Will the French rock up to play?

French flair is dead. The myth lives on amongst some less perceptive media outlets, possibly because it's nicely alliterates, but the corpse of ambitious French rugby  was buried five years ago.

No team has been ensconced in more allegations, accusations and instances of biting, gouging, testicle grasping, hair pulling or head butting than the French.

As recently as the 2011 RWC final Rougerie, realising the game was up took the opportunity to gouge McCaws eyes.  

The rugby landscape is just littered with instances too numerous to mention and even highly respected publications will freely publish the view that this kind of illegal play is just part and parcel of French culture, without fear of litigation or reprisal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/france/4945001/Eye-gouging-just-a-way-of-life-in-French-rugby.html

My question is: which France will turn up? The side who play rugby, or the side who want to permanently injure and disfigure a member of the opposition? And will this weekend's officials have the guts to remove them from the field when they do?

To be honest I dont think the French have turned up all year, and its already November.

GE, do you scour the Web to find these negative articles?

How about you try a positive article for a change, it might cleanse your soul and make you feel better about rugby in general.

My article title changed...was the old one,
Too long?

Well, if anyone has spent time playing in France or reading about Rugby in France, there has been a history of all sorts of 'aggressive' play.  However, I think that is mostly a thing of the past at the top levels, although at club level the referees are a bit more tolerant of the Social Darwinism of Rugby.  

I disagree there was any foul play by Rougerie (I think it was him, though I might be mistaken) in the RWC final.  Fingers slid across the face in a ruck but did not seem to me to be any attempt to put fingers in the eye, nor to scratch, nor, in fact, an attempt to do anything untoward.  I know that puts me in the minority, but I saw what I saw (or rather what I didn't see).    

I suppose Saturday will be interesting, though I agree with some other folks that France has not been on form this season.  C'est la vie, non?

France are unimaginative, and now play a dour style of rugby, I would go so far as to call them the New England.

Oof! Ouch.

doctor_grey wrote:Well, if anyone has spent time playing in France or reading about Rugby in France, there has been a history of all sorts of 'aggressive' play.  However, I think that is mostly a thing of the past at the top levels, although at club level the referees are a bit more tolerant of the Social Darwinism of Rugby.  

I disagree there was any foul play by Rougerie (I think it was him, though I might be mistaken) in the RWC final.  Fingers slid across the face in a ruck but did not seem to me to be any attempt to put fingers in the eye, nor to scratch, nor, in fact, an attempt to do anything untoward.  I know that puts me in the minority, but I saw what I saw (or rather what I didn't see).    

I suppose Saturday will be interesting, though I agree with some other folks that France has not been on form this season.  C'est la vie, non?

Well DG a very small minority. The IRB have even stated (in a typically yellow bellied and unnecessarily bureaucratic and gutless side step) that he would have been sanctioned for sure if the evidence supporting the claim had arisen within the legal window. So... Certainly McCaws obvious reaction showed that it was more than the merry accidental jape you imply.

Well, I disagree with the IRB. Won't be the first time.
And, besides, a citing doesn't imply guilt, only that a hearing is scheduled.

Biltong wrote:GE, do you scour the Web to find these negative articles?

How about you try a positive article for a change, it might cleanse your soul and make you feel better about rugby in general.

how about GE taking a small (deserved) vacation from the 606 world?

GE claims he's talking about rugby and the few times he does , he hardly gets his fact right. 90% of his posts is either a vague attempt of "humour" (which sometimes works) or just being offensive for no good reason (appart that it suits his "NZ" agenda) towards a nation, a ref or an entire hemisphere.

we have now to hope that NZ gets beaten by someone so that he gets excited enough for a moderator to notice and eventually banned. quite sad in my opinion.

this is the first and last time I will post on that matter so no need to reply or explain.

WC! Congratulations on your promotion to moderator. I wish you all success in your new role.

 

This is starting to get beyond now...

aucklandlaurie wrote: France are unimaginative, and now  play a dour style of rugby, I would go so far as to call them the New England.

As distinct from New Zealand. The Old Zealand (part of Denmark ? not sure) never made it onto the rugby scene.

