gatland bringing game into disripute?

First topic message reminder :

Gatland is publicly moaning amount ref decisions and seems to be suggesting that was the cause of the Wales defeat. Should he face a fine for his comments? I personally think they are deluded. For one it wasn't a forward pass. Also Wales benefited from decisions. For example Phillips should have been red carded. Gatland spends alot of time bigging up Wales and finds it impossible to accept they were beaten fair and square. Make no bones about it Wales were played off the pitch. They lost because Australia are better.

Steffan wrote:Wales lost because Australia were the better team

Nice to see the anti-Welsh brigade is out in force today though

Still bitter we won the 6N yet again or bitter that we won the Lions tour single handedly

   

Can you not see the irony in this statement?

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Gatland does not bring the Welsh management into disrepute, he unfortunately brings the whole game.

Having said that some of the AV coaches/managers/DoR are no better: Tigers please note.

I wouldn't want to be around Saint at the moment, the smell of day old fat on all them chips would be really off-putting. I wonder if he uses a lot of vinegar, it would explain all the sour posts he makes.

I think he has a list of standard diatribe that he just copies and pastes, all his posts sound the same. Same subject, same whinges, same chips.

He brings the name of "Saint" into disrepute, if you are a Northampton fan.

To be fair, the constant anti-wales comments are usually the same jibes, so I can only give the same responses.

I have heard that before somewhere  

mystiroakey wrote:

The Saint wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:steffan show me one anti welsh post dude?

This thread, half the comments.
The thread post SA game.
Most threads after Wales lose a game.
All threads criticising Wales from 2012 AI's to the end of the Lions tour/now. In fact, there were loads of threads whinging about Wales winning games in the 2012 Six Nations.


Take your pick. I never agree with Steffan which you'll note if you analyse the Club forum but he has a point. As do you, because I know some were supporting Wales. I doubt you were though going by some of your past comments.

could you care to show my comments that are anti welsh  then.

or do you allways just make up this bs about other posters.

Advice-

Stop whinging and stop judging other posters by your very low standards

I already advised you to take your pick. If you have a query then shouldn't you be willing to go and locate the evidence? If you don't post WUM comments (if that's what we can refer to your substandard attempts as?) then why is it you find yourself often having a dispute with Risca Rev?

I don't make up BS, that's Quinsforver and TJ's job. Speaking of Quins, bit quiet here right now.  

Only idiots that are to sensitive about history and nonsense wont support an NH team against SH teams.

Practically all English support or dont care either way about the other home nations.

We support NH teams because we dont carry chips on our shoulders like many Celts do.

It makes a lot of sense to support NH teams..

The better we all perform against SH the more ranking points we bring back,


The better we all become the better games we have against each other in the 6 nations- the 6 nations get better and we all have better harder games against each other.

Its simple intelligent logical thinking.

The Saint wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

The Saint wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:steffan show me one anti welsh post dude?

This thread, half the comments.
The thread post SA game.
Most threads after Wales lose a game.
All threads criticising Wales from 2012 AI's to the end of the Lions tour/now. In fact, there were loads of threads whinging about Wales winning games in the 2012 Six Nations.


Take your pick. I never agree with Steffan which you'll note if you analyse the Club forum but he has a point. As do you, because I know some were supporting Wales. I doubt you were though going by some of your past comments.

could you care to show my comments that are anti welsh  then.

or do you allways just make up this bs about other posters.

Advice-

Stop whinging and stop judging other posters by your very low standards

I already advised you to take your pick. If you have a query then shouldn't you be willing to go and locate the evidence? If you don't post WUM comments (if that's what we can refer to your substandard attempts as?) then why is it you find yourself often having a dispute with Risca Rev?

I don't make up BS, that's Quinsforver and TJ's job. Speaking of Quins, bit quiet here right now.  

Dont you dare stain me with you disgusting chip attitude dude.

As i said others dont think like you  But what I asked you was to show me one of MY ANTI WELSH COMMENTS , as you have accused me of posting them. Now either back it up or forever shut your trap

as for risca rev- I dont even think i have ever spoken to him, so again you are now adding BS to more BS

The Saint wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

The Saint wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:steffan show me one anti welsh post dude?

