Earning Respect

"All Blacks didn't respect us - Dusautoir"

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10820191

Seems some odd thing for Dusautoir to talking about. Since everybody know that (a) NZ fear nothing more than meet France in the knock out phase of RWC! and second you have to earning respect, not repeatedly show up with a weak combinator to take a 50 point hammering, lose to Tonga struggle past ENG and then demand respect from the world.

Am I right?

The title of the article is completely misleading, wrong and in fact he never actually even said that.
The NZ herald is just trying to stir things up, and you're helping their cause.

Read the third paragraph to start off with.

"We didn't know what the New Zealand players thought about us but around them we certainly weren't respected," he said.

That doesn't sound like he said the "Allblacks didn't respect us" (French).

For goodness sake do people ever read the article or just the titles...

Read that article yesterday too.

Think you are right respect must be earnt.
I think he believes that NZ were a bit complacent in final having beaten the French in the group stages and watched them play poorly throughout the tournment.

in whole agree with most of what you are saying though

After it look like *some* members of the French team were use the dubious tactic of eye gouging and only escape because of the small window for citing then it make me wonder if they earn any respect even to the final. This is my mind anyway. It sound like a lot of sour grapes and poor loser syndromes.

anotherworldofpain wrote:After it look like *some* members of the French team were use the dubious tactic of eye gouging and only escape because of the small window for citing then it make me wonder if they earn any respect even to the final. This is my mind anyway. It sound like a lot of sour grapes and poor loser syndromes.

Read the bloody article you Poopie stirrer

And you should watch the interview as well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2Qd9EZSIFo&feature=plcp

anotherworldofpain wrote:After it look like *some* members of the French team were use the dubious tactic of eye gouging and only escape because of the small window for citing then it make me wonder if they earn any respect even to the final. This is my mind anyway. It sound like a lot of sour grapes and poor loser syndromes.

different issue altogether. if you want to write and article about gouging i suggest you do that.

In terms of earning respect in the final France certainly did that. if fact many would argue that they should have won that final.

The title is deliberately misleading but in fairness they add in how they misquoted Dusatoir in the headline. Typical gumpf to shift some copies and spark debate.

It wasn't just the NZ media though. I remember saying the pool game against France meant nothing and that the slate was wiped clean in the final. That was roundly dismissed by many neutral observers and comments about how that French team was one of the worst in memory seemed common.

To be fair France beat ENG and knock them out. Isn't that the first time FRA beat ENG in a world cup? So they make a lot of respect there, and also beat the very good WAL team to get to the final.

I dont know who was disrespect them at all. But my point not one about gouge at all! I simply remark that if they play B teams and suggestion they might have "throw the game" then they can't get upset because someone call them out on it. Against TGA they were TERRIBLE (and also TGA very good) is not some disrespect to say they should do better and are "fickels"

Agree with the above. He obviously is speaking about the NZ media. However, this had a lot to do with partial understanding of the English language and mistranslation by the French team. It fired them up though.

players getting miss quoted again with the respect thing ,just like halfpenny a few weeks back . i dont think thats how New Zealand players mind works . they seem to focus on them selves more to get the job done rather worrying about who ever they playing .

Although much is made of Tonga beating France in fact Tonga played NZ in the opening game. NZ built up a healthy lead then swapped Jimmy Cowan for Piri Weepu at h/t and lost their mojo. Tonga outscored them in the 2nd so the Tongans showed them up a bit too. There were a quite a few odd results so given the longstanding Kiwi RWC bogey and that the ABs were expected to be victorious on home turf I don't suppose there was a lot of respecting going on

"I told them (the team) to be aware of what image we would leave during this World Cup, that was the message I gave them, unfortunately they listened".. Well he got that right.

I love it how after the final Mccaw didnt even acknowledge their presence in the stadium.