Speaking out against someone in frustration GE is not a desire to be a moderator. We already have enough and they do a thankless task. It's like saying I want to be a referee as that looks like you get a lot back out of it in terms of happiness and fulfillment. It doesn't make any sense. What who cares is voicing is a plea, like me, to pick and choose your moments. This volume philosophy is not working for Burger King and it's not working for you. Variety and quality will work much better for you. Stop flogging the Whopper and fries posts  for a cheaper lesser product. Vary your range of product and improve the quality. It's still McD posting so it's common denominator stuff still but it doesn't seem so tired and one dimensional.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Speaking out against someone in frustration GE is not a desire to be a moderator. We already have enough and they do a thankless task. It's like saying I want to be a referee as that looks like you get a lot back out of it in terms of happiness and fulfillment. It doesn't make any sense. What who cares is voicing is a plea, like me, to pick and choose your moments. This volume philosophy is not working for Burger King and it's not working for you. Variety and quality will work much better for you. Stop flogging the Whopper and fries posts  for a cheaper lesser product. Vary your range of product and improve the quality. It's still McD posting so it's common denominator stuff still but it doesn't seem so tired and one dimensional.

Well said kia

There's always room for banter and there has been some great exchanges on some of the threads recently. However, GE's stuff is getting a bit stale and spiteful.

GE, come on! People are asking nicely

I agree, come on fella pull your finger out.

This is a completely different topic. Backed by a weight of evidence and a link to respected journalism.

The thing that isn't varied is that whatever I post I get the same half a dozen numpties following me around posting ghost icons and accusing me of being a returning poster and detailing the thread in utter contravention of published site rules.

The fact is I disagree on some (apparently many) topics with the majority here. Should I change my opinion to fall into line? Or leave and allow the entire forum to disappear up its own mutually validating, self congratulatory collective arse?

I don't think that's what a discussion forum is for. Surely a member should not be vilified for holding diverse opinions.

Given the treatment I get is it any wonder I respond this way?

Read this thread. It was clearly detailed by WC's personal attack after beginning to develop nicely on a serious topic. I'm not to blame here. Sort yourselves out.

 

GE, when everybody disagrees with you it's time to look within mate

Anyway, I'm sure there's a forum somewhere on the web where you'll be appreciated. Good luck in your search!

Imagine If Copernicus or Higgs had that attitude...

Diversity of opinion should be celebrated not persecuted.

Not your opinions though.

Having said that, I think we'll all know it's just your 'persona' opinions. IF they're your real ones I'd get your head checked chief

But why do so many treat you with contempt? Your post on a thread about the English performance where Hood congratulated you because it got to the rugby heart of the matter is lost in a sea of transparent tired one liners. We all know you have a good rugby knowledge and we wouldn't want you to agree with everyone. But there is a way of disagreeing with someone and there is a way of antagonizing someone and too often you use the latter method.

Think of Hersh. A poster who could cause ripples of discontent but who also had a lot of support. It can be a fine line to walk but too often with you it's a clear jump to the provocatory. Believe it or not you have your supporters but the problem is you're building up an army of detractors and they're too many to stand up against.

I don't think I'm alone in my opinion that Clancy wasn't very good last week. If he isn't dropped from the elite panel before the RWC I'll eat my hat.

Besides compared with the response of some
Members of the moderation team to the Bryce Lawrence affair I hardly think I've broken any new ground.

But his thread isn't about that. You're merely dragging me into a spat in order to try to prompt moderator to ban me.

Look at yourself first, if you don't like my threads why do you keep haunting them? Just set them to ignore. I've only made one per day. Can't be that hard! If everyone ignores them they'll be gone in an hour. But you have to jump in and have a
Nibble don't you?

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:But why do so many treat you with contempt? Your post on a thread about the English performance where Hood congratulated you because it got to the rugby heart of the matter is lost in a sea of transparent tired one liners. We all know you have a good rugby knowledge and we wouldn't want you to agree with everyone. But there is a way of disagreeing with someone and there is a way of antagonizing someone and too often you use the latter method.

Think of Hersh. A poster who could cause ripples of discontent but who also had a lot of support. It can be a fine line to walk but too often with you it's a clear jump to the provocatory. Believe it or not you have your supporters but the problem is you're building up an army of detractors and they're too many to stand up against.