This thread, half the comments.
The thread post SA game.
Most threads after Wales lose a game.
All threads criticising Wales from 2012 AI's to the end of the Lions tour/now. In fact, there were loads of threads whinging about Wales winning games in the 2012 Six Nations.


Take your pick. I never agree with Steffan which you'll note if you analyse the Club forum but he has a point. As do you, because I know some were supporting Wales. I doubt you were though going by some of your past comments.

could you care to show my comments that are anti welsh  then.

or do you allways just make up this bs about other posters.

Advice-

Stop whinging and stop judging other posters by your very low standards

I already advised you to take your pick. If you have a query then shouldn't you be willing to go and locate the evidence? If you don't post WUM comments (if that's what we can refer to your substandard attempts as?) then why is it you find yourself often having a dispute with Risca Rev?

I don't make up BS, that's Quinsforver and TJ's job. Speaking of Quins, bit quiet here right now.  

You do make up BS . 9.5/10 posts from you are about your imagined anti-welsh posts from other users. Even on threads which have nothing to do with Wales or being anti Welsh. Matter of fact this thread was about Gatland and Barnes but since you popped in , its once again yet another Anti-Welsh blah blah thread

Ah, so it's avoidance now after being presented with the truth? I guess Steff did have a point then .

The jihad against Wales has calmed down anyway, it's only a handful of posters carrying it on, they've been there since the beginning. It'll continue regardless of their team winning or losing against Wales.

The Saint wrote:Ah, so it's avoidance now after being presented with the truth? I guess Steff did have a point then .

The jihad against Wales has calmed down anyway, it's only a handful of posters carrying it on, they've been there since the beginning. It'll continue regardless of their team winning or losing against Wales.

who is that comment aimed at?

Bullsbok wrote:

The Saint wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

The Saint wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:steffan show me one anti welsh post dude?

This thread, half the comments.
The thread post SA game.
Most threads after Wales lose a game.
All threads criticising Wales from 2012 AI's to the end of the Lions tour/now. In fact, there were loads of threads whinging about Wales winning games in the 2012 Six Nations.


Take your pick. I never agree with Steffan which you'll note if you analyse the Club forum but he has a point. As do you, because I know some were supporting Wales. I doubt you were though going by some of your past comments.

could you care to show my comments that are anti welsh  then.

or do you allways just make up this bs about other posters.

Advice-

Stop whinging and stop judging other posters by your very low standards

I already advised you to take your pick. If you have a query then shouldn't you be willing to go and locate the evidence? If you don't post WUM comments (if that's what we can refer to your substandard attempts as?) then why is it you find yourself often having a dispute with Risca Rev?

I don't make up BS, that's Quinsforver and TJ's job. Speaking of Quins, bit quiet here right now.  

You do make up BS . 9.5/10 posts from you are about your imagined anti-welsh posts from other users. Even on threads which have nothing to do with Wales or being anti Welsh. Matter of fact this thread was about Gatland and Barnes but since you popped in , its once again yet another Anti-Welsh blah blah thread

Bullsbok, this is a WUM thread from a poster who hates Wales. You only need to check his posting history. Here is my first post on this matter, which was related to the OP, posted in a constructive manner so we could hopefully avoid the usual anti-welsh pit:

The Saint wrote:No he shouldn't be fined, I don't think giving his view on the game is bringing it into disrepute. That's a bit different to accusing ref's of racism, etc. If what he said about the pass and Barnes is true then he should have refrained from saying as such. However in the post match commentary there is no footage of Gats saying what was written in the BBC article, so I'm wondering if it really is substantial.

In my view the pass clearly went forward, it was travelling over a line imprinted on the field which made it clear. I don't think that was the difference in the game, which was won/lost at the breakdown. I think both yellow's were ridiculous too.

Clear as day. Can't you read Bullsbok or are you just going to avoid this post? It was after this that I receieved a negative comment and was told that 'Welsh' are incessant whingers, an unsubstantiated claim IMO. So really, I haven't made anything up.

Jihad? Crikey.

