All Blacks frustrated by Joubert

First topic message reminder :

Steve Hansen has expressed his frustration at Joubert's calling of the breakdown.

In a cleverly worded side swipe, Hansen said England's approach to the breakdown caused his side problems, saying the All Blacks need to adapt to what appears to be different laws that apply at Twickenham:

"From what I'm seeing, you can seal off the ball and go off your feet, whereas in the southern hemisphere that just gets smashed. You not allowed to do it. It's something that we have to adapt to.''

Cowshot wrote:

Fair play they won fair and square and had to adapt their game but only because England was causing them problems, not because of how the Ref was refereeing the game.

Oh, don't be ridiculous! This is the All Blacks! England only caused them problems because they were allowed to by Joubert - and that is NOT what refs are supposed to do!

NZ were on the backfoot at the breakdown, they just weren't used to it.

But to their credit they over came it and showed why they are the best team in the world, but it was a shame to see them giving advise to the Ref for most of the game.

Kia- my problem is with rugby(probably because i ddint play the game) is that the refs interpretation allways seems different in almost every single game.. So I have kind of had enough of everyone blaming the refs about interpretation as LONG AS they remain constant throughout the game,
All I want to see is consistent reffing. If one favours a team(over style) then I have a problem..

The Ref was fine on Saturday.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:We can't very well lose and then complain this year because we haven't lost, which is usually the reason for complaining about the ref. Have you stopped to think why you are not complaining about the ref?

Besides, GE is no longer here. You're winding yourselves up all by yourselves. Do you deny Joubert missed things on both sides? Some of you may be fighting fire with fire but I suspect some are not.

Just as teams look back on performances and look at what they did wrong, so too are you allowed to question some decisions by the ref. Everyone knows how well both sides played. No one's dismissing the closeness of the match.

Ouch - but fair point. I do think that the numbers committed to the rucks by England helped their cause with ref.
NZ won because they were better - however they were at least given a test, which I was afraid they weren't going to get. No complaints from me on the reffing. Things are always missed - thank god - otherwise not a phase of play would happen without a penalty/free kick.

Personally I have no problem discussing potential reffing errors - but it's difficult to bring them up if your team lost without looking like a poor loser … I think the arguments start when supporters only point out what they perceived as errors that affected their own team whilst ignoring anything their team may have gotten away with. To take this game as an example some AB supporters believe England got away with sealing off whereas some England supporters believe the ABs got away with falling on the wrong side of rucks or being off-side.

Heaf wrote:Personally I have no problem discussing potential reffing errors - but it's difficult to bring them up if your team lost without looking like a poor loser … I think the arguments start when supporters only point out what they perceived as errors that affected their own team whilst ignoring anything their team may have gotten away with.  To take this game as an example some AB supporters believe England got away with sealing off whereas some England supporters believe the ABs got away with falling on the wrong side of rucks or being off-side.

And both are probably right.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Have you stopped to think why you are not complaining about the ref?

That's a very odd starting point in which to review a game of rugby.

It's almost as if you're saying complaining about the ref is the default response. Having said that it does seem to be on here  

joubert i thought had a pretty good game. he missed relatively little, certainly no howlers, and there were some minor ones that he missed both ways as we have already discussed.

actually kia, while you are very balanced, there have been plenty of comments that have not conceded the closeness of the game, choosing instead to focus on either "we were not at our best", or "joubert didnt police the breakdown effectively". i think that's what gets people's goats.

a particular favourite of mine, which most kiwi players and commentators are guilty of, is the whole "it took us too long to adapt to Joubert's policing of the breakdown". what this is actually implying, to me at least, is that we the mighty ABs are the ultimate arbiter of how to play the breakdown, and if things aren't going our way then this is because referees are inconsistent, and we have to adapt to cope with their inconsistency - they are only human after all.

it's a bit annoying.

I don't see it as complaining but clarification of what Joubert's interpretation is. Complaining is on the field and if the ref still pings you then adapt. We adapted too late. If you complain afterwards it falls on deaf ears like McKenzie and the scrum, even if it's justified. If you have an idea about the ruck and the ref has another then you make sure you're on the same page.