Hersh got banned. What's your point?

Furthermore. I personally get a lot of personal mails telling me my posting style is appreciated and I shouldn't change. Even from some who openly appear upset.

I'm not antagonising anyone, just calling it as I see it and not bending in the wind.

It's not like banning him again will do any good anyway.

Cyril. Please just post one comment on rugby. Please.
Do that and I promise to behave for a whole year. You only seem to get up in the morning to come here, find my posts and complain about how upset they made you.

One day you'll post about rugby rather than your hatred of England/The UK and the NH.

One day.

Come on, as everyone is asking, just give it a rest and stop ruining the forum. The atmosphere on some threads has been good. Don't spoil it for everyone else

Thanks in advance

GloriousEmpire wrote:This is a completely different topic. Backed by a weight of evidence and a link to respected journalism.

The thing that isn't varied is that whatever I post I get the same half a dozen numpties following me around posting ghost icons and accusing me of being a returning poster and detailing the thread in utter contravention of published site rules.

The fact is I disagree on some (apparently many) topics with the majority here. Should I change my opinion to fall into line? Or leave and allow the entire forum to disappear up its own mutually validating, self congratulatory collective arse?

I don't think that's what a discussion forum is for. Surely a member should not be vilified for holding diverse opinions.

Given the treatment I get is it any wonder I respond this way?

Read this thread. It was clearly detailed by WC's personal attack after beginning to develop nicely on a serious topic. I'm not to blame here. Sort yourselves out.

Why do I get the feeling youve smashed up 3 keyboards, and have started throwing the crockery around the kitchen you work in?

Noones asking you to change your opinion, just leave the spitefull and monotonous drone of 'England sucks out of every thread you enter, stop flooding the markey with tripe people don't want to hear, and for the love of god just write a positive thought about anybody when it pops in your head!

This is your moment, your time of redemption, we're not asking you to do anything but be sensible and more rounded like all of your countrymen, it's oin you mate...

If things don't go well for France, they'll just blame Peyper and say it was ref incompetency.....

One comment Cyril..just one. About rugby that shows you know anything at all other than how to bite my ankles.

...it's a legit excuse from what I'm hearing...

GloriousEmpire wrote:One comment Cyril..just one. About rugby that shows you know anything at all other than how to bite my ankles.

I tend to post on England threads mate. It's difficult to see any other comments with all your hatespeak about my country.

No, I don't expect the French to put up much of a fight.

butterfingers wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:This is a completely different topic. Backed by a weight of evidence and a link to respected journalism.

The thing that isn't varied is that whatever I post I get the same half a dozen numpties following me around posting ghost icons and accusing me of being a returning poster and detailing the thread in utter contravention of published site rules.

The fact is I disagree on some (apparently many) topics with the majority here. Should I change my opinion to fall into line? Or leave and allow the entire forum to disappear up its own mutually validating, self congratulatory collective arse?

I don't think that's what a discussion forum is for. Surely a member should not be vilified for holding diverse opinions.

Given the treatment I get is it any wonder I respond this way?

Read this thread. It was clearly detailed by WC's personal attack after beginning to develop nicely on a serious topic. I'm not to blame here. Sort yourselves out.

Why do I get the feeling youve smashed up 3 keyboards, and have started throwing the crockery around the kitchen you work in?

Noones asking you to change your opinion, just leave the spitefull and monotonous drone of 'England sucks out of every thread you enter, stop flooding the markey with tripe people don't want to hear, and for the love of god just write a positive thought about anybody when it pops in your head!

This is your moment, your time of redemption, we're not asking you to do anything but be sensible and more rounded like all of your countrymen, it's oin you mate...

Good news for England that Corbisiero is back. He was splendid in that lions test. Not saying vunipola didn't so well given his chance. There you go.

Cyril?

Like whocares, I expressed my opinion and will say no more.  

I hear ya. Taken on board.

