England suspend kicking coaches !!!!

First topic message reminder :

So it looks as though England have taken action for their misdemeanour on the weekend. I suppose they had to show that they were doing something about it and this is probably the least damaging thing they could have done. Still it is a little bit drastic I think, but there you go, as long as Wales keep their noses clean I am not really that bothered:-

The Rugby Football Union has suspended two of England's coaches for the Pool B decider against Scotland on Saturday.
Kicking coach Dave Alred and fitness specialist Paul Stridgeon were found to have illegally switched balls during England's 67-3 win over Romania.
England manager Martin Johnson said: "It's unfortunate that we have had to take this action but ultimately there was a breach of the laws of the game.
"But it's happened, some action has been taken and we have to move on."
The pair will be banned from entering Eden Park, the venue for the Scotland game, following an internal RFU review of the incident.
World Cup organisers Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL) have investigated the matter and will take no further action.

Oh, you're back then GG, sadly nothing new to say just same old same old, cheating England blah blah.

Oh, you're back then GG, sadly nothing new to say just same old same old, cheating England blah blah.

TheGreyGhost wrote:No, NZ is not obsessed with England. I think journalists are obsessed with the perception of inequality, and rightly so.

Samoa have got the raw end of the pineapple in their draw. Many of the worlds greats are now questioning the inequitable distribution of RWC revenue, England are past masters at escaping law infractions on and off the field and now we see Samoa banged up for a hefty fine for a advertising transgression, whilst England walk away scott free after blatantly cheating.

..............................................................................................................................................................................................
Saying that England walk away scot free for blatantly cheating is a bit like, tha pot calling the kettle black.

The Abs are great teachers and past master of the very same thing The Grey Ghost. ok.

Being called a cheat by a kiwi, effin' priceless!!!!!

tigerleghorn wrote:Oh, you're back then GG, sadly nothing new to say just same old same old, cheating England blah blah.

Well, as long as England keep up the same old cheating, I'll keep up the same old commenting on it.

TheGreyGhost wrote:No, NZ is not obsessed with England. I think journalists are obsessed with the perception of inequality, and rightly so.

Samoa have got the raw end of the pineapple in their draw. Many of the worlds greats are now questioning the inequitable distribution of RWC revenue, England are past masters at escaping law infractions on and off the field and now we see Samoa banged up for a hefty fine for a advertising transgression, whilst England walk away scott free after blatantly cheating.

Samoa got such a raw end of the deal with regards to the draw because they were 4th seeds - due to their performance at the last World Cup. With their performance this year they'll surely be a third seed for the World Cup (unless Fiji can leapfrog them in the last weekend) and will then get a more equitable draw. Samoa were unlucky that, for a fourth seed, they were actually quite good and had a chance of qualifying. Georgia, USA, Canada, Russia, Japan, Romania and Namibia have all had the same obstacles thrown at them, the only difference is none of them had a realistic chance of qualifying.

GG how can its 'same old' it the first time any side has been pinged for that 'offence'

you really are a one-eyed hater aren't you, you remind me of those chuffers who 'support' wendyball but in reality find a avenue for their bile, hatred and dislikes that has nothing to do with the sport.

Just because England find new and innovative ways to cheat in nearly every game, doesn't disqualify them from interrogation over their illegal antics surely? Or prevent one from legitimately questioning how they have escaped scott-free once again?

Just because the All Blacks find new and innovative ways to cheat in nearly every game, doesn't disqualify them from interrogation over their illegal antics surely? Or prevent one from legitimately questioning how they have escaped scott-free once again?

See what i did there?

Yes I did Carpe, but it wasn't interesting.

My example of England cheating and getting away with it is well publicised. Please provide your example of NZ cheating and getting away with it?

You wrote it!

Answer the question: My example of England cheating and getting away with it is well publicised. Please provide your example of NZ cheating and getting away with it?

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:Curious that the RFU have stepped in on this one, before hte RWCL investigation is complete? Can't see that anything more than a slapped wrist was required myself?

done to prevent a suspension by investigation, possibly of Lord Sir Jonny

England have suspended the guilty parties and the RWCL have reviewed this and decided that no further action is necessary.