No one is saying Joubert only missed England infringements. I gave the example of Mealamu pulling down the maul. If the score line had been closer we'd have likely seen we were robbed a la French in 2011. There was a similar free for all spirit at the rucks on that day and NZ got some favourable calls. Nothing to justify the Joubert handed the cup to NZ just as it's ludicrous to say Joubert was all one way traffic in favour of England. But with the benefit of hindsight I don't think it's too much to ask why some incidents were reffed in a certain way. The game is over and the scores are decided so the result cannot nor should be called into question and it's not a one sided why did you do that? It's if we did this or this situation happened in the future, what would be your ruling?

Haven't you realized we're all gruff, humorless people never content with a win - at least outwardly - and always asking the impossible?  But if you don't strive for perfection you'll never get close. The next time Joubert refs us, I'd hope NZ management knows what to expect right from the outset or have another plan in place. To win is one thing but to improve for next time because so too will your opposition is equally true not to mention vital if you want to keep on winning.

"Haven't you realized we're all gruff, humorless people never content with a win"


YES  

Good.  

Don't mind us then. Nothing to see here. Just grim, humourless data crunching and analysis.

i'm all about the numbers too kia. they, unlike forums, never lie. same can't be said for statistics though

OK then Kia

NZ performance 8/10
Eng performance 7/10
Reffing performance 8/10
Fan performance 2/10
Wum performance 10/10

the end

I thought the English crowd was much better than 2 oakey.  

Sorry i should have said 606 fan performance

Don't be so hard on yourself. You can't win everything.  

I thought Joubert had a good game but agreed he missed some things.

It was quite refreshing seeing the AB's getting pinged early on as they were clearing pushing their luck. Usually they adapt quickly to this, McCaw is the master of playing the ref and knowing how much he can get away with. I don't think they done done this on Saturday and I agree we got the edge at the breakdown.

Some of the blatant ones Joubert missed that I remember are Mealamu at ruck time, dragging down etc. Also, Twelvetrees crossing in our 22 then making a 30m burst up field. I couldn't believe we got away with that one.

Good game anyway, really enjoyed both teams performance and I thought the officials done well.

Interesting to see that Joubert has now admitted he refereed England and NZ differently, admitting he allowed England to kill the ball by sealing off at their own ruck. He says he allowed England to do this, but penalised NZ for the same offence because it "allowed the game to flow" given that England committed so many players to each ruck.

Now personally I think there should be one set of rules applied fairly and consistently to both teams and not a situation where each team is playing by different laws.

No wonder Richie looked puzzled!

At lease Joubert is big enough to now admit he probably got it wrong.

Oh good you're back GE. Bit strange some of his decisions but I've read a few refs say they let infringements go if they're aren't affecting the game. As Joubert said he was only penalising if the other team was competing. McCaw really should have got clarification sooner but he'll learn.

Where has he said this?
 
I doubt very much if Joubert said such a thing as he'd be stating he cheated.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Where has he said this?
 
I doubt very much if Joubert said such a thing as he'd be stating he cheated.

He did say that, his explanation was for the sake of keeping the game flowing he didn't penalise England when NZ chose not to compete.

Don't think there were direct quotes just NZ whining. Apparently it's ok if you win but not if you lose. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11159105

Don't think it's cheating either as Owens was doing it yesterday as well with onstruction but the tackle was still made so 'play on'. What you want ideally is that the ref is consistent which I don't think Joubert is.

Welcome back GE from your sabbatical.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Where has he said this?
 
I doubt very much if Joubert said such a thing as he'd be stating he cheated.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions about cheating.

I wouldn't go that far. I think in trying to be a bit clever he made an error. He assumed their was no "material impact" in his own words of not penalising England for deliberately sealing off.

He believed this was true because he thought NZ had insufficient numbers to effect a turn over anyway as they were standing off.

However as Richie and Shag pointed out, NZ were standing off because there was no chance of a turn over given that England were sealing off.

NZ are calling it "chicken or egg refereeing" which has a nice possibly unintentional pejorative feel to it.

The added confusion is that Joubert was apparently not clear on what he was doing until late in the game, so imagine NZ's clear frustration that when they observed England sealing off every ruck they thought Joubert was allowing it - tried it the sleeves and got pinged.