I read the article not just the Headlines,respect has to be earned the All Blacks respected France so much.They gave up there running game playing it tight there 9 and designated Goal kicker suffered a groin strain in warm up.McCaw was on one Leg,and they were down to there 4th choice 10 to win the match.Finals have been mainly grim grind them down affairs had not Parra been injured Trinh Duc would`nt have been on the pitch.He showed that he should have started in the first place.The French Coach had openly stated he was going to play an understrength French side inthe group stage knowing bar miracles he was certain to qualify.Because he did`nt think he could beat NZ twice in NZ so who was showing who respect?France in two RWCs tried to finesse there path to Final by throwing the pool stages.They did indeed beat the ABs twice in RWC`s and were twice beaten by them in turn.BUT they then failed to turn up for the following matches.1999 win was blighted by the French tactics of scrotum squeezing and eye gouging.In the 2011 final there was clear evidence of an attempted gouge on McCaw.NZ did NOT cite the player concerned BUT it was independently reviiewd by the Citings Commission.The proceess has since been changed to allow a longer period of review because of the incident.Much of the problem was with the weight of 20 years on there shoulders nerves got to the AB`s.They respected ALL there opponents they had trod on too many banana skins in the past NOT to.France lost all respect when they threw the Tonga match,NO ONE will convince me otherwise.A penalty at the death a certain 3 but a voice came from on high.A try was needed to make sure they qualified.Voila two passes try don`t tell me they could`nt have done that at any time.The AB`s feared the Boks ansd OZ more in RWCS,the count was 2-1 to the Boks.Until the Semi NZ had never beaten OZ in a RWC THAT was there Final.

Emack at least you had your excuses ready in case you lost.

Best to be prepared.

But there is it Beshocked - they didn't lost. Even though now so many rewriting this history "France should have won" is just some jealous nonsense. The better team won despite many injury and some filthy tactic by France that just adds to the reputation of France as the dirtiest team in rugby who will use the worst kind of underhand tactic.

If they want to get the respect they need to learn to play better and stop the diabolical cheap shots.

anotherworldofpain wrote:But there is it Beshocked - they didn't lost. Even though now so many rewriting this history "France should have won" is just some jealous nonsense. The better team won despite many injury and some filthy tactic by France that just adds to the reputation of France as the dirtiest team in rugby who will use the worst kind of underhand tactic.

If they want to get the respect they need to learn to play better and stop the diabolical cheap shots.

complete rubbish. France should have had any number of penalties in the last 10 mins which could have swong a close match in France's favour. you are not giving France the credit they deserve for that final.

You state that NZ had important injuries. you are correct. have you even considered the problems france had throughout the finals.

Also you are judging France on the actions of an individual which is short sighted and petty.

if you wish to talk about dirty play i suggest you start another article and stop changing the subject on this article.

Not sure when you think they should get the penalty? I watched this game a few times and can see that NZ just defend very well and with composure. A lot of the teams who made the semi-finals and not further just lacked composure, did something rash and it cost them the game. So in the finals composure so important.

Also the France try came from off-side on the ruck, so if something was missing was about even.

France as the team have continuous reputation for foul play of the most heinous kind. Both squirrel grip, gouging and also for play acting up a foul.

A lot of times in the RWC French players pretend to be concussed to stop the game and slow down the opposition attack or milk the penalty. It's not in the sportsmanship and makes me annoy to see them demand respect when they don't earn it.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Not sure when you think they should get the penalty? I watched this game a few times and can see that NZ just defend very well and with composure. A lot of the teams who made the semi-finals and not further just lacked composure, did something rash and it cost them the game. So in the finals composure so important.

Also the France try came from off-side on the ruck, so if something was missing was about even.

France as the team have continuous reputation for foul play of the most heinous kind. Both squirrel grip, gouging and also for play acting up a foul.

A lot of times in the RWC French players pretend to be concussed to stop the game and slow down the opposition attack or milk the penalty. It's not in the sportsmanship and makes me annoy to see them demand respect when they don't earn it.

Can i suggest that you read the rules, get an understanding of them and watch the last 10 minutes again.

also as i stated before maybe you should start another thread giving out about how fility the french are.

