Rugby World Cup - other team/games and general chat

First topic message reminder :

I couldn't see a topic to discuss general WC stuff and non home nations games.......

Now we do...

God Macalou is fast.

Brilliant performance from Uruguay.
France centres have both been really poor in both defence and attack. Dog legs on several occasions, spilt balls, dropped passes.
Would have done better playing Macalou at 13.

The Uruguay full back is quality.

Uruguay can hold their head’s high after that performance. France ‘A’ side made far too many mistakes

Fabulous effort from Uruguay

That's why we love the WC!

Phenomenal from Uruguay. Expected to lose by around 50 points, yet they stopped France from even getting a bonus point.

Sadly overshadowed by more refereeing confusion. Just what is a red card? It's less clear every day...

Good fun game that, Uruguay put in a great performance. Good defence, great breakdown work, their first try was a thing of beauty. Some really good players in that side.

I don't understand how a leading shoulder to the head can not be a red card - how can Curry's be worse than that?

Amazing effort from Uruguay! That was a hugely enjoyable game. The style of the Uruguayan backs was something special and had their set piece been a little better perhaps they may have got a point from this match.

France second string does not look particularly organised and a major lack of leadership at times. Hastoy did well with is opportunity and Louis Bielle-Biarrey was excellent once again. The French pack was pretty loose at times and they made some pretty basic errors around the rucks. But job done.

What a great interview with the Uruguay captain.  Very composed, very respectful, with his infant son, just a great image
for our sport.

Almost identical score to the France v NZ game, very consistent from France.

Been to Uruguay a couple of times, was surprised how wealthy a country it is. Very friendly people, beautiful country side and beaches, underrated place to visit.

Collapse2005 wrote:Almost identical score to the France v NZ game, very consistent from France.

Uruguay=New Zealand????

So far, I have the following take-aways from the RWC:

1 - The mid-level nations and even some of the lesser nations (Uraguay in particular) are holding their own and proving tougher opposition for the Tier 1 nations than has been the case in some previous tournaments

2 - The officiating has serious issues with consistency. If Tom Curry's tackle merited a red card (and according to the letter of the Law, this was certainly justifiable), there should have been at least 3 more for similar tackles (i.e. upright, chest or shoulder to chest with a consequent clash of heads) and two for more serious foul play (the Argentina 'charge down' on Ford and the French player's no arms tackle to the head last night)

However, guidance from World Rugby on Friday morning said the bunker official determined the arm was not tucked or pressed against Taofifenua's side, hence the tackle was not "always illegal". Therefore mitigation can apply.

What a load of b*llocks ...

Heaf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:I didn’t think the player was that low despite being tackled (so not much mitigation), and Taofifénua seemed to lead in with a shoulder charge. It’s all very inconsistent.

It's a complete omnishambles ... have they changed the guidelines that if there's no attempt to make a legal tackle then no mitigation can be applied?

They didn't for Curry, it seems, because he was deemed too upright in the tackle so the sudden change in Mallia's height wasn't mitigation. But it seems to have been applied for everyone else.

To me the Taofifenua tackle was the worst of the lot.

He was always leading with his shoulder and no arms and it should have been deemed a dangerous tackle wherever it hit him.

As it clearly hit him on the head, it should have been a no brainer RC.

These are exactly the sort of really dangerous tackles that we need to get out of the game and the reasons the rules were tightened up.

Just makes no sense at all.

Poorfour wrote:

Heaf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:I didn’t think the player was that low despite being tackled (so not much mitigation), and Taofifénua seemed to lead in with a shoulder charge. It’s all very inconsistent.

It's a complete omnishambles ... have they changed the guidelines that if there's no attempt to make a legal tackle then no mitigation can be applied?

They didn't for Curry, it seems, because he was deemed too upright in the tackle so the sudden change in Mallia's height wasn't mitigation. But it seems to have been applied for everyone else.

And yet if you watch each of the similar tackles, Curry is probably the least upright - yes should have gone lower still, but he did make SOME effort to bend at the hips.

Taofifenua was upright, shoulder charge, no attempt to wrap from what I saw. I thought Curry was unlucky; I get he was a bit upright too but the Argie player still jumped and landed into him which for me is mitigation - I also get that a few will disagree with me. They didn't bother to even look at the Kriel incident it seems, and I'm sure there have been more elsewhere (some maybe warranted a look at in the Wales vs Fiji game). It's badly inconsistent how they're going about it.