Just because it is a light punishment for a light offence, doesn't mean they have got off scott-free.

And what do you mean again? A suspension and a fine was handed out in 2003 when England had 16 men on the pitch (for what is a penalty offence).

TheGreyGhost wrote:Answer the question: My example of England cheating and getting away with it is well publicised. Please provide your example of NZ cheating and getting away with it?

please don't ..! as we'd swiftly overtake the Eng vs Sco page count and thats just McCaw

robbo277 wrote:England have suspended the guilty parties and the RWCL have reviewed this and decided that no further action is necessary.

Just because it is a light punishment for a light offence, doesn't mean they have got off scott-free.

And what do you mean again? A suspension and a fine was handed out in 2003 when England had 16 men on the pitch (for what is a penalty offence).

Fall guys, blame hounds and scape-goats for what was clearly team policy. And the "internal review" was clearly a pre-organised farce.

England should be stripped of their match points to stop the tournament descending into farce.

No, you added that after i had responded. Up to your old tricks again. Personally, i don't think NZ cheat but i'm just giving you a taste of your own medicine.

Wish you'd just stick to the rugby as your knowledge is outstanding but you just can't seem to change the record with your hatred of anything English!

You are wrong! I don't hate the English at all. I just despise cheating. And cheating and getting away with it is foul.

Love the sinner, hate the sin as the good lord says.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Just because England find new and innovative ways to cheat in nearly every game, doesn't disqualify them from interrogation over their illegal antics surely? Or prevent one from legitimately questioning how they have escaped scott-free once again?

Mods, is this sort of post acceptable on here? Is this designed to promote debate or antagonise?

I don't see that it promotes debate just Holly Wilaboobie for tat mud-slinging.

"holly wilaboobie"?? I didnt write that. Guess you cant use t*t

Not cheating, gamesmanship. Surely you must be appreciative of a bit of gamesmanship?

I checked carefully before posting tiger. It doesn't break any forum rules and it on topic for the thread.

Surely we must be allowed to express our views on a forum designed for expressing our views? or a thread encouraging debate on the exact topic?

If you've taken offence then I sincerely apologise. But surely you must have taken an equal measure at the Herald article I posted which says the same thing?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

sirBiggles wrote:This has always been a bug bear of mine. The rules are simple, you use the same ball for the conversion that was used to score the try. I have always been anoyed, when players like Ashton, Cueto, Foden and especially YOUNGS (who does it nearly every time), where they score a try then throw the ball into the crowd. The ref, should disallow the try... ok harsh, but they'll soon stop doing it.

In this paricular case, as the England team have admitted to it, by the virtue they have suspended coaches, then I think the RWC should dock England 2 Points. It wont alter their position (current that is) at the top of Pool B, but it would make this weekend's games even more interesting....

C'mon Scotland... dont give up....

All I read there is "I hate ...list of England players ...come one Scotland."
The rest was really just filler wasnt it? :P

Im sure the refs should watch for the ball going into the crowd more closely though, Ill agree with you on that one Welshy

Still thnk England should be docked 2 points for this

I would have thought the Welsh would be keeping quiet about using the wrong ball...

Excellent point Carpe. Well made.

given that the entire Rugby Game was invented for using the wrong ball.... in England this entire thread argument it pointless.

besides ...

..we invented it, our rules, our ball, ergo we win.

Carpe Diem wrote:I would have thought the Welsh would be keeping quiet about using the wrong ball...

Carpe... That wasnt the wrong ball...

It was Matthew Rees and Mike Phillips auditioning for "Penn & Teller Fool Us"...

There seems to be conflicting reporting from various journalistic sources of what actually occurred. The more official reports (certainly the IRB ones) talk of attempts to substitute balls rather than succeeding to do so. If the attempts were indeed unsuccesful, then no 'advantage' was gained (as some posts here have suggested).

hawalsh wrote:There seems to be conflicting reporting from various journalistic sources of what actually occurred. The more official reports (certainly the IRB ones) talk of attempts to substitute balls rather than succeeding to do so. If the attempts were indeed unsuccesful, then no 'advantage' was gained (as some posts here have suggested).