To me, I think Joubert's approach was just wrong. Just call the laws and use the penalty count to discourage the activity and that way the game will flow anyway. Some peoples opinion differs. Fair enough.

What is clear though is that Joubert didn't communicate effectively why he was allowing this to continue until very late in the game. Luckily there was still time for NZ to rectify once they understood.

Staggeringly, the adaption made in the last 20 minutes saw NZ steal the game back and they finished with 4 times more turn overs than England for the match. Astonishing.

Talk about adapting to the referee!

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Where has he said this?
 
I doubt very much if Joubert said such a thing as he'd be stating he cheated.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions about cheating.

I wouldn't go that far. I think in trying to be a bit clever he made an error. He assumed their was no "material impact" in his own words of not penalising England for deliberately sealing off.

He believed this was true because he thought NZ had insufficient numbers to effect a turn over anyway as they were standing off.

However as Richie and Shag pointed out, NZ were standing off because there was no chance of a turn over given that England were sealing off.

NZ are calling it "chicken or egg refereeing" which has a nice possibly unintentional pejorative feel to it.

The added confusion is that Joubert was apparently not clear on what he was doing until late in the game, so imagine NZ's clear frustration that when they observed England sealing off every ruck they thought Joubert was allowing it - tried it the sleeves and got pinged.

To me, I think Joubert's approach was just wrong. Just call the laws and use the penalty count to discourage the activity and that way the game will flow anyway. Some peoples opinion differs. Fair enough.

What is clear though is that Joubert didn't communicate effectively why he was allowing this to continue until very late in the game. Luckily there was still time for NZ to rectify once they understood.

Staggeringly, the adaption made in the last 20 minutes saw NZ steal the game back and they finished with 4 times more turn overs than England for the match. Astonishing.

Talk about adapting to the referee!

And straight back to your normal self! Would say the last 20 minutes had more to do with the lack of platform myself. The loss of Hartley led to a disintergration of the lineout (and to a lesser extent the scrum) meaning we couldn't pin NZ back effectively.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Where has he said this?
 
I doubt very much if Joubert said such a thing as he'd be stating he cheated.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions about cheating.

I wouldn't go that far. I think in trying to be a bit clever he made an error. He assumed their was no "material impact" in his own words of not penalising England for deliberately sealing off.

He believed this was true because he thought NZ had insufficient numbers to effect a turn over anyway as they were standing off.

However as Richie and Shag pointed out, NZ were standing off because there was no chance of a turn over given that England were sealing off.

NZ are calling it "chicken or egg refereeing" which has a nice possibly unintentional pejorative feel to it.

The added confusion is that Joubert was apparently not clear on what he was doing until late in the game, so imagine NZ's clear frustration that when they observed England sealing off every ruck they thought Joubert was allowing it - tried it the sleeves and got pinged.

To me, I think Joubert's approach was just wrong. Just call the laws and use the penalty count to discourage the activity and that way the game will flow anyway. Some peoples opinion differs. Fair enough.

What is clear though is that Joubert didn't communicate effectively why he was allowing this to continue until very late in the game. Luckily there was still time for NZ to rectify once they understood.

Staggeringly, the adaption made in the last 20 minutes saw NZ steal the game back and they finished with 4 times more turn overs than England for the match. Astonishing.

Talk about adapting to the referee!

unsurpisingly, joubert's comments haven't made it into the english rugby media

the ABs did (or should have) get pinged for a lot of other stuff too in the first half as has been highlighted by AB posters. Mealamu, Nonu, Franks, several clear not rolling away after the tackle examples, some ruck collapsing, etc.

overall i thought joubert had a pretty decent game. maybe there was a communication issue between him and McC. who knows?

re the last twenty minutes, obviously its easy to praise NZ for adapting to Joubert and credit that for their play, but there were three other big factors for me that also contributed:

- england lost 4 out of 6 own throw lineouts for whatever reason
- england were clearly very tired
- england's bench had far less impact that NZ's bench

anyway, i thought it was a good game overall. the kind of intensity that you hope for in a test match. some storming england forward play (as an ex-forward, and being english that obviously warms my heart), some great AB skill in the backs.