Poorfour wrote:

Heaf wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:I didn’t think the player was that low despite being tackled (so not much mitigation), and Taofifénua seemed to lead in with a shoulder charge. It’s all very inconsistent.

It's a complete omnishambles ... have they changed the guidelines that if there's no attempt to make a legal tackle then no mitigation can be applied?

They didn't for Curry, it seems, because he was deemed too upright in the tackle so the sudden change in Mallia's height wasn't mitigation. But it seems to have been applied for everyone else.

Just put this in the France thread as well but the difference between Kriel and Curry wasn't mitigation but head-on-head being fractionally first contact for Curry. Whereas Kriel makes contact shoulder to the ball (legal) fractionally before his head smashes into Dempsey's face because Kriel's too upright. That tiny difference in first contact is apparently the difference between red card and a ban compared to not even a penalty.

Taofifenua is in an illegal position throughout due to the tucked arm so mitigation shouldn't be applied. Same as the Farrell red that was wrongly rescinded IMO. I'll be interested to see if the same vitriol is hurled at Taofifenua as Farrel if he doesn't get banned.

The Curry decision is ludicrous, if the airborne player jumped later and was therefore higher, the red card may have gone to him instead. If a player is airborn, must all players firstly be aware of the landing zone and secondly stay well awy from it. Utter B.S..
The Kriel tackle was never going to be penalised, the contact is definately with the ball and the whiplash effect means there was some facial contact. I've seen cards given for less but there was no foul play to be penalised so the correct decision was made.

Last night however leaves my mind more boggled than the Uruguayan player's. Taofifenua should definately have a ban coming, reckless and dangerous with no regard for player safety. He needs to go to tackle school does that lad.

Re: Farrell and the vitriol, unfortunately and strangely Owen seems to have become an acceptable target for abuse. I don't get it, I think the guy is a quality player and seemingly very pleasant off the field. Yes he has a terrible tackle technique at times but does that deserve to attention of so many keyboard warriors. He's the Boris Johnson of the England team, the one man who has become the socially acceptable target. Odd!

Pete330v2 wrote:The Curry decision is ludicrous, if the airborne player jumped later and was therefore higher, the red card may have gone to him instead. If a player is airborn, must all players firstly be aware of the landing zone and secondly stay well awy from it. Utter B.S..
The Kriel tackle was never going to be penalised, the contact is definately with the ball and the whiplash effect means there was some facial contact. I've seen cards given for less but there was no foul play to be penalised so the correct decision was made.

Last night however leaves my mind more boggled than the Uruguayan player's. Taofifenua should definately have a ban coming, reckless and dangerous with no regard for player safety. He needs to go to tackle school does that lad.

Re: Farrell and the vitriol, unfortunately and strangely Owen seems to have become an acceptable target for abuse. I don't get it, I think the guy is a quality player and seemingly very pleasant off the field. Yes he has a terrible tackle technique at times but does that deserve to attention of so many keyboard warriors. He's the Boris Johnson of the England team, the one man who has become the socially acceptable target. Odd!

Let's keep political bits out of here, no one wants to be associated or likened to the buffoon.

Farrell is a competent player but like a lot of captains before him he's taking the flak for a team under performing. He's not the type of playmaker that really turns that situation around either so he can't fall back on his own performances either. The tackle Vs Wales was the second tackle of it's ilk within 6 months. You can't keep shouldering people in the face and not expect people to be unhappy with you.

The one from last night was a dipping player, dynamic situation and yellow card is fair. The French player is a good foot taller than the Uruguayan standing upright and is clearly making an attempt to go low. The only issue will have been whether that arm was trying to wrap or not, it looked to me like he tried to wrap and missed. Whether intent counts or not I'm not sure but the Welsh prop got away with less of a wrap when diving shoulder first into a Fijians knee last weekend so maybe that's consistency

The officiating so far has been pretty iffy when it comes to consistently dealing with head collisions. I'd have liked World Rugby to come and out and detail the difference between Curry, Kriel, Biggar and the Chilean Captain's actions and sanctions. It would have helped mop up the debate and stop it rumbling on.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17

formerly known as Sam wrote:The officiating so far has been pretty iffy when it comes to consistently dealing with head collisions. I'd have liked World Rugby to come and out and detail the difference between Curry, Kriel, Biggar and the Chilean Captain's actions and sanctions. It would have helped mop up the debate and stop it rumbling on.