So come on then saint

are you going to prove that myself and risca rev argue all day long??(i cant even remember speaking to him for ages)

Are you going to also show where my anti welsh posts are!

You cant just go around making up accusations without backing them up

mystiroakey wrote:

The Saint wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:

The Saint wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:steffan show me one anti welsh post dude?

This thread, half the comments.
The thread post SA game.
Most threads after Wales lose a game.
All threads criticising Wales from 2012 AI's to the end of the Lions tour/now. In fact, there were loads of threads whinging about Wales winning games in the 2012 Six Nations.


Take your pick. I never agree with Steffan which you'll note if you analyse the Club forum but he has a point. As do you, because I know some were supporting Wales. I doubt you were though going by some of your past comments.

could you care to show my comments that are anti welsh  then.

or do you allways just make up this bs about other posters.

Advice-

Stop whinging and stop judging other posters by your very low standards

I already advised you to take your pick. If you have a query then shouldn't you be willing to go and locate the evidence? If you don't post WUM comments (if that's what we can refer to your substandard attempts as?) then why is it you find yourself often having a dispute with Risca Rev?

I don't make up BS, that's Quinsforver and TJ's job. Speaking of Quins, bit quiet here right now.  

Dont you dare stain me with you disgusting chip attitude dude.

As i said others dont think like you  But what I asked you was to show me one of MY ANTI WELSH COMMENTS , as you have accused me of posting them. Now either back it up or forever shut your trap

as for risca rev- I dont even think i have ever spoken to him, so again you are now adding BS to more BS

Relax Mysti, I actually think you're okay. There was a point where you'd find yourself arguing with REV over some of your jibes, otherwise he wouldn't have engaged with you. Like you I'm not sure when you last spoke either though, alright? I never said you posted anti-welsh comments, I said WUM comments, there's a subtle difference in the meaning. Don't pretend it's never happened though. Whilst I'm aware England recieve their fair share don't pretend there was never a huge jihad against Wales, Gats, etc during the period I referred to.

Oh and I have also noticed you also tried to accuse me of being another poster.

That is also against the rules.

I wont report you. But as i said either prove it or shut up.

mystiroakey wrote:Oh and I have also noticed you also tried to accuse me of being another poster.

That is also against the rules.

I wont report you. But as i said either prove it or shut up.

Welcome to my world mystri! If everyone who accused me of being someone else got banned it'd be just you and me here, just about.

Oh no GE I have accused you.

It would just be you left

Who did I accuse of being of? I answered your post and now you've just confused me.

* Quinsforver? Not a chance. I was actually insinuating he received a ban for some of his insults last night, not that you two were the same. I doubt he did though, after all an insult to anything Wales rugby doesn't contravene the rules .  

Oh ok,

Me and Quinns get that a lot!

I feel sorry for him, as he actually knows a lot more about rugby than I do!!

I try , I love the game.. But I am no Expert

"he actually knows a lot more about rugby than I do!!"

Jeez, don't be so harsh on yourself....

Not being harsh just honest.

This isnt a competition, its just certain posters like to feel superior. Which is just nonsense from my POV

Mysti is normally a good guy and not anti-Welsh as far as im aware

Shame he supports Palace but we all have our faults

wrfc1980 wrote:Gatland is publicly moaning amount ref decisions and seems to be suggesting that was the cause of the Wales defeat. Should he face a fine for his comments? I personally think they are deluded. For one it wasn't a forward pass. Also Wales benefited from decisions. For example Phillips should have been red carded. Gatland spends alot of time bigging up Wales and finds it impossible to accept they were beaten fair and square. Make no bones about it Wales were played off the pitch. They lost because Australia are better.

Clearly you didn't look at the numerous replays. Well, either that or you're just lying through your teeth.

I agree Wales didn't play well enough to deserve the win but that's no reason to deliberately try to distort parts of the game. When he passed it the ball was in front of the 5m line and when he received it it was behind. Could your sense of direction and movement possibly be so screwed up?

Gatland is right on this account as in this case it is a genuine instance of incompetence in an important game and someone needs to be calling them out.

It wasn't a forward pass though. Very close to being one but the position of his hands weren't forward.