I know the laws (not rules) very well caiomhicnenter! Perhaps you might like to try to advise about some specific incident (such as I have done) instead of speak in platitudes and waffle?

Point at an incident and let us debate it like adults?

This is my thread already! If you want to talk about your perception about injustive in the final maybe start another thread and take your own advise?

France were highly motivated for that game and it showed. Just like Ireland in this years second test France were able to lift themselves to such a performance despite their poor tonga and other pool efforts.

It happens every now and then that teams lift far and beyond normal usual improvement levels when they meet the ABs that we just don't see it coming sometimes. Recent history is littered with them.

In fact its plain unfair that these sides don't give us ample warning that the superman outfits have been donned I'm surprised we win as many as we do.

anotherworldofpain wrote:I know the laws (not rules) very well caiomhicnenter! Perhaps you might like to try to advise about some specific incident (such as I have done) instead of speak in platitudes and waffle?

Point at an incident and let us debate it like adults?

This is my thread already! If you want to talk about your perception about injustive in the final maybe start another thread and take your own advise?

Would you like to have a look at the NZ players sealing off the ball or would you like to ignore it. "know the Laws" my back side.

you may have started the tread, you dont own it, it belongs to the community so be a good little boy and stay on topic.

BLAH BLAH BLAH.

HERSH you scamp.

Referees performances are criticised in All RWCS especially if your team lost.France may well have had the worst of the Refs decision in the 2011final,The Boks in there quarter final and and Wales in there Semi supporters claimed the same.Joubert was by public acclaim THE best Ref inthe RWC he earned the Final.ALL refs favour the home side in 50/50 calls France may well have had the bad end of the deal.BUT they should have taken it out of the Refs hands,and set up a Drop Goal attempt IF they were good enough.They did`nt because they could`nt believe they would`nt get a penalty shot .BUT given the Goal kicking by BOTH sides in the Final that was a maybe anyway.
Just as the AllBlacks went the whole second half without a kickable penalty award in 2007.They did`nt have the foresight to set up a drop attempt with a reasonable chance of success.In 2007 France were the better side in over the full 80,The AllBlacks were 2011 just over the full 80.Its history let it go Fance at some point will win a RWC.BUT they will have to do what every winner to date has done win every match.

emack2 wrote:Referees performances are criticised in All RWCS especially if your team lost.France may well have had the worst of the Refs decision in the 2011final,The Boks in there quarter final and and Wales in there Semi supporters claimed the same.Joubert was by public acclaim THE best Ref inthe RWC he earned the Final.ALL refs favour the home side in 50/50 calls France may well have had the bad end of the deal.BUT they should have taken it out of the Refs hands,and set up a Drop Goal attempt IF they were good enough.They did`nt because they could`nt believe they would`nt get a penalty shot .BUT given the Goal kicking by BOTH sides in the Final that was a maybe anyway.
Just as the AllBlacks went the whole second half without a kickable penalty award in 2007.They did`nt have the foresight to set up a drop attempt with a reasonable chance of success.In 2007 France were the better side in over the full 80,The AllBlacks were 2011 just over the full 80.Its history let it go Fance at some point will win a RWC.BUT they will have to do what every winner to date has done win every match.

Just to clarify, i have no problem with NZ victory. they were the best team over the competition and like you say France didnt take their chances either. My point was that had one or two obivious decisions gone Frances way the result MIGHT have been different

Blah

Well...they don't have to win every match just because others have. They just need to win th final. They could have won last year yet lost more matches than other sides...SA for example.

caoimhincentre wrote:

Would you like to have a look at the NZ players sealing off the ball or would you like to ignore it. "know the Laws" my back side.

So no examples then?

What I saw was the ref continuing to police the breakdown in the last 10 minutes pretty much the same as he did the previous 70. During which both sides benefitted/lost out. As AWOP said the biggest officiating error was in the lead up to the French try. But we shouldn't mention that as it doesn't fit in with the robbed underdog narrative.

caoimhincentre wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:I know the laws (not rules) very well caiomhicnenter! Perhaps you might like to try to advise about some specific incident (such as I have done) instead of speak in platitudes and waffle?

