Genuine concern for Berrick Barnes’ rugby future after another head injury in the Wallabies’ record 60-11 romp over the Barbarians at Twickenham overnight.
The 25-year-old has suffered multiple footballer’s migraine injuries during the year, but was ruled fit enough for the Rugby World Cup, which he survived.
Last night, he leapt high to take a centre-field kick, to crash down on the back of his head. He remained motionless for a couple of moments, and eventually left the field.
Concern too for captain David Pocock, who reinjured his knee that forced him to miss two RWC games, including the shock loss to Ireland.
He too eventually left the field after 55 minutes, but by then the Wallabies had started to carve up the Baa-Baas defence.
It’s questionable both will be fit enough for the big clash with Wales at Millennium Stadium, next Saturday night.
They were the downsides, but there were so many good flash points, with new fly-half James O’Connor, winger Digby Ioane, and full-back Adam Ashley-Cooper turning in blinders with world class performances.
All three thoroughly deserved the man-of-the-match award, but it went to Ashley-Cooper.
Having bombed four ‘certain’ first half tries with inexcusable and blatant forward passes to lead 18-6 at the break, the men-in-gold clicked from the 51st to 75th minute by scoring six tries through brilliant support play.
* The 51st – James Horwill’s bustling try off a half-break from Stephen Moore, both with their first touch of the ball off the bench.
* The 54th – Rob Horne crossed after a dreadful lineout feed from Moore, picked up by Baa-Baa fly-half Danny Cipriani who threw a perfect pass to Horne to intercept and canter in.
* The 60th – Horwill’s second try, finishing off a well-timed pass from replacement half-back Nick Phipps.
* The 64th – Lachie Turner’s second after a long bust by Ashley-Cooper on halfway.
* The 69th – Digby Ioane’s second, breaking through five defenders through sheer leg drive.
* And the 75th – Radike Samo’s try off the bench, scooping the ball one-handed from the back of a ruck to crash over from 10m out.
Great rugby, and some poor defence, but a spectacle nonetheless for the 51,212 crowd at the home of rugby.
But they had to wait until overtime for the only Baa-Baa try, superbly scored by Great Britain’s rugby league full-back Sam Tomkins playing his first game of rugby, on his first visit to Twickenham, and his first appearance on the wing.
What a debut. He played the entire 80 minutes, and was always keen to be involved. Tomkins has a definite place in rugby if he ever decides to switch.
But anyone who thought pre-match this was going to be a social encounter didn’t have to wait long to see it was on from the kick-off, with plenty of niggle, and three yellow cards:
Ashley-Cooper for a deliberate knock-on,Scott Higginbotham for a deliberate late tackle, and Barbarian Salvatore Perugia for a professional foul.
This game was refereed in the right spirit by Frenchman Romain Poite, especially with advantage. His was a top performance as was the Wallabies once they were patient instead of butchering those four first half tries.
Bombing five-pointers will be fatal against the Welshmen.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Barbarians, Rugby Union, wallabies
November 27th 2011 @ 9:57am
Parisien said | November 27th 2011 @ 9:57am | Report comment
A good but scrappy win for the Wallabies with about four extra potential trys wasted! The Wallabies were pretty good but have to say the Barbarians were poor.
Some thoughts: JOC looked good with his individual brilliance, taking on the line, some slick passing and some that was poor, but yet to see how he directs the team around the park with less possession, less time and more pressure against Wales. He’ll need some well-placed kicks as well. Its way too early to tell but he may after a season or two turn into a good 10. Horne and the back three all went pretty well, although Turner’s defense is still not fully safe. He fell off two tackles and can also get caught out of position. Phipps when he came on is still not up to the level. Some of his passes make Burgess look great.
Higgers pretty good apart from that shocking pass that bombed a try. Dennis didn’t make much impression, nor did Hodgson when he replaced Pocock. I hope Pocock recovers quickly for Wales, because he is needed and Hodgson is nowhere near as good!
All three props still have question marks over them, although interestingly when Poite crossed to Slipper’s side of the scrum, he found less fault with him, and his side was stable. Interesting to see the impact Moore and Horwill had when they came on as the game was opening up, although Sharpe and TPN both went well. Hope Barnes is ok after the two big hits he copped., the first a knee to the head, the second a fall on his head. I was not that impressed with Toeva his replacement.
Great way to remove the rust, now to lift further for Wales!
November 27th 2011 @ 10:25am
Parisien said | November 27th 2011 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Correction: I meant Tapuai, as Barnes replacement!
November 27th 2011 @ 10:40am
Mike said | November 27th 2011 @ 10:40am | Report comment
Is AAC seriously overhyped? – only a solid performance in my view. The real Boy of the Match was James Bieber, who should now be Wallaby #10 without a doubt. Deans forget your infatuation with flakey first fives – first there was Carlos Spenser who lost you a WC and then QC who lost you another…James Bieber is your boy!