There has been no official statement but it almost seems like World Rugby decided to try and dampen officiating controversies by restricting the use of replays during the match. Perhaps with the aim of bolstering the authority of the bunker. However, the broadcasters can still use footage, so they have often shown clips during half-time breaks and post-match reviews. This has led to situations where the commentary team is unaware of a talking point taken up by the studio team.

The Jesse Kriel tackle is an example where the only view available to the most of the rugby public showed Kriel in a head-on-head collision. The reverse view, which might be the one the TMO and citing officer considered, potentially shows initial contact with the ball. Brendan Nel showed that in a YouTube video, and it's unclear where he got it, as it wasn't shown during the broadcast I watched.

World Rugby have also clamped down on fair use of World Cup footage in YouTube videos. On the plus side, this means we are spared numerous TAS Analytics videos complaining about refereeing decisions. Still, there are other YouTubers who focus on the tactical side of the game, and who probably reach a younger audience than people like Stephen Jones and Stuart Barnes writing in The Times. Ironically, the absence of videos by Squidge/Black Jersey etc highlighting skills and tactics means we are probably spending even more time than usual talking about officiating.

bsando wrote:https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/17

Interestingly the first question is was there head contact - I'm not seeing anything saying 'direct' contact and if the initial contact is with another part of the body it doesn't count?  For example the reckless challenge on Ford seems to have been supposedly kept at yellow due to some initial contact with Ford's shoulder - I'm not seeing where the process allows for this.

EDIT: Reading the 'considerations' the only bit where direct versus indirect seems to come in is assessing the degree of danger - I don't think you can say the Argentinian challenge was a low level of danger just because he may have touched Ford's shoulder before smashing into his head and knocking him flat.

Rugby Fan wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:The officiating so far has been pretty iffy when it comes to consistently dealing with head collisions. I'd have liked World Rugby to come and out and detail the difference between Curry, Kriel, Biggar and the Chilean Captain's actions and sanctions. It would have helped mop up the debate and stop it rumbling on.

There has been no official statement but it almost seems like World Rugby decided to try and dampen officiating controversies by restricting the use of replays during the match. Perhaps with the aim of bolstering the authority of the bunker. However, the broadcasters can still use footage, so they have often shown clips during half-time breaks and post-match reviews. This has led to situations where the commentary team is unaware of a talking point taken up by the studio team.

The Jesse Kriel tackle is an example where the only view available to the most of the rugby public showed Kriel in a head-on-head collision. The reverse view, which might be the one the TMO and citing officer considered, potentially shows initial contact with the ball. Brendan Nel showed that in a YouTube video, and it's unclear where he got it, as it wasn't shown during the broadcast I watched.

World Rugby have also clamped down on fair use of World Cup footage in YouTube videos. On the plus side, this means we are spared numerous TAS Analytics videos complaining about refereeing decisions. Still, there are other YouTubers who focus on the tactical side of the game, and who probably reach a younger audience than people like Stephen Jones and Stuart Barnes writing in The Times. Ironically, the absence of videos by Squidge/Black Jersey etc highlighting skills and tactics means we are probably spending even more time than usual talking about officiating.

Jaco Johan gave it to him

Aus vs Fiji;
Bell, Porecki, Slipper, Frost, Skelton (c), Hooper, McReight, Valetini, White, Gordon, Koroibete, Kerevi, Petaia, Nawaqanitawase, Donaldson. Reserves; Uelese, Schoupp, Nonggor, Arnold, Leota, Fines-Leleiwasa, Foketi, Vunivalu.

It seems like a good backline. Assuming Fiji had an eye on this one too, Botia and Tuisova should start. Not at the expense of Vinaya Habosi though, he made some fantastic tackles against Wales.

This should be the best match of the weekend - hopefully without any controversy ...

I know it's the world cup and each region wants to be represented, but I'm sick of Namibia (who've never won a wc game!) getting a free ride to every world cup, meanwhile the Euro and Americas qualifiers are an absolute dogfight. This is the first game I've had absolutely no interest in watching.

Does qualifying for every world cup give Namibia this comfort blanket, where perhaps they feel they don't really need to invest to get better?

That was a horrific injury. Luke Pearce moved away from looking at it.

Duty281 wrote:That was a horrific injury. Luke Pearce moved away from looking at it.

I saw that as well. I’ve never seen that happen before. Best wishes to the Namibian player.