Point at an incident and let us debate it like adults?

This is my thread already! If you want to talk about your perception about injustive in the final maybe start another thread and take your own advise?

Would you like to have a look at the NZ players sealing off the ball or would you like to ignore it. "know the Laws" my back side.

you may have started the tread, you dont own it, it belongs to the community so be a good little boy and stay on topic.

Caiomhincentre, please don't descend to being patronising thanks. Let's keep it adult here.

You can't just say "look at the NZ players sealing off the ball". That's just too waffly. If you really think there is some conspiracy then you have to compellingly making your case. Now you have to showing some things to make your case:

(a) This was happening
(b) This was not penalised
(c) This was not consistently throughout the game (that is that referee change his style in the last 10 minutes as you claim - otherwise is just all blacks clever enough to adapt to referee interpreting)
(d) France did not do the same thing or were penalise when they do it.

Some specific incident and timing to the game or otherwise is just some bitter fan who wanted France to win go to the low shelf and cry about some alleged "referee was biased" excuse.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

caoimhincentre wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:I know the laws (not rules) very well caiomhicnenter! Perhaps you might like to try to advise about some specific incident (such as I have done) instead of speak in platitudes and waffle?

Point at an incident and let us debate it like adults?

This is my thread already! If you want to talk about your perception about injustive in the final maybe start another thread and take your own advise?

Would you like to have a look at the NZ players sealing off the ball or would you like to ignore it. "know the Laws" my back side.

you may have started the tread, you dont own it, it belongs to the community so be a good little boy and stay on topic.

Caiomhincentre, please don't descend to being patronising thanks. Let's keep it adult here.

You can't just say "look at the NZ players sealing off the ball". That's just too waffly. If you really think there is some conspiracy then you have to compellingly making your case. Now you have to showing some things to make your case:

(a) This was happening
(b) This was not penalised
(c) This was not consistently throughout the game (that is that referee change his style in the last 10 minutes as you claim - otherwise is just all blacks clever enough to adapt to referee interpreting)
(d) France did not do the same thing or were penalise when they do it.

Some specific incident and timing to the game or otherwise is just some bitter fan who wanted France to win go to the low shelf and cry about some alleged "referee was biased" excuse.

you are one to talk about patronising.

have a look at the below video and stop you waffly talk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XBqetaCfgo&feature=share

Your comment

so be a good little boy and stay on topic

was patronising.

What I said, by contrasting, was just logical.

I don't want a post to the game or someone else's "analysis" thanks. What I want is for you to providing the arguments and examples to back your contentious claim that France were somehow rob about their deserving victory.

Now substantiate your claim based on timings of events and your arguments, or back down and retract your unsubstatiatable claim.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Your comment

so be a good little boy and stay on topic

was patronising.

What I said, by contrasting, was just logical.

I don't want a post to the game or someone else's "analysis" thanks. What I want is for you to providing the arguments and examples to back your contentious claim that France were somehow rob about their deserving victory.

Now substantiate your claim based on timings of events and your arguments, or back down and retract your unsubstatiatable claim.

the analysis is correct and valid. just because it is not my words does not make it any less valid.

The video has all the timing for you.

Sigh, caoimhincenter you are just some fellow who can look around and find someone justifying something he want to believe and so can warping all of reality to believe the justification because is making you comfortable.

But you cannot put together the argument for yourself, you just know you are upset about the result and wish it was different.

Now similar example is Stephen Jones, notorious anti-new zealand journalist who after the final congratulate NZ with reluctance but then a week later when he read somewhere else that "France were robbed" he make more articles to say the same thing!