November 27th 2011 @ 4:11pm
mattamkII said | November 27th 2011 @ 4:11pm | Report comment
yeah thats it….let’s throw Cooper out the window because his forwards couldn’t get him the ball the the world cup and JOC has one good game against a scratch team….Awesome idea.
You may be right, but come on mate. Dont let hype driven dislike for Cooper blind your judgment.
November 27th 2011 @ 7:01pm
Kuruki said | November 27th 2011 @ 7:01pm | Report comment
There is one serious issue with your call for Beiber to play 10. I cant recall any of the great first five’s who played in another position during the club season. Now will be the biggest test of the relationship between club and Country. I still feel Oconner would be a better 12.
November 27th 2011 @ 10:38pm
Parisien said | November 27th 2011 @ 10:38pm | Report comment
Perhaps Cipriano will be shifted to fullback to allow O’Connor to play 10? However I too would prefer to see O’Connor at 12 for the time being. If Barnes is out, there are not too many options for the Wallabies.
November 27th 2011 @ 11:05pm
Football United said | November 27th 2011 @ 11:05pm | Report comment
no because beale will play 15. it will be cipriani at 10, bieber at 12 and KB at 15
November 29th 2011 @ 7:34pm
Campbell Watts said | November 29th 2011 @ 7:34pm | Report comment
Cipriani may be a bench-warmer if he plays like that in the next Super comp! Mortlock certainly will be (if he’s still playing?)
I thought most of the Baa Baa’s were pretty poor really – fitness was obviously down and thats forgivable but there was a distinct lack of focus and effort, Matfield excluded.
Bieber still looks to be trying to do everything himself, but I’ll give him time at 10 before I jump to any conclusions!
November 27th 2011 @ 10:35pm
Parisien said | November 27th 2011 @ 10:35pm | Report comment
Not sure if this is Aussie Mike or Kiwi Mike but thats being harsh on AAC. He played really well, ran the ball back with speed and intent, always gained ground, passed well (unlike the others), defended well, saving a try… he did all the basics consistently well unlike some others in the team who were erratic, throwing wild passes forward or missing tackles. I like the way AAC ran, subtle shifts in speed, very good balance, always twisting hrough traffic and tackles. I thought this was one of his better games in a while.
November 27th 2011 @ 10:50pm
Mike said | November 27th 2011 @ 10:50pm | Report comment
That was kiwi Mike. He has a valid point about consistency, but AAC did do very well in this game. Let’s see how he goes in the Wales match….
November 28th 2011 @ 2:07pm
ThelmaWrites said | November 28th 2011 @ 2:07pm | Report comment
Hi Aussie Mike!
“Not sure if this is Aussie Mike or Kiwi MIke” is neat fun-and-games, but please, it’s excruciatingly painful being uncertain!
. I’m back in my native land, and I’ve tons of decisions to make.
So please, make it easy on me and say if you’re Aussie Mike or Kiwis MIke?!
November 28th 2011 @ 2:41pm
Mike said | November 28th 2011 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
You could always just try replying to the content of the posts…
November 29th 2011 @ 11:50pm
ThelmaWrites said | November 29th 2011 @ 11:50pm | Report comment
Sorry to trouble you about this, Aussie Mike, seeing that you’ve been lengthily involved all over this thread.
But just so you appreciate my quandary: Sometime in September, “Mike” said he thought Ewen should take over from Robbie after the World Cup. Then in October or November, “Mike” said he thought Warren (Gatland) maybe should take over from Robbie in 2013. Unless this would be two kiwis too many. So there I was wondering whether you had recanted.
Never mind, I’ll take your advice!
November 29th 2011 @ 11:53pm
Mike said | November 29th 2011 @ 11:53pm | Report comment
I see your point Thelma.
I’ve said I would like to see Ewen take over from Robbie (although not that concerned – I think our issues go deeper than a mere change of coach will cure). I’ve never commented on Gatland takling over from Deans. Perhaps that was kiwi Mike .
November 27th 2011 @ 11:03am
Brendon said | November 27th 2011 @ 11:03am | Report comment
He also had dan carter… I wouldn’t call him flakey
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
November 27th 2011 @ 11:05am
trakl said | November 27th 2011 @ 11:05am | Report comment
Tomkins said that it was his very first game of “rugby union” – not “rugby” – at any level whatsoever. He showed barely anything of his true level of ability – but I was happy to see him score a try.
The Barbarians’ hapless performance made the match a truly dreadful one to witness. And, however bad the tackling, it was exalted by comparison with the passing that we saw. Honestly, I cannot remember offhand so many talented individuals – including recent World Cup winners – produce so much utter rubbish. Some of the passes Tomkins received – and that’s to ignore the ones that never came his way when they most certainly should have done – were embarrassing in the extreme.
