5*-10*1^2
s = 5 metres forward.

the angle backwards that you need to throw the ball to maintain a "flat" pass depends on the speed of your pass. Assuming a speed of pass of 15m/s (a decent estimate I think):

angle = arcsin(10/15)
angle = 41.8 degrees

this assumes that there is no air resistance. If there was the angle would also depend on the distance you are passing, the strength of the wind, the weight of the ball, the aerodynamics of the ball.

Over all it is actually highly unlikely that many passes at pace in Rugby Union are in fact backwards at all. I reckon at best it's 50:50 at best for a long "flat" pass whilst running, probably far worse a percentage.

So our pass wasn't forward.

Actually it probably was



physically.....

I didn´t do a PhD on inertia so I don´t claim to be an expert. But I did do a keg on inertia and I vaguely recall I fell forward.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I didn´t do a PhD on inertia so I don´t claim to be an expert. But I did do a keg on inertia and I vaguely recall I fell forward.

(I wish there was a more "laughing with you" rather than "laughing at you" smiley, this one always looks slightly malicious)

When South Africa throws a hint of a forward pass, it is called “forward”, when other teams throw a forward pass, it is called “ Ooooh, marginal, and is due to inertia”

Look, Bruce Lawrence didn't throw the forward pass, De Villiers did. You lost because that was your only chance at a try and you fluffed it. No offence

Glas a du wrote:

When South Africa throws a hint of a forward pass, it is called “forward”, when other teams throw a forward pass, it is called “ Ooooh, marginal, and is due to inertia”

Look, Bruce Lawrence didn't throw the forward pass, De Villiers did. You lost because that was your only chance at a try and you fluffed it. No offence

no offence taken, but you missed a lot of that game if you only saw that one chance.

By the way, I need to thank all you guys for helping me with my therapy. My therapist said if I keep on talking about it, and kept on improving by having one mental breakdwon less per week, I might be OK to watch the next world cup.

She has also joined the petition though that Bruce Lawrence must never officate any test match. For the sake of others and not just South Africans.

no offence taken, but you missed a lot of that game if you only saw that one chance.

No you're right, Australia had one and all (you know the one where Burger Flip up and they scored)

Exactly kia, I guess the impression, of SSI sides, are ferosious tacklers and exciting runners, often with one hand passes, but hopeless at set pieces and probably discipline...

Nope, guess I missed the point of this post, plus, I know nuting bout physics!!!

Samoa - "have beaten Wales twice at World Cups..." No mention of their other notable scalps. Who was it they beat in the warm ups?

Well that only happened because bruce Lawrence wasn't officiating.

I always thought enertia was the measure of resistance (and therefore a measure of the force) needed to move an object from stationary to a certain speed and momentum was the remaining energy (kinetic if you will) that continued to propell the object unless acted upon by an external force (resistance / gravity).

Been a few years though.

biltongbek wrote:Well that only happened because bruce Lawrence wasn't officiating.

Inertia in Afrikaans is "traagheid"

Now I am going back to my days at school.

It was explained to us in this manner.

Ignoring gravity or any other external resisitance.

If a train is in a stationary position, an external force will need to be employed to get it moving. Once it is moving an external force is needed in an opposite direction and equal to the force it is travelling at to stop it.

Thus if you are running with a ball, it is ina state of movement, and when released (forget for a moment whether it is passed backwards or forwards) it will conitnue in a forward motion until it is countered by an opposite force.

Therefor, in my humble uneducated opinion , whether it is moving forward due to inertia or momentum, it is really just splitting hairs.

but hey as I sad, I am no scientist, and for the purpose of the conversation either is understood.

screamingaddabs wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I didn´t do a PhD on inertia so I don´t claim to be an expert. But I did do a keg on inertia and I vaguely recall I fell forward.

(I wish there was a more "laughing with you" rather than "laughing at you" smiley, this one always looks slightly malicious)

There's always (it's typed : laugh : without the spaces)

Metal Tiger wrote:I always thought enertia was the measure of resistance (and therefore a measure of the force) needed to move an object from stationary to a certain speed and momentum was the remaining energy (kinetic if you will) that continued to propell the object unless acted upon by an external force (resistance / gravity).

Been a few years though.

I've always seen Inertia as more energy based. I should also point out that I'm still doing the PhD and knowing about inertia is a tiny bit of it! For a rotating mass (the thing I have to worry about Energy = 0.5 * (Inertia) * (Rotational Speed)^2). The linear equivalent is kinetic energy = 0.5*mass*velocity^2

In linear mechanics (in a straight line) the boundary between mass and inertia is rather blurred (they're kind of the same thing).

energy is measured in Joules which are kgm^2/s^2. Momentum is in kgm/s.

To be honest it's all semantics really, especially as outside of science and engineering people use terms loosely anyway. We all just mean "it's going forwards and so it will continue to do so", so really I suppose we just mean it has velocity in the forward direction and Newton's first law applies....

I've bored myself slightly, so I've probably bored everyone else too...

So back to topic:


If a Pacific Islander tackles someone high then it's a red card, if a kiwi does it "PLAY ON!"

screamingaddabs wrote:If a Pacific Islander tackles someone high then it's a red card, if a kiwi does it "PLAY ON!"

WRONG, it is a penalty to New Zealand, for putting their player in a position where he had to endanger the ball carrier.

biltongbek wrote:

WRONG, it is a penalty to New Zealand, for putting their player in a position where he had to endanger the ball carrier.

Of course! If the player tackled was French then they're just play acting anyway to get the opposition sent off and probably eye gouged the opposition and so deserved it.