Well GE's return was almost perfectly timed.

Ireland you should have held out

Presumably NZ think they should be the only ones to get away with anything - don't see them moaning about not getting pinged for not rolling away, pulling down mauls etc … and I don't recall them criticising Joubert after the RWC final

mystiroakey wrote:Well GE's return was almost perfectly timed.

Ireland you should have held out

You're privileged, mystir.  I don't believe GE discusses little people (Ireland) when they play the ABs.  He saves his analysis for the big European sides - England, Wales, possibly France.

He's probably scanning the replay now looking for ways to blame the ref for Ireland almost beating NZ

quinsforever wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Where has he said this?
 
I doubt very much if Joubert said such a thing as he'd be stating he cheated.

I leave you to draw your own conclusions about cheating.

I wouldn't go that far. I think in trying to be a bit clever he made an error. He assumed their was no "material impact" in his own words of not penalising England for deliberately sealing off.

He believed this was true because he thought NZ had insufficient numbers to effect a turn over anyway as they were standing off.

However as Richie and Shag pointed out, NZ were standing off because there was no chance of a turn over given that England were sealing off.

NZ are calling it "chicken or egg refereeing" which has a nice possibly unintentional pejorative feel to it.

The added confusion is that Joubert was apparently not clear on what he was doing until late in the game, so imagine NZ's clear frustration that when they observed England sealing off every ruck they thought Joubert was allowing it - tried it the sleeves and got pinged.

To me, I think Joubert's approach was just wrong. Just call the laws and use the penalty count to discourage the activity and that way the game will flow anyway. Some peoples opinion differs. Fair enough.

What is clear though is that Joubert didn't communicate effectively why he was allowing this to continue until very late in the game. Luckily there was still time for NZ to rectify once they understood.

Staggeringly, the adaption made in the last 20 minutes saw NZ steal the game back and they finished with 4 times more turn overs than England for the match. Astonishing.

Talk about adapting to the referee!

unsurpisingly, joubert's comments haven't made it into the english rugby media

the ABs did (or should have) get pinged for a lot of other stuff too in the first half as has been highlighted by AB posters.  Mealamu, Nonu, Franks, several clear not rolling away after the tackle examples, some ruck collapsing, etc.

overall i thought joubert had a pretty decent game. maybe there was a communication issue between him and McC. who knows?

re the last twenty minutes, obviously its easy to praise NZ for adapting to Joubert and credit that for their play, but there were three other big factors for me that also contributed:

- england lost 4 out of 6 own throw lineouts for whatever reason
- england were clearly very tired
- england's bench had far less impact that NZ's bench

anyway, i thought it was a good game overall. the kind of intensity that you hope for in a test match. some storming england forward play (as an ex-forward, and being english that obviously warms my heart), some great AB skill in the backs.

How has "being tired" become a preferable excuse for losing? Isn't that just inadequate fitness training, too much bulk? Poor selections? Or lack of depth by another name?

Heaf wrote:Presumably NZ think they should be the only ones to get away with anything - don't see them moaning about not getting pinged for not rolling away, pulling down mauls etc … and I don't recall them criticising Joubert after the RWC final

I would do this one, but it's been well covered on another forum by more eloquent and knowledgeable souls than myself, so I'll just point out this so-called argument is without merit and move along swiftly.

Oh dear more bad sportsmanship by the nzers.

Here's a riddle for you.

When is a ref not a ref? Answer _ when Nz are playing.

That doesn't really even make sense. Not really bass sportsmanship considering Joubert had admitted he probably needed to think it through a little further.

I would've thought England should be just as peeved. How will they feel when they do the same thing in the next game and get pinged off the park?

Look mate. It seems that it doesn't matter one iota what ref takes the field when Nz play you lot moan and moan about him. You lot have got previous that goes back years. When it comes to whingers you lot are way out there on your own.

When a referee is questioned after and during the game; realises he's making a mistake, changes his interpretation mid game and then admits it was probably wrong after the game I think there's a fairly strong case to atleast discuss it, don't you?

the return of the troll

Here's how it goes with NZ and refs and it is completely predictable

When they win, things like being asked who was on a team sheet pre match and then being caught out in the match for having an unlisted player are irrelevant and not a matter for referees, mere trifling details, i mean this isn't a court session is it.