So if attempt to rob a bank but am stopped by the police, I havent been successful and hence avoid conviction then.....

What planet are you on. Whether they where successful or not, gained advantage or not, they attempted to cheat, and as such should be penalised accordingly.

As I have said, a 2 point deduction apears a fair punishment on reflection. However, if you really want fairness. An equivalent punishment to that the Samoan winger recieved for wearing the wrong gum sheild, then Johny should recieved a £100k fine for knowingly cheating by asking for a new ball.....

To all the English out there, I entered this debate with tongue in cheek, but the ridiculous defences you are putting up are laughable... You really have got massive chips on your shoulders havent you...

Not only did they attempt to cheat, but they attempted to cheat....against Romania.

Get some self respect.

sirBiggles wrote:

hawalsh wrote:There seems to be conflicting reporting from various journalistic sources of what actually occurred. The more official reports (certainly the IRB ones) talk of attempts to substitute balls rather than succeeding to do so. If the attempts were indeed unsuccesful, then no 'advantage' was gained (as some posts here have suggested).

So if attempt to rob a bank but am stopped by the police, I havent been successful and hence avoid conviction then.....

What planet are you on. Whether they where successful or not, gained advantage or not, they attempted to cheat, and as such should be penalised accordingly.

As I have said, a 2 point deduction apears a fair punishment on reflection. However, if you really want fairness. An equivalent punishment to that the Samoan winger recieved for wearing the wrong gum sheild, then Johny should recieved a £100k fine for knowingly cheating by asking for a new ball.....

To all the English out there, I entered this debate with tongue in cheek, but the ridiculous defences you are putting up are laughable... You really have got massive chips on your shoulders havent you...

trying to illustrate a point by comparing attempted robbery to attempted ball switching is clearly ridiculous. The RFU have suspended alred and the other guy to preclude the organisers from suspending jonny or deducting points, clever if you ask me.

The actions of the coaches are poor form but if the actions did not influence the result then no points deduction would be appropriate. Get some perspective, railing about points deduction just seems to be a rabid over reaction...makes me wonder what your nationality is?

Suspending Jonny would be difficult to justify, his reputation is not that of someone who would deliberately cheat and to suspend him would in my view be as much of an injustice as deducting points.

And before you lambast me for being English i am hardcore Welsh.

TheGreyGhost wrote:Not only did they attempt to cheat, but they attempted to cheat....against Romania.

Get some self respect.

Getting a bit hot under the collar aren't you...surely if they cheated the ref would have spotted it?

They did. They were found out, and still got off with nothing, again.

Typical.

Sometimes I think England could actually take automatic weapons on the pitch, mow down the opposition, then spend 80 minutes setting up a drop goal, and the IRB wouldn't blink an eye.

now that would just be stupid, they would go for the try

It does seem like a bit of a non-offense to me, and it's not like it had a major impact on the match. That being said, I think that the IRB would have been better off making their own recommendations/sanctions rather than allowing England to dictate the outcome. That way, I guess people wouldn't feel so aggrieved.

$10k for a gumshield though? That is bloody silly.

Although any mouthguard manufacturer would be primed right now to step in, offer the guy a promo campaign, plaster the walls with it and tap into the irony.

The IRB could've just handed the guy a lucrative campaign.

Maybe a guard with a design that looks like the raw end of a pineapple.

"why have they suspended two coaches, when it was Wilkinson asking for the balls to be swapped??? Surely it should be him that carries the can??? Not wanting to start an arguement here, but he started/caused the offence? It's a bit like the player being cited for a high tackle and the the defense coach being suspended for teaching them how to do it? That said, glad some action was taken"

nope it would be like johny asking a team mate to high tackle and the person that did the high tackle gets suspended.

which offcourse is correct

BTW you are the opnly person who is glad action was taken- do you not realise that every team does this!! including your own

TheGreyGhost wrote:Answer the question: My example of England cheating and getting away with it is well publicised. Please provide your example of NZ cheating and getting away with it?