Look, these comments don't impact Rugby's reputation in any way.

However, it does show an inability to lose with class. Bad lessons for the kids.

Knowsit17 wrote:

wrfc1980 wrote:Gatland is publicly moaning amount ref decisions and seems to be suggesting that was the cause of the Wales defeat. Should he face a fine for his comments? I personally think they are deluded. For one it wasn't a forward pass. Also Wales benefited from decisions. For example Phillips should have been red carded. Gatland spends alot of time bigging up Wales and finds it impossible to accept they were beaten fair and square. Make no bones about it Wales were played off the pitch. They lost because Australia are better.

Clearly you didn't look at the numerous replays. Well, either that or you're just lying through your teeth.

I agree Wales didn't play well enough to deserve the win but that's no reason to deliberately try to distort parts of the game. When he passed it the ball was in front of the 5m line and when he received it it was behind. Could your sense of direction and movement possibly be so screwed up?

Gatland is right on this account as in this case it is a genuine instance of incompetence in an important game and someone needs to be calling them out.

 
Knowsit...by referring specifically to the points on the ground in reference to the pass you have clearly not understood or been aware of the rule. Have you watched the IRB video on this posting?
 
Following the release of the video:
 
The IRB recently put together a video for their Total Rugby show that aims to explain the forward pass law in a way that all can understand. It's long over due, and will hopefully clear things up a bit as its one of the areas of the game that is always scrutinised and heavily debated.

"The whole concept is that the ball must travel backwards out of the players hands, but can move forward through the air, due to basic physics. In essence it's a simple formula to follow, but time and time again we still see it reffed incorrectly as forward passes are missed, or ruled incorrectly. It's unfortunately still down to referee interpretation on the day, and does look different when watching on TV."
 
Based on that knowledge you cannot possibly come to the conclusion you have:
 
"When he passed it the ball was in front of the 5m line and when he received it it was behind."
 
Point to point is not how the rule is interpreted, nor should it be. By your statement what you dont understand is the ball is already travelling forward before it is passed, as are the players. To insist that the act of the pass must completely negate all that over a sideways distance and actually travel backward is ludicrous.

Why are the Welsh support not up in arms over the forward pass to North for his first try?
That was clearly forward hands and all.
Referees make mistakes every game. Barnes wasn't anti Welsh he gave the Wales team some really dubious decisions in their favour.
It's hard to be neutral when it's your team on the end of a perceived bad call though.

Warren Gatland was out of order basically calling the ref a cheat.

The Welsh got a real Brucey bonus with Coopers yellow card which they failed to capitalise on.

They lost because they weren't good enough to capitalise on the opportunities afforded them

Welsh haters

Both Folau and the ball are in front of the 5m line when he passes it. When Tomane catches it both he and the ball are behind the 5m line.

Also if you watch the replay in slow mo you can see the ball clearly travelling over the 5m line between the time when Folau throws and Tomane receives. Tomane even has to lean forward to catch it and by the time he does it is without a doubt in front of the space it was in when it was passed. I don't see how anyone watching the evidence can't come to the conclusion it was a forward pass.

It doesn't help that Scott Williams tackled Folau so as to push him forward in a way that makes it look like he was always in front of the ball. The timing of the tackle might have instigated it but if you first look at where Folau is instants before the pass is made you'll see he couldn't have passed it behind him as it ends up a considerable couple of metres in front of where he was at the specific moment of making it.

Knowsit17 wrote:Both Folau and the ball are in front of the 5m line when he passes it. When Tomane catches it both he and the ball are behind the 5m line.

Also if you watch the replay in slow mo you can see the ball clearly travelling over the 5m line between the time when Folau throws and Tomane receives. Tomane even has to lean forward to catch it and by the time he does it is without a doubt in front of the space it was in when it was passed. I don't see how anyone watching the evidence can't come to the conclusion it was a forward pass.

It doesn't help that Scott Williams tackled Folau so as to push him forward in a way that makes it look like he was always in front of the ball. The timing of the tackle might have instigated it but if you first look at where Folau is instants before the pass is made you'll see he couldn't have passed it behind him as it ends up a considerable couple of metres in front of where he was at the specific moment of making it.