Now, if the boot were on the other foot, Bismarck's replacement was unlisted and the ABs had lost then the kiwis would have been whining on about it ad infinitum/nauseam until the next time they got a cold or Wayne Barnes dropped in to referee a Rugby Championship game.

My answer to Hansen would be coach your side better and stop bleating like a whiny old woman.

Now imagine that it was Dagg and Savea charging Sexton for that kick and owens awarded another attempt….I think New Zealand would have caught a cold on the spot, that would have kept NZ in whining for the rest of time. Its simple with NZ, if it all turns out nice the ref was fine he just needs the benefit of their esteemed advice, if it tuns out poorly then he must be rubbish or worse if he is Wayne. When the ref acts in your favor, like against ireland, he can do no wrong.

W seems to be for winning, Wayne and whining!

Scratch wrote:Here's how it goes with NZ and refs and it is completely predictable

When they win, things like being asked who was on a team sheet pre match and then being caught out in the match for having an unlisted player are irrelevant and not a matter for referees, mere trifling details, i mean this isn't a court session is it.

Now, if the boot were on the other foot, Bismarck's replacement was unlisted and the ABs had lost then the kiwis would have been whining on about it ad infinitum/nauseam until the next time they got a cold or Wayne Barnes dropped in to referee a Rugby Championship game.

My answer to Hansen would be coach your side better and stop bleating like a whiny old woman.  

Now imagine that it was Dagg and Savea charging Sexton for that kick and owens awarded another attempt….I think New Zealand would have caught a cold on the spot, that would have kept NZ in whining for the rest of time. Its simple with NZ, if it all turns out nice the ref was fine he just needs the benefit of their esteemed advice, if it tuns out poorly then he must be rubbish or worse if he is Wayne. When the ref acts in your favor, like against ireland, he can do no wrong.

W seems to be for winning, Wayne and whining!

"Now, if the boot were on the other foot, Bismarck's replacement was unlisted and the ABs had lost then the kiwis would have been whining on about it ad infinitum/nauseam until the next time they got a cold or Wayne Barnes dropped in to referee a Rugby Championship game. "

So you know this for a fact do you?

"Now imagine that it was Dagg and Savea charging Sexton for that kick and owens awarded another attempt….I think New Zealand would have caught a cold on the spot, that would have kept NZ in whining for the rest of time. Its simple with NZ, if it all turns out nice the ref was fine he just needs the benefit of their esteemed advice, if it tuns out poorly then he must be rubbish or worse if he is Wayne. When the ref acts in your favor, like against ireland, he can do no wrong."

You also know this for a fact do you?

No. You just make it up and decide it is the truth. That is called wumming. Complete rubbish. I could make up all sorts of things about your side as well scratch...but I know that would also be dumb.

I don't see NZ are in any way more than anyone else ref moaners. Even recently you had Oz going full on about the England game...way more than here, yet you dont moan about them.

The only grip I have with Barnes is in 07 when he froze and couldnt do his job.
If the TMO process had been there the try would have been disallowed for certain based in the scrutiny they get these days- that of all passes was not momentum. And all things equal after that, the 2007 world cup would likely have had a different outcome- based purely on the favourites at the time. But we will never know will we.

That is the only ref gripe I have post match. During the match we all post all sorts of things about refs- you see it here all the time. How many of your lot went on about (and still go on about) Joubert after the 2011 final- any you werent even in it!

Whiny old woman? look in the mirror.

Taylorman, I did look in the mirror on your advice and everything is as it should be thanks. At 6'3, 300lbs and with a beard, if i was a woman i would have every right to whinge

Perhaps though the reflection should be on NZ's rep with referees and excuse making

if you are wound up by that then I am surprised, can't be the first time you have heard suggestions NZ moan about the refs. They have a well known rep for it and for making excuses. Does stating that make me a WUM? No it doesn't, you can label me that if you like and that is the main problem, you guys are hoisted by your own petard. If someone deigns to write something that criticizes the Holy Grail of rugby, the All Blacks, in any way, then some of you write them off as a WUM. That's poor and, as you say, do you know that for a fact?