The figures are "total number of penalties", "average penalties per game" "number of yellow cards"

USA / 58 / 14.5 / 3
NZ / 40 / 13.3 / 0
ENG / 38 / 12.6 / 2
NAM / 50 / 12.5 / 1
RUS / 36 / 12.0 / 1
GEO / 24 / 12.0 / 0
TON / 34 / 11.3 / 3
JAP / 33 / 11.0 / 2
SAM / 33 / 11.0 / 1
CAN / 33 / 11.0 / 0
AUS / 32 / 10.6 / 0
ARG / 32 / 10.6 / 0
ROM / 41 / 10.3 / 1
SCO / 29 / 9.6 / 0
WAL / 29 / 9.6 / 0
IRE / 28 / 9.3 / 0
FRA / 28 / 9.3 / 0
FIJ / 27 / 9.0 / 0
ITA / 24 / 8.0 / 1
SA / 23 / 7.6 / 0


What do these figures tell us?

Well, given that penalties are awarded for teams "cheating", and yellow cards are supposed to be awarded for repetetive "cheating" I'd say the proof you're looking for is in the second line on the list, the one that starts NZ.

Anytime soldier, don't mention it.

PJHolybloke wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:Answer the question: My example of England cheating and getting away with it is well publicised. Please provide your example of NZ cheating and getting away with it?

The figures are "total number of penalties", "average penalties per game" "number of yellow cards"

USA / 58 / 14.5 / 3
NZ / 40 / 13.3 / 0
ENG / 38 / 12.6 / 2
NAM / 50 / 12.5 / 1
RUS / 36 / 12.0 / 1
GEO / 24 / 12.0 / 0
TON / 34 / 11.3 / 3
JAP / 33 / 11.0 / 2
SAM / 33 / 11.0 / 1
CAN / 33 / 11.0 / 0
AUS / 32 / 10.6 / 0
ARG / 32 / 10.6 / 0
ROM / 41 / 10.3 / 1
SCO / 29 / 9.6 / 0
WAL / 29 / 9.6 / 0
IRE / 28 / 9.3 / 0
FRA / 28 / 9.3 / 0
FIJ / 27 / 9.0 / 0
ITA / 24 / 8.0 / 1
SA / 23 / 7.6 / 0


What do these figures tell us?

Well, given that penalties are awarded for teams "cheating", and yellow cards are supposed to be awarded for repetetive "cheating" I'd say the proof you're looking for is in the second line on the list, the one that starts NZ.

Anytime soldier, don't mention it.

Bullsh.. penalties are awarded by ignorant Irish referees at scrum time,who have absolutely no concept of the purpose of the scrum,let alone the rules/laws of rugby.
Penalties bare absolutely no relevance to cheating at all.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Bullsh.. penalties are awarded by ignorant Irish referees at scrum time,who have absolutely no concept of the purpose of the scrum,let alone the rules/laws of rugby.
Penalties bare absolutely no relevance to cheating at all.

Quite right, refs only award penalties for fair play, obviously, otherwsie they'd be called bonuses wouldn't they?

Oh, hang on, no, I am right and you are wrong, another display of blatant NZ cheating but you didn't quite get away with it this time.

Just a minute

phew! Just thought you might be interested in this.


Here are the penalty stats for the Tri Nations since the last RWC.