Knowsit I really don't think you have read and understood the post above explaining what is actually a forward pass.

Knowsit17 wrote:Both Folau and the ball are in front of the 5m line when he passes it. When Tomane catches it both he and the ball are behind the 5m line.

Also if you watch the replay in slow mo you can see the ball clearly travelling over the 5m line between the time when Folau throws and Tomane receives. Tomane even has to lean forward to catch it and by the time he does it is without a doubt in front of the space it was in when it was passed. I don't see how anyone watching the evidence can't come to the conclusion it was a forward pass.

It doesn't help that Scott Williams tackled Folau so as to push him forward in a way that makes it look like he was always in front of the ball. The timing of the tackle might have instigated it but if you first look at where Folau is instants before the pass is made you'll see he couldn't have passed it behind him as it ends up a considerable couple of metres in front of where he was at the specific moment of making it.

If that's a forward pass (it's not. It's in the rules as Taylorman has explained very well above) then could you please explain to me how Scott Williams's pass to North for the first try was allowed?

Rules are rules I guess, I was questioning the rule but now I have clarity. Guess it shows that Barnes used the TMO well, but could have explained his reasoning the way Nigel does.

I have read and understood perfectly. I appreciate that the ball is already travelling forward due to the player carrying it moving forward and that some physical account of that must be taken but that's not to say that it justifies the degree to which the ball travelled forwards. Folau's body position made it look much more backward than it actually was. Which is why, as I said, Tomane had to stretch to take the ball, not because he was too deep

Engine#4 wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:Both Folau and the ball are in front of the 5m line when he passes it. When Tomane catches it both he and the ball are behind the 5m line.

Also if you watch the replay in slow mo you can see the ball clearly travelling over the 5m line between the time when Folau throws and Tomane receives. Tomane even has to lean forward to catch it and by the time he does it is without a doubt in front of the space it was in when it was passed. I don't see how anyone watching the evidence can't come to the conclusion it was a forward pass.

It doesn't help that Scott Williams tackled Folau so as to push him forward in a way that makes it look like he was always in front of the ball. The timing of the tackle might have instigated it but if you first look at where Folau is instants before the pass is made you'll see he couldn't have passed it behind him as it ends up a considerable couple of metres in front of where he was at the specific moment of making it.

If that's a forward pass (it's not. It's in the rules as Taylorman has explained very well above) then could you please explain to me how Scott Williams's pass to North for the first try was allowed?

Why should I have to? Where did I say that Scott Williams' pass was definitely backwards?

mystiroakey wrote:So come on then saint

are you going to prove that myself and risca rev argue all day long??(i cant even remember speaking to him for ages)

Are you going to also show where my anti welsh posts are!

You cant just go around making up accusations without backing them up

ah but he does - I challenged him in exactly the same way - and then as well he was unable to show a single anti welsh post.

Because the implication here is that Wales were in someway hard done by and lost the match as a result of the same (correct) interpretation of the rules that they had benefited from earlier in the match. Otherwise it would never have been brought up in the first place.

The 'degree to which the ball is travelling forward' is irrelevant as the rule stands. It's about direction of the hands and they were flat. If you take issue with the rule then fair enough but the only way to measure 'how far forward the ball is allowed to travel before it exceeds that which the momentum of the player could provide' would be to have a couple of physicists on the touchline with calculators, measuring tapes and weighing scales at the ready.

Knowsit17 wrote:

Engine#4 wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:Both Folau and the ball are in front of the 5m line when he passes it. When Tomane catches it both he and the ball are behind the 5m line.

Also if you watch the replay in slow mo you can see the ball clearly travelling over the 5m line between the time when Folau throws and Tomane receives. Tomane even has to lean forward to catch it and by the time he does it is without a doubt in front of the space it was in when it was passed. I don't see how anyone watching the evidence can't come to the conclusion it was a forward pass.

It doesn't help that Scott Williams tackled Folau so as to push him forward in a way that makes it look like he was always in front of the ball. The timing of the tackle might have instigated it but if you first look at where Folau is instants before the pass is made you'll see he couldn't have passed it behind him as it ends up a considerable couple of metres in front of where he was at the specific moment of making it.