I don't need to know the result of either scenario to be factual or not, point is that based on NZ fans/management rep the highly likely result would have been forum meltdown as NZ fans slammed the ref for his decision making in both cases. There would have been a still by still analysis of Sexton's knee shimmy to determine if there had been a move forward. With regards to the team list, Mealamu's selection was queried pre kick off and assurances were given. Go figure.

Some NZ fans and management refuse to turn the focus on them believing that to do so is WUMMING/Trolling because their team stands unchallenged at the top. Fact is at the top there is only 1 place to go and even the mighty All Blacks can learn something. This doesn't detract from the magnificence of their rugby but it would be refreshing if fans perhaps once could admit that a NZ loss isn't always because the ref was incompetent or worse a cheat or because the team, after doing a haka, had manflu.

List the gripes scratch. Youve just gone and made things up- the name on the team sheet went without incident- yet you believe the Abs would have made one out of it? Where does that come from? be specific please. You mention the word holy grail, not anyone else.
You believe the Abs dont need to learn- I'd suggest they learn more than anyone if the truth be known.
You talk about Sextons kness shimmy- yet he didnt take the kick- so you just conveniently make it up.

Your jealousy of the ABs is positively and patheticly obvious Scratch...good to see. Love to have seen your face when crotty scored... 

Taylorman wrote:

Scratch wrote:Here's how it goes with NZ and refs and it is completely predictable

When they win, things like being asked who was on a team sheet pre match and then being caught out in the match for having an unlisted player are irrelevant and not a matter for referees, mere trifling details, i mean this isn't a court session is it.

Now, if the boot were on the other foot, Bismarck's replacement was unlisted and the ABs had lost then the kiwis would have been whining on about it ad infinitum/nauseam until the next time they got a cold or Wayne Barnes dropped in to referee a Rugby Championship game.

My answer to Hansen would be coach your side better and stop bleating like a whiny old woman.  

Now imagine that it was Dagg and Savea charging Sexton for that kick and owens awarded another attempt….I think New Zealand would have caught a cold on the spot, that would have kept NZ in whining for the rest of time. Its simple with NZ, if it all turns out nice the ref was fine he just needs the benefit of their esteemed advice, if it tuns out poorly then he must be rubbish or worse if he is Wayne. When the ref acts in your favor, like against ireland, he can do no wrong.

W seems to be for winning, Wayne and whining!

"Now, if the boot were on the other foot, Bismarck's replacement was unlisted and the ABs had lost then the kiwis would have been whining on about it ad infinitum/nauseam until the next time they got a cold or Wayne Barnes dropped in to referee a Rugby Championship game. "

So you know this for a fact do you?

"Now imagine that it was Dagg and Savea charging Sexton for that kick and owens awarded another attempt….I think New Zealand would have caught a cold on the spot, that would have kept NZ in whining for the rest of time. Its simple with NZ, if it all turns out nice the ref was fine he just needs the benefit of their esteemed advice, if it tuns out poorly then he must be rubbish or worse if he is Wayne. When the ref acts in your favor, like against ireland, he can do no wrong."

You also know this for a fact do you?

No. You just make it up and decide it is the truth. That is called wumming. Complete rubbish. I could make up all sorts of things about your side as well scratch...but I know that would also be dumb.

I don't see NZ are in any way more than anyone else ref moaners. Even recently you had Oz going full on about the England game...way more than here, yet you dont moan about them.

The only grip I have with Barnes is in 07 when he froze and couldnt do his job.
If the TMO process had been there the try would have been disallowed for certain based in the scrutiny they get these days- that of all passes was not momentum. And all things equal after that, the 2007 world cup would likely have had a different outcome- based purely on the favourites at the time. But we will never know will we.

That is the only ref gripe I have post match. During the match we all post all sorts of things about refs- you see it here all the time. How many of your lot went on about (and still go on about) Joubert after the 2011 final- any you werent even in it!

Whiny old woman? look in the mirror.

I recall a certain incident with poms whinging about a try disallowed because an English players foot was clearly in touch in 2007...still it went on and on and on. Let's not forget the whining about Steve Walsh in the Wales match or the frankly childish accusations about McCaw cheating - all unsubstantiated. Of what about the 2003 RWC final and the mind numbing arrogance of a referee who deemed to penalise England's scrum or ask that England kept just 15 players on the pitch?