.....Urmmm, as far as the rugby goes.....I'm of the opinion, (mentioned elsewhere), that the whole 'which France will turn up' is completely misleading. One flair game every few years does not make them underachieving, latent genius'.....It just means that sometimes it's their day. A bit like England vs the AB, or against OZ a year or two earlier. Its a bit like the myth that islanders tackle harder, or SA just bully and kick/chase. As far as being excessively dirty? Another myth. I don't think they have a chance however unless they bully NZ up front, just can't see it. 
I will be French on the day though. Allez les Bleus!!

France are probably the most amiable team
To lose to if you have to lose to anyone. Just because they are capable of that mythical once in 5 years performance.

For me the "most experienced All Blacks team in history" is starting to carry top heavy weight, but for the injection of Piatau and smith. Unfortunately smith is out of position.

perhaps the day of flair rugby is dead . 05 six nations Wales threw the ball around like there was no tomorrow . gluttony of trys (or is it tries ) and won the grand slam but when we played the all blacks we had our bums handed to us on a plate .

I think the opening line is fair. With the emergence of the top 14 and PSA taking the reigns French flair rugby is dead.

However, the rest of the article is nonsense. The ABs can be dirty too they usually just claim it was a accident and deny it ever happened. This actually seems to fool some Kiwis.

Now now GG we are all restraining ourselves today so it doesn't he ugly. I hope you have evidence for this claim (see mine researched and attached)

Its all about percentages. In a paradoxical sense NZ are to blame for the death of 'flair'. When I was just starting to play at a reasonable level the kiwi model was there for all to see and attempt to imitate - terms like 'an all black wall' were used to describe NZ's best weapon....their offensive defense. They use a push and rush defense that kills the opposition's moves and forces errors to be exploited. The only way around it is to try and find a weakness to be exploited. Possibly the set piece....possibly in sheer size..rarely worked but SA consistently come closest with their immense physical presence. (I know there's a lot more to it than that but a breed of 'white orcs' was cultivated to nullify the perceived flair of the SH).

Has the French side been announced?

GloriousEmpire wrote:Now now GG we are all restraining ourselves today so it doesn't he ugly. I hope you have evidence for this claim (see mine researched and attached)

Evidence of what? One mans experience in France. Read Brian O'Driscolls autobiography for another mans experience in NZ.

You do realise how pathetic your article is dont you?

BamBam wrote:Has the French side been announced?

Yes

https://www.606v2.com/t49410-france-new-zealand-match-build-up#2372252

BamBam wrote:Has the French side been announced?

French team: Forrestier, Kayser, Mas; Pape, Maestri; Dusautoir, Chouly, Lauret; Parra, Tales; Fritz, Fofanna; Medard, Huget, Dulin.
Bench: Szarzewski, Debaty, Slimani, Vahaamahina, Claassen, Doussain, Lopez, Fickou.

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Now now GG we are all restraining ourselves today so it doesn't he ugly. I hope you have evidence for this claim (see mine researched and attached)

Evidence of what? One mans experience in France. Read Brian O'Driscolls autobiography for another mans experience in NZ.

You do realise how pathetic your article is dont you?

Pathetic? Evidence based and backed by a substantial author?

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Now now GG we are all restraining ourselves today so it doesn't he ugly. I hope you have evidence for this claim (see mine researched and attached)

Evidence of what? One mans experience in France. Read Brian O'Driscolls autobiography for another mans experience in NZ.

You do realise how pathetic your article is dont you?

Pathetic? Evidence based and backed by a substantial author?

So your logic means that because of one mans experience the following statements made by you are fact:

No team has been ensconced in more allegations, accusations and instances of biting, gouging, testicle grasping, hair pulling or head butting than the French.

My question is: which France will turn up? The side who play rugby, or the side who want to permanently injure and disfigure a member of the opposition?

Do you realise how pathetic your claim is? How can one mans experience in the top 14 prove that France is the most cited team?

or even the more dumbsounding and incredibly illadvised claim that they want to permenently injure players. I assume you can produce a long list of players that have been permenently injured by the French national team?

A substantial author? The Kiwi making these claims himself admitted to gouging (rare for a Kiwi to admit anything). I fail to see how that makes him a man of substance.

The fact of the matter is SA is the most carded and cited team.

France was in fact one of the least carded teams