Wow. A forward pass picked up by the referee

LeinsterFan4life wrote:I know it's the world cup and each region wants to be represented, but I'm sick of Namibia (who've never won a wc game!) getting a free ride to every world cup, meanwhile the Euro and Americas qualifiers are an absolute dogfight. This is the first game I've had absolutely no interest in watching.

Does qualifying for every world cup give Namibia this comfort blanket, where perhaps they feel they don't really need to invest to get better?

Unfortunately for them they're a bit too poor and geographically remote to be able to pack their team full of foreigners like the European sides.

Galted wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:I know it's the world cup and each region wants to be represented, but I'm sick of Namibia (who've never won a wc game!) getting a free ride to every world cup, meanwhile the Euro and Americas qualifiers are an absolute dogfight. This is the first game I've had absolutely no interest in watching.

Does qualifying for every world cup give Namibia this comfort blanket, where perhaps they feel they don't really need to invest to get better?

Unfortunately for them they're a bit too poor and geographically remote to be able to pack their team full of foreigners like the European sides.

Am sure there are a few South Africans with a Namibian granny!

BigGee wrote:

Galted wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:I know it's the world cup and each region wants to be represented, but I'm sick of Namibia (who've never won a wc game!) getting a free ride to every world cup, meanwhile the Euro and Americas qualifiers are an absolute dogfight. This is the first game I've had absolutely no interest in watching.

Does qualifying for every world cup give Namibia this comfort blanket, where perhaps they feel they don't really need to invest to get better?

Unfortunately for them they're a bit too poor and geographically remote to be able to pack their team full of foreigners like the European sides.

Am sure there are a few South Africans with a Namibian granny!

 they've also found a few French, Irish, Scottish and Italian grannies.  I think (could be wrong) that Namibia are one of the 100% home grown teams in the world cup.

Agree with L4L that they're a shower of sh*te to watch but there are about 15-20 African countries trying to get into the world cup, Namibia happen to be the best of them (they do lose occasionally).  Would be a shame to take away their incentive for developing the game.

Too many African countries playing now and they have MICH bigger populations....Namibia won't be the top dogs (of the Rest) in Africa for much longer

Swanepol is so bad

Galted wrote:Agree with L4L that they're a shower of sh*te to watch but there are about 15-20 African countries trying to get into the world cup, Namibia happen to be the best of them (they do lose occasionally).  Would be a shame to take away their incentive for developing the game.

But what if sleep walking to every world cup is doing just that? What incentive does the Namibian union have to improve if they are guaranteed the world cup money anyway? We've seen how the competitive nature of the Americas qualification is driving standards to unprecedented heights in that region and now Europe is following suit. Also Asia has been completely shafted now that Japan has become a tier 1 nation, they even had a spot removed from them in the last world cup when Japan auto qualified as hosts.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Galted wrote:Agree with L4L that they're a shower of sh*te to watch but there are about 15-20 African countries trying to get into the world cup, Namibia happen to be the best of them (they do lose occasionally).  Would be a shame to take away their incentive for developing the game.

But what if sleep walking to every world cup is doing just that? What incentive does the Namibian union have to improve if they are guaranteed the world cup money anyway? We've seen how the competitive nature of the Americas qualification is driving standards to unprecedented heights in that region and now Europe is following suit. Also Asia has been completely shafted now that Japan has become a tier 1 nation, they even had a spot removed from them in the last world cup when Japan auto qualified as hosts.

Cote d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe are competitive and, as Geordie said, it's a growing sport, hopefully there'll be more teams with a chance of making it past the qualifier to come. Think they deserve a few more world cups before the plug gets pulled. Asia barely have any countries playing at all, don't see how they got shafted.

Namibia seem like the worst side Ive seem at the RWC or maybe NZ are playing well, hard to tell.

Galted wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Galted wrote:Agree with L4L that they're a shower of sh*te to watch but there are about 15-20 African countries trying to get into the world cup, Namibia happen to be the best of them (they do lose occasionally).  Would be a shame to take away their incentive for developing the game.

But what if sleep walking to every world cup is doing just that? What incentive does the Namibian union have to improve if they are guaranteed the world cup money anyway? We've seen how the competitive nature of the Americas qualification is driving standards to unprecedented heights in that region and now Europe is following suit. Also Asia has been completely shafted now that Japan has become a tier 1 nation, they even had a spot removed from them in the last world cup when Japan auto qualified as hosts.

Cote d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe are competitive and, as Geordie said, it's a growing sport, hopefully there'll be more teams with a chance of making it past the qualifier to come.  Think they deserve a few more world cups before the plug gets pulled.  Asia barely have any countries playing at all, don't see how they got shafted.