Penalty And yellow cards/red cards stats for tri nation teams since last RWC.
South Africa
Matches played 22
Penalties conceded 225
Yellow cards recieved 7
Average penalties per match 10.22
Matches per yellow card 3.14
Penalties per yellow card 32.14
Penalty count per opponent SA 110, NZ 125 – SA 115, OZ 104
Yellow cards received per vs opponent, against NZ – 5, against OZ – 2

Australia
Matches played 25
Penalties conceded 249
Yellow cards recieved 9 one became a red
Average penalties per match 9.96
Matches per yellow card 2.77
Penalties per yellow card 27.66
Penalty count per opponent OZ 145, NZ 160 – SA 115, OZ 104
Yellow cards received per vs opponent, against NZ – 4, against SA – 5

New Zealand
Matches played 25
Penalties conceded 285
Yellow cards recieved 4
Average penalties per match 11.4
Matches per yellow card 6.25
Penalties per yellow card 71.25
Penalty count per opponent OZ 145, NZ 160 – SA 110, NZ 125
Yellow cards received per vs opponent, against OZ – 3, against SA – 1
.

Figures by courtesy of Biltongbek.


Let me know when you've had enough, I'm not fussed really as it's not me with the axe to grind.

Havent we already had acouple of thousand article on New Zealanders cheating or are you displayinmg youre creative , original, effort?

aucklandlaurie wrote: Havent we already had acouple of thousand article on New Zealanders cheating or are you displayinmg youre creative , original, effort?

Neither, just being helpful to TGG, he did after all ask for some proof so I was just trying to do my bit, I'm good like that. If you want to shoot the messenger mate fill yer boots, like I said, it's not me with the axe to grind is it?

PJHolybloke wrote:

TheGreyGhost wrote:Answer the question: My example of England cheating and getting away with it is well publicised. Please provide your example of NZ cheating and getting away with it?

The figures are "total number of penalties", "average penalties per game" "number of yellow cards"

USA / 58 / 14.5 / 3
NZ / 40 / 13.3 / 0
ENG / 38 / 12.6 / 2
NAM / 50 / 12.5 / 1
RUS / 36 / 12.0 / 1
GEO / 24 / 12.0 / 0
TON / 34 / 11.3 / 3
JAP / 33 / 11.0 / 2
SAM / 33 / 11.0 / 1
CAN / 33 / 11.0 / 0
AUS / 32 / 10.6 / 0
ARG / 32 / 10.6 / 0
ROM / 41 / 10.3 / 1
SCO / 29 / 9.6 / 0
WAL / 29 / 9.6 / 0
IRE / 28 / 9.3 / 0
FRA / 28 / 9.3 / 0
FIJ / 27 / 9.0 / 0
ITA / 24 / 8.0 / 1
SA / 23 / 7.6 / 0


What do these figures tell us?

Well, given that penalties are awarded for teams "cheating", and yellow cards are supposed to be awarded for repetetive "cheating" I'd say the proof you're looking for is in the second line on the list, the one that starts NZ.

Anytime soldier, don't mention it.

Yawn. Tired old argument. Yellow cards are awarded for persistent offending often by one player, or collectively by a team of the same kind. NZ have suffered a lot of technical scrum penalties in various areas of the field and offensive breakdown penalties. You rarely see a yellow card for these, unless it's persistent scrum infringing to prevent a try.

Jog on with your Aussie stats, son.

Pjholyoake
You are offensive and I find youre comments ar motivated by noyhing other than hate.
Again penalties awarded in a game bare no relevance to a cheating or are you too thick too understand that?

aucklandlaurie wrote: Bullsh.. penalties are awarded by ignorant Irish referees at scrum time,who have absolutely no concept of the purpose of the scrum,let alone the rules/laws of rugby.
Penalties bare absolutely no relevance to cheating at all.

And this isn't offensive....who is being thick here laurie?

You are certainly being obtuse, 'cheating' is a pretty emotive term but let's face it , the likes of GG constantly accuse England of it yet seem almost angelic in their hypocrisy when it comes to admitting NZ do it too. By cheating read slowing the game, lazy running, wrong side, hands in the ruck...these can all be characterised as examples of cheating and are you telling me NZ doesn't do that?

breaking the rules is cheating, leads to pens, leads to cards so pick your dummy back up and stop being such a hypocrite

gatts I in no way am ahypocrite
So if I got one of the trainers to get the scalpal out and give aplayer a nick,and get an extra adavantage of a blood bin,in your words that wouldnt be cheating because the referee didnt give apenalty.