None of these cases resulted in a referee coming out and saying he was wrong. Well guess what? Joubert did, and that's all I'm merely commenting on. Innocuous enough isn't it?

Cueto's was one case that was unbelievable. People were actually choosing to deny what they were actually seeing!. Foot was clearly in touch before scoring yet it went on and on- never understood that one. The heat of the occasion actually changed the picture in front of them to be something else...weird...

taylor i dont think anyone was denying his foot was in touch, but the closeness of it is the point- the fact we come back from a thrashing first game to being that close to almost winning the WC is the point.

This is something you would never understand- For your team to be so down and then get so much better during a cup.. Its an emotional journy

Perhaps they thought the touch line doesn't apply to them, like when wilkinson scored that "try" against Scotland in his come back game from the fourth row of the stands.

Always reminds me if that 12th man skit about Greg Matthews talking a catch in the stands despite not being in the team.

But again i haven't seen anyone ever whinge about that decision.

Yes it gets brought up- but no one denies what happened!

Come on Taylorman you can do better than that? The Sexton scenario was to illustrate it went your way but if the tables were turned and it did not there would have been tears and wwwwwwwwwwailing at bedtime.  

I am not an Irish fan but i supported them because they beat you at your own game for 80 minutes, the score was just a detail and everyone knows that. Great win for your team but NZ scraped through v Ireland and for periods were in the same mess v England, times are a changing and quicker than you might think.

The name on the team sheet went without incident but it was a distasteful affair and i would bet my mum's underwear that had NZ lost and it had been a SA 'error' on their team sheet then NZ fans would have been vociferous in their allegations of impropriety….just sayin', of course it's just my opinion and therefore must be a WUM right.

Jealousy of the All Blacks…..to some extent who wouldn't be but my post is not motivated by that, rather the lack of grace aspects of the NZ press, fans and management show in victory. It's well documented not least on here. By no means pathetic, i don't think I would go that far, and i certainly wouldn't big it up as much as you have, you kind of make the point again for me, but you must be right, I mean what fan/player wouldn't want to have achieved what they have yet still there has to be something wrong. Players do their talking on the pitch, wish the fans could.

Scratch wrote:Come on Taylorman you can do better than that? The Sexton scenario was to illustrate it went your way but if the tables were turned and it did not there would have been tears and wwwwwwwwwwailing at bedtime.  

I am not an Irish fan but i supported them because they beat you at your own game for 80 minutes, the score was just a detail and everyone knows that. Great win for your team  but NZ scraped through v Ireland and for periods were in the same mess v England, times are a changing and quicker than you might think.

The name on the team sheet went without incident but it was a distasteful affair and i would bet my mum's underwear that had NZ lost and it had been a SA 'error' on their team sheet then NZ fans would have been vociferous in their allegations of impropriety….just sayin', of course it's just my opinion and therefore must be a WUM right.

Jealousy of the All Blacks…..to some extent who wouldn't be but my post is not motivated by that, rather the lack of grace aspects of the NZ press, fans and management show in victory. It's well documented not least on here. By no means pathetic, i don't think I would go that far, and i certainly wouldn't big it up as much as you have, you kind of make the point again for me, but you must be right, I mean what fan/player wouldn't want to have achieved what they have yet still there has to be something wrong. Players do their talking on the pitch, wish the fans could.

Wait on wait on wait on. Bear us at our own game for 80 minutes? Huh? Did you lapse into an hysterical excited vicarious coma in the second half? 17-0 in te second spell. NZ with 75% possession and territory? It was literally one way traffic in that second half. And the score is never a detail.

So ironic that the Irish are being so magnanimous and it's the fans of other countries trying to revel in some kind of moronic moral victory...it was all the producers could do to stop inverdale and Woodward taking England on a lap of honour around old Trafford at half time...

Revelling? Being magnanimous?

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWhat the hell are you talking about!

 

Tell you what. Lok those words up in a dictionary. Look back over your posts, and the post match Irish thread and then you can do your own Joubert and admit you're wrong. How about that?