As describe in this article : http://www.wait-of-a-nation.com/2012/07/04/stephen-moans/

"That he reckoned Joubert handed the final to the hosts should not have been a surprise. It’s become a common refrain among those who’d rather we didn’t win. Thing is, his initial match report after the final made no such mention of ruck leniency. That was the last time I read a Jones article and, I have to say, it was surprisingly balanced. You don’t forget things like that. I remember the confusion as vividly as if it were yesterday. Had he missed the apparent litany of infringements and, therefore, an opportunity to berate New Zealand? Or was he being fair? Neither made much sense. Now we all know it was the former. Once the public gifted him the Joubert-robbed-France narrative, he knew what to do. I guess he’s been running with it ever since."

anotherworldofpain wrote:Sigh, caoimhincenter you are just some fellow who can look around and find someone justifying something he want to believe and so can warping all of reality to believe the justification because is making you comfortable.

But you cannot put together the argument for yourself, you just know you are upset about the result and wish it was different.

Now similar example is Stephen Jones, notorious anti-new zealand journalist who after the final congratulate NZ with reluctance but then a week later when he read somewhere else that "France were robbed" he make more articles to say the same thing!

As describe in this article : http://www.wait-of-a-nation.com/2012/07/04/stephen-moans/

"That he reckoned Joubert handed the final to the hosts should not have been a surprise. It’s become a common refrain among those who’d rather we didn’t win. Thing is, his initial match report after the final made no such mention of ruck leniency. That was the last time I read a Jones article and, I have to say, it was surprisingly balanced. You don’t forget things like that. I remember the confusion as vividly as if it were yesterday. Had he missed the apparent litany of infringements and, therefore, an opportunity to berate New Zealand? Or was he being fair? Neither made much sense. Now we all know it was the former. Once the public gifted him the Joubert-robbed-France narrative, he knew what to do. I guess he’s been running with it ever since."

well able to fight my corner. you were the one who wanted cold hard evidence which i supplied in video form. it is not my fault that you choose to ignore it.

what does that say about you, Small minded?? Stubborn? WUM?

I want evidence from YOU about YOUR argument, not just jump on the bandwagon for somebody else. So far you "fight your corner" by finding someone else to hide behind. Is not so brave.

caomhincentre

I dont know what the go is where you come from, but the practise here in New Zealand is that you have to be ahead on the score board at the end of the game, and guess what at the end of the final New Zealnd were ahead, meaning that they won the game,Dusautoir knows he was close, but close aint good enough.

Dusatoir is not only a sore loser, but also a bit thick to keep raising the final since it pains him so much. then again maybe the mind gremlins have taken his mind over and he cant leave it alone. thing is every now and then someone else will come along and remind of his very sad day.

anotherworldofpain wrote:I want evidence from YOU about YOUR argument, not just jump on the bandwagon for somebody else. So far you "fight your corner" by finding someone else to hide behind. Is not so brave.

so you would prefer if i wrote it all down, then you would believe it???

you got my arguement before, and asked for evidence which the video provide.

I give an arguement, its not good enough for you, i give evidence its not good enough for you.

No, I don't want you to COPY someone else work, I want you to come up with your own argument and express it using logic here to "prove" this heinous crime against France, who you suddenly support.

You didn't give an argument, you paste a link to someone else's argument. We've all seen that and had a laugh about how desperately bitter it is already.

caoimhincentre wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XBqetaCfgo&feature=share

That video is laughable. Do people actually watch what is happening as he is commenting?

Apparently NZ were getting penalties all game for French infringements. Patently untrue. NZ were awarded 4 penalties in the second half, and two of those were in the last minute.

Half of his analysis is just plain wrong. Especially the Kaino penalty at 75min.
"He tells him to release the ball", no he doesn't , he tells him to stay on his feet, which he does. When he gets the ball he then knocks on. But this 'expert' claims there are 4 penalties there. In the words of he co-pannelist 'shameful'.

aucklandlaurie wrote: caomhincentre

I dont know what the go is where you come from, but the practise here in New Zealand is that you have to be ahead on the score board at the end of the game, and guess what at the end of the final New Zealnd were ahead, meaning that they won the game,Dusautoir knows he was close, but close aint good enough.