If that's a forward pass (it's not. It's in the rules as Taylorman has explained very well above) then could you please explain to me how Scott Williams's pass to North for the first try was allowed?

Why should I have to? Where did I say that Scott Williams' pass was definitely backwards?

It's just the law you don't agree with then really.

Engine#4 wrote:Because the implication here is that Wales were in someway hard done by and lost the match as a result of the same (correct) interpretation of the rules that they had benefited from earlier in the match.  Otherwise it would never have been brought up in the first place.

The 'degree to which the ball is travelling forward' is irrelevant as the rule stands.  It's about direction of the hands and they were flat.  If you take issue with the rule then fair enough but the only way to measure 'how far forward the ball is allowed to travel before it exceeds that which the momentum of the player could provide' would be to have a couple of physicists on the touchline with calculators, measuring tapes and weighing scales at the ready.

Or, only one (forward pass) was debatable to a great extent because it was brought to the attention of the big screen. The debate came about over lack of clarity for the ruling. I don't think anyone is claiming Wales were hard done by, you get decisions that go your way and sometimes you don't, that's rugby.

Engine#4 wrote:Because the implication here is that Wales were in someway hard done by and lost the match as a result of the same (correct) interpretation of the rules that they had benefited from earlier in the match.  Otherwise it would never have been brought up in the first place.

The 'degree to which the ball is travelling forward' is irrelevant as the rule stands.  It's about direction of the hands and they were flat.  If you take issue with the rule then fair enough but the only way to measure 'how far forward the ball is allowed to travel before it exceeds that which the momentum of the player could provide' would be to have a couple of physicists on the touchline with calculators, measuring tapes and weighing scales at the ready.

Can you not read? I said back in my first post on this thread that Wales didn't deserve to win. There is no implication, only your naive assumption that because I say it was a forward pass I also think Wales were hard done by.

Please read what I actually wrote next time instead of telling me I made implications which I know very well I was careful not to make.

Engine#4 wrote:Because the implication here is that Wales were in someway hard done by and lost the match as a result of the same (correct) interpretation of the rules that they had benefited from earlier in the match.  Otherwise it would never have been brought up in the first place.

The 'degree to which the ball is travelling forward' is irrelevant as the rule stands.  It's about direction of the hands and they were flat.  If you take issue with the rule then fair enough but the only way to measure 'how far forward the ball is allowed to travel before it exceeds that which the momentum of the player could provide' would be to have a couple of physicists on the touchline with calculators, measuring tapes and weighing scales at the ready.

Not really. Stick a GPS in the ball and see if the forward component of the velocity increases or decreases with a pass. Increases = forward. Decreases = backwards.

Knowsit17 wrote:

Engine#4 wrote:Because the implication here is that Wales were in someway hard done by and lost the match as a result of the same (correct) interpretation of the rules that they had benefited from earlier in the match.  Otherwise it would never have been brought up in the first place.

The 'degree to which the ball is travelling forward' is irrelevant as the rule stands.  It's about direction of the hands and they were flat.  If you take issue with the rule then fair enough but the only way to measure 'how far forward the ball is allowed to travel before it exceeds that which the momentum of the player could provide' would be to have a couple of physicists on the touchline with calculators, measuring tapes and weighing scales at the ready.

Can you not read? I said back in my first post on this thread that Wales didn't deserve to win. There is no implication, only your naive assumption that because I say it was a forward pass I also think Wales were hard done by.

Please read what I actually wrote next time instead of telling me I made implications which I know very well I was careful not to make.

I can read fine thank you very much and nowhere did I say that YOU were implying anything. It has been implied over the weekend however and I have asked the question about the first try before only to be studiously ignored but I apologise if it seemed like I was specifically having a go at yourself. It's Sunday evening and I'm grumpy at the idea of work in the morning  .Your interpretation of a what makes a forward pass though, I dsagree with entirely.

HammerofThunor wrote:
Not really. Stick a GPS in the ball and see if the forward component of the velocity increases or decreases with a pass. Increases = forward. Decreases = backwards.