The African WC qualifying competition was interesting.

Teams like Kenya, Morocco, Uganda, Zimbabwe etc all playing and showing different skills etc.

Isn't it Madagascar that gets huge crowds for rheir games.

I think it was the Ugandan side that were all bloody massive. If they can sort their conditioning out and improve their rugby skills wow...

Lots to do...but they will overtake Namibia and quite quickly I think.

Galted wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Galted wrote:Agree with L4L that they're a shower of sh*te to watch but there are about 15-20 African countries trying to get into the world cup, Namibia happen to be the best of them (they do lose occasionally).  Would be a shame to take away their incentive for developing the game.

But what if sleep walking to every world cup is doing just that? What incentive does the Namibian union have to improve if they are guaranteed the world cup money anyway? We've seen how the competitive nature of the Americas qualification is driving standards to unprecedented heights in that region and now Europe is following suit. Also Asia has been completely shafted now that Japan has become a tier 1 nation, they even had a spot removed from them in the last world cup when Japan auto qualified as hosts.

Cote d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe are competitive and, as Geordie said, it's a growing sport, hopefully there'll be more teams with a chance of making it past the qualifier to come.  Think they deserve a few more world cups before the plug gets pulled.  Asia barely have any countries playing at all, don't see how they got shafted.

No they aren't unfortunately, hence why Namibia stroll through the qualifiers... they won the Africa final 36-0 against Kenya and Kenya were then humiliated in the repercharge. There was a lot of hope for Kenya given their exploits in 7s but the old story of corruption and misplaced finances continues to plight the sport in Africa.

Asia has loads of nations playing, South Korea has just set up new semi pro/pro franchises for their league and their is constant talks of one of their franchises joining the Japanese top league. There is also a new professional Asian club championship being setup for next season, where franchises from Hong Kong, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines will play each other.  There is a hell of a lot more development happening in Asia than Africa.
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/pro-rugby-takes-massive-step-forward-in-asia-with-announcement-of-grand-league/

Let’s see if the shoulder to head is somehow mitigated in this match

Morgan75 wrote:Let’s see if the shoulder to head is somehow mitigated in this match

Will wonders never cease! Someone else actually gets a (deserved) red card.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Galted wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Galted wrote:Agree with L4L that they're a shower of sh*te to watch but there are about 15-20 African countries trying to get into the world cup, Namibia happen to be the best of them (they do lose occasionally).  Would be a shame to take away their incentive for developing the game.

But what if sleep walking to every world cup is doing just that? What incentive does the Namibian union have to improve if they are guaranteed the world cup money anyway? We've seen how the competitive nature of the Americas qualification is driving standards to unprecedented heights in that region and now Europe is following suit. Also Asia has been completely shafted now that Japan has become a tier 1 nation, they even had a spot removed from them in the last world cup when Japan auto qualified as hosts.

Cote d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe are competitive and, as Geordie said, it's a growing sport, hopefully there'll be more teams with a chance of making it past the qualifier to come.  Think they deserve a few more world cups before the plug gets pulled.  Asia barely have any countries playing at all, don't see how they got shafted.

No they aren't unfortunately, hence why Namibia stroll through the qualifiers... they won the Africa final 36-0 against Kenya and Kenya were then humiliated in the repercharge. There was a lot of hope for Kenya given their exploits in 7s but the old story of corruption and misplaced finances continues to plight the sport in Africa.

Asia has loads of nations playing, South Korea has just set up new semi pro/pro franchises for their league and their is constant talks of one of their franchises joining the Japanese top league. There is also a new professional Asian club championship being setup for next season, where franchises from Hong Kong, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines will play each other.  There is a hell of a lot more development happening in Asia than Africa.
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/pro-rugby-takes-massive-step-forward-in-asia-with-announcement-of-grand-league/

Having lost to Cote d'Ivoire and beaten Zimbabwe 34-19.  I'd say that's fairly competitive.

Let's see how the Asian leagues turn out but what you refer to seems to mainly be taking place in the future.

Feel bad for de Groot, looked like he got caught out a bit awkwardly with that tackle. Wrong shoulder but dangerous none the less.

Looked similar to the incident in the France game.

Collapse2005 wrote:Looked similar to the incident in the France game.

Yep both clear reds for me - can't see how the French bloke got away with it ...

Great start for Chile. And a possible red for Samoa. Its close.