Dusatoir is not only a sore loser, but also a bit thick to keep raising the final since it pains him so much. then again maybe the mind gremlins have taken his mind over and he cant leave it alone. thing is every now and then someone else will come along and remind of his very sad day.

Aucklandlaurie,

As i have said on the thread already. i have no problem with the AB's win. There were the best team. i am merely pointing out that some critical decisions went against France.

if they had gone Frances way would they have won? probably not?

were there calls that went Frances way in the Final? yes but not as much.

congrats to NZ best team in the world and deserving champions

I am still waiting for you to explain where these "critical decisions" were Caomhincentre. But apparently you can't. So why not just stop flogging your donkey and admit that it might have just been a rumour start up by some bitter and disappointed people who don't really know the law so well?

caomhincentre

You say that the ABs should have been penalised any number of times in the last ten minutes, Could you please just give us some idea of what "any number " is? it 1 or 2, 5 or 50.

anotherworldofpain wrote:No, I don't want you to COPY someone else work, I want you to come up with your own argument and express it using logic here to "prove" this heinous crime against France, who you suddenly support.

You didn't give an argument, you paste a link to someone else's argument. We've all seen that and had a laugh about how desperately bitter it is already.

read my other posts not just the one with the link. ignore the commentary and look at the video.look at the amount of times the ABs go in from the side? how many times to they compete for the ball with their knees on the ground.

look at them sealing off the ball. clip has it all. i'm in work so i cant listen to the commentary so you are getting my opinion.

you asked me not to patronising so i stopped. maybe you should take a leaf out of your own book

First, the video is largely rubbish as already point out by another knowledgeable poster above as the commentary doesn't match what is happen and is mostly wrong about the laws.

You can't watch a clip from a game out of context and make assertion about the consistency of refereeing Caiomhincentre so there is no logic in that statement. You have to see how Joubert handle the ruck for the 80 minutes and if you think is some conspiracy then you need to find example where he referee differently in the last 10 minutes for NZ favour. Otherwise like I say already is just about NZ understand the referee interpretation well and so don't get penalise. This is just called "good play" and why one team wins the close games. In this case NZ.

I just dont understanding why you still so upset about this?

anotherworldofpain wrote:First, the video is largely rubbish as already point out by another knowledgeable poster above as the commentary doesn't match what is happen and is mostly wrong about the laws.

But more important: You can't watch a clip from a game out of context and make assertion about the consistency of refereeing Caiomhincentre so there is no logic in that statement. You have to see how Joubert handle the ruck for the 80 minutes and if you think is some conspiracy then you need to find example where he referee differently in the last 10 minutes for NZ favour. Otherwise like I say already is just about NZ understand the referee interpretation well and so don't get penalise. This is just called "good play" and why one team wins the close games. In this case NZ.

I just dont understanding why you still so upset about this?

of course you can look at a clip in the context. if i show you a high tackle and nothing else is it still a high tackle. after all its only a clip.

can you deny that players are not on their feet in that clip. can you deny they are going in from the side.

Jaysus

Caiomhincenter, do you understand that the video you post comes from a sort of parody show in Australia? And is a little bit tongue in cheek about pundit to the game? and is a WUM to try to annoy NZ fans in some kind of joke? Did you realise that? or not? These are the same people that make the "Aussie Haka" and "Invade NZ" movies. And there was some jibe across the Tasman sea about Quade Cooper and how he get treated and so was a bit of playful bantering on these rival rugby shows.

If you don't realisate that then is some joke on you...

anotherworldofpain wrote:Caiomhincenter, do you understand that the video you post comes from a sort of parody show in Australia? And is a little bit tongue in cheek about pundit to the game? and is a WUM to try to annoy NZ fans in some kind of joke? Did you realise that? or not? These are the same people that make the "Aussie Haka" and "Invade NZ" movies. And there was some jibe across the Tasman sea about Quade Cooper and how he get treated and so was a bit of playful bantering on these rival rugby shows.

If you don't realisate that then is some joke on you...

its irish rugby show!!!