I could do with getting with the times clearly  

Engine#4 wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:
Not really. Stick a GPS in the ball and see if the forward component of the velocity increases or decreases with a pass. Increases = forward. Decreases = backwards.

I could do with getting with the times clearly  

 

Well the players seem to be all wearing them these days.

i don't normally read this type of thread because they tend to get out of hand,being welsh im really dissapointed with the result but i think we have to accept wales are 1-5 points behind australia,probably 7-10 points behind the boks and 10+ the all blacks.Thats nothing to be ashamed of before gatland we were 20+ points behind all of the s hemisphere teams most of the time.We need our first choice team available against the top 3,our young tight head was playing for llanelli club side a few weeks ago for instance,we need to find an extra 1% and continue to build playing depth then the scoreboard will take care of itself.

maestegmafia wrote:

Mr Bounce wrote:As a neutral I don't consider that Gatland is bring the game into disrepute; however, he is coming across as a whinger. A better thing to say would be that "It could have been a very different result if a couple of referee's decisions had gone our way". However, he has chosen instead to attack the referee. Stop turning our lovely game into Wendyball. This is the sort of behaviour that befits a football manager. Any rugby coach/manager whatever their team should be flamed for such comments. Losing hurts - get over it man!

Also, I think it shows the lack of strength in depth in certain positions that Wales have. Tight-head prop isn't brilliant without Adam Jones (not that there were many scrums...) and the lack of penetration by the centres show just how much Jamie Roberts and Jonathan Davies are missed.

Whatever the result, it was a cracking game; that said, given that Cooper was at his enigmatic best, it wasn't one that they really DESERVED to win.

Just discussing the ravages of injury on another thread. You are right that missing world class players in any position is going to weaken a team from their first choice, but so much more so when there are also three or four injuries behind the first choice forcing selection of fourth or fifth choice players.

With that said it is unfair to expect a fourth choice international player that has a couple of caps to be compared to a world class player who usually fills their roll.

are you referring to Williams's midweek interview comments on how Folau just isn't all that great, and wales have plenty of players who are at least as good? that the 4th choice player with a couple of caps you mean?

and you wonder why people shake their heads in disbelief?

if Yarde came out with similar comments (similar number of home caps as Williams) i would expect him to be seriously disciplined by SL and the team.

Engine#4 wrote:

Knowsit17 wrote:

Engine#4 wrote:Because the implication here is that Wales were in someway hard done by and lost the match as a result of the same (correct) interpretation of the rules that they had benefited from earlier in the match.  Otherwise it would never have been brought up in the first place.

The 'degree to which the ball is travelling forward' is irrelevant as the rule stands.  It's about direction of the hands and they were flat.  If you take issue with the rule then fair enough but the only way to measure 'how far forward the ball is allowed to travel before it exceeds that which the momentum of the player could provide' would be to have a couple of physicists on the touchline with calculators, measuring tapes and weighing scales at the ready.

Can you not read? I said back in my first post on this thread that Wales didn't deserve to win. There is no implication, only your naive assumption that because I say it was a forward pass I also think Wales were hard done by.

Please read what I actually wrote next time instead of telling me I made implications which I know very well I was careful not to make.

I can read fine thank you very much and nowhere did I say that YOU were implying anything.  It has been implied over the weekend however and I have asked the question about the first try before only to be studiously ignored but I apologise if it seemed like I was specifically having a go at yourself.  It's Sunday evening and I'm grumpy at the idea of work in the morning  .Your interpretation of a what makes a forward pass though, I dsagree with entirely.

That's perfectly reasonable and apologies in turn for my retorts, I am not in the nicest of moods myself. I generally get fed up when people associate me with other people's views without good reason and I'm sorry if my interpretation of you making such an association was false  

As to the pass for the Tomane try, we can agree to disagree for the time being. I'm still not convinced watching the replay repeatedly that it was backwards but I don't use this forum to be goaded whenever I have a different opinion to some people and overall I suppose both sides offer food for thought regarding the interpretation of a forward pass. Inevitably I'm finding it harder to tell watching it over and over but my initial impression was that it was forward and I haven't yet seen anything conclusive enough to change my view.

Definitely wasnt a forward pass. Dont know about Gatland bringing game into disripute, but just sounds stupid. I do think Mike Phillips going down like a sack of spuds when pushed is though, should get cited for that.
What I did think though is Barnes shouldnt have blown the whistle/G North shouldnt have stopped in that Cooper yellow card incident because pretty sure that would have been a try. Do you guys think George stopping made Barnes blow up?
Australia were awesome for some periods, esp when they were in our22 they were relentless, despite some massive hits from us. Cooper was fantastic and the Aussie 1st try was something to behold.
Over the last few games v Aus ive been annoyed because I felt we should have won, but this Saturday we were never beating them, not sure anyone would have, really was a great performance and they could have scored more.
I think Tips really needs to be starting for us moving forward, whether at 7 or 9,10,12,13 dont mind.
Psychologically that defeat will have hurt us I think, im worried for the future now, hopefully our players still believe in themselves.

The Saint wrote:Who did I accuse of being of? :shock:I answered your post and now you've just confused me.

* Quinsforver? Not a chance. I was actually insinuating he received a ban for some of his insults last night, not that you two were the same. I doubt he did though, after all an insult to anything Wales rugby doesn't contravene the rules .  

you wish you sad bitter deluded young man.

i insulted everyone equally last night. as i always do. including the english. haven't had any complaints. want to know why? because it was HUMOROUS. if you dont understand, look it up.

rarely have i seen a scoreline that flattered a losing team as much as last nights, which is why blaming the referee is going to go down particularly badly with any rugby fans who understand what quality on a rugby pitch is about. QC got yellow carded (terrible decision too) and still won MoM - which i predicted on 65mins btw here. that is all the difference you need to know between wales and and SH team. wales have the worst ratio between rubbish 9/10 and great 1-8, 11-15 of any side in international rugby. unfortunately those are quite important positions. that's why Sexton won the lions tour not the 10 or 11 welsh starting players who all did admirably.

Crikey..mystiquins is getting bored of losing out on the Heineken cup thread!!!!!

HammerofThunor wrote:

Engine#4 wrote:Because the implication here is that Wales were in someway hard done by and lost the match as a result of the same (correct) interpretation of the rules that they had benefited from earlier in the match.  Otherwise it would never have been brought up in the first place.

The 'degree to which the ball is travelling forward' is irrelevant as the rule stands.  It's about direction of the hands and they were flat.  If you take issue with the rule then fair enough but the only way to measure 'how far forward the ball is allowed to travel before it exceeds that which the momentum of the player could provide' would be to have a couple of physicists on the touchline with calculators, measuring tapes and weighing scales at the ready.

Not really. Stick a GPS in the ball and see if the forward component of the velocity increases or decreases with a pass. Increases = forward. Decreases = backwards.

that's an awesome idea. would need a bit of testing to make sure it didn't get disoriented by big kicks, and wouldnt be much appreciated by anyone below intl/pro1 level as they wouldnt have the ability to use the technology. but i like it for the big games at least.

quinsforever wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Engine#4 wrote:Because the implication here is that Wales were in someway hard done by and lost the match as a result of the same (correct) interpretation of the rules that they had benefited from earlier in the match.  Otherwise it would never have been brought up in the first place.

The 'degree to which the ball is travelling forward' is irrelevant as the rule stands.  It's about direction of the hands and they were flat.  If you take issue with the rule then fair enough but the only way to measure 'how far forward the ball is allowed to travel before it exceeds that which the momentum of the player could provide' would be to have a couple of physicists on the touchline with calculators, measuring tapes and weighing scales at the ready.

Not really. Stick a GPS in the ball and see if the forward component of the velocity increases or decreases with a pass. Increases = forward. Decreases = backwards.

that's an awesome idea. would need a bit of testing to make sure it didn't get disoriented by big kicks, and wouldnt be much appreciated by anyone below intl/pro1 level as they wouldnt have the ability to use the technology. but i like it for the big games at least.

Just making an annoying point...

There are no rules in rugby, can we please stop using that awfull word.