O’Connor’s talented and looked superior in every way to a slow, hesitant, erratic Cipriani – whose defence appears, if anything, to have regressed. Sadly, for those of us who see Toby Flood as astonishing only in his mediocrity and who recognise Wikinson as being long, long past his best, he looks further away from an England recall than ever.
November 27th 2011 @ 11:24am
kovana said | November 27th 2011 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Amazing, if there is only 1 try in a Rugby match, league fans will rubbish the match…If more than 9 tries are scored, they will still rubbish it.
Good on Tomkins for scoring a try in his Rugby debut.
November 27th 2011 @ 8:53pm
Nathan of Perth said | November 27th 2011 @ 8:53pm | Report comment
Well, normally you like to see the tries a little more distributed, haha.
November 27th 2011 @ 9:44pm
trakl said | November 27th 2011 @ 9:44pm | Report comment
Tomkins played his first game of rugby union yesterday – unless you’re calling him a liar too?
I’m a fan of rugby union. You hate rugby league. Spot the difference.
It was a dreadful game. The Mexican Wave appeared to start after the Wallabies decision to kick for goal after a few minutes.
November 28th 2011 @ 5:07pm
King of the Gorgonites said | November 28th 2011 @ 5:07pm | Report comment
10K more then watched RL in London!
look for a sell out in Cardiff this weekend………….
November 28th 2011 @ 8:26pm
trakl said | November 28th 2011 @ 8:26pm | Report comment
So!
November 28th 2011 @ 11:28pm
kovana said | November 28th 2011 @ 11:28pm | Report comment
Yes, I am saying Tomkins played his first game of Rugby.
Oh no… My friend, i do not dislike league, i dislike some of the fans.
I have watched quite a lot of league friend. If there is no Rugby on, league is the next best thing to me.
November 29th 2011 @ 2:47am
trakl said | November 29th 2011 @ 2:47am | Report comment
What you’re saying is wrong.
That’s not what Tomkins said. He knows better than you what he’s done with his life.
I love rugby union and only dislike people like you who exalt the game at the expense of one – and only one – other.
November 28th 2011 @ 3:53am
Damo said | November 28th 2011 @ 3:53am | Report comment
Traki you are still running your game of Vernacular Cop. Anyone who thinks stubbornness is dead in England only has to read your posts this week.
We get it now. Tomkins just played his first game of rugby, sorry – rugby UNION.
BTW when can Australians be allowed to call soccer ‘soccer’ and any one of it’s football codes ‘football’ again, without some know-all ex-pat correcting a man in his own country?
Your histrionics this week has been hilarious from a nation still expecting linguistic subservience from the colonies.
Anyway other than Tomkins getting his words out proper and English and that, was there nothing else to enjoy? Did you watch the game to see the skills on display or just to check that everyone got their words out right?
November 28th 2011 @ 4:01am
trakl said | November 28th 2011 @ 4:01am | Report comment
Damo, Sam played his first game of “rugby union” yesterday – they are his words and not confusing or opaque even for someone with as little brain as yourself. That’s how it was reported over here. He’s a rugby league player. It is not for a ninny like you to say he’d not played any “rugby recently.” It isn’t anything other than the truth.
Imagine Tomkins being asked something on Horwill and saying he’d not played much “rugby recently” – equally (but not more) ludicrous.
As for the game, I said what I thought about it above – it was a dreadful and joyless occasion – not because of anything the Wallabies did but because that was the single worst display from a Barbarians side I can remember.
I’m glad you “get it” but sad it took you so long.
Ex-pat? Oh dear!
November 28th 2011 @ 6:53am
Bear said | November 28th 2011 @ 6:53am | Report comment
Traki, Excuse my ignorance – but going on what the english commentators were saying – it was Tomkins first game of Rugby ever (at any level). I do understand that he played in the League test the week before.
November 28th 2011 @ 7:02am
trakl said | November 28th 2011 @ 7:02am | Report comment
Why should anyone excuse ignorance as lame as yours?
November 28th 2011 @ 5:44pm
bear said | November 28th 2011 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
trakl, You are one angry individual. Take a chill pill.
November 28th 2011 @ 11:58am
Dan said | November 28th 2011 @ 11:58am | Report comment
I must confess trakl, after your lengthy diatribe against “insular Australians” for using short-hands that are apparently not only obscenely offensive, but are almost tantamount to perjury and verging on defamation (definitely the funniest part of your argument), I did find it interesting to hear the English commentators referring to Tomkins as “the League man” (as opposed to “the Rugby League man”) on several occasions. After the match I half expected to see an article authored by you on the subject berating the ignorant “ninnys” in the commentary box for their faux-pas (even if it was a relatively minor one by most people’s standards – certainly not in the same class as the ultimate interweb debate faux-pas of unwittingly using poor grammar in a sentence belittling someone else’s
).
What happened trakl? I thought the short-hand “League” was meaningless in its opaqueness and even in the same class as using “rugby” as a short-hand for Rugby Union. Why didn’t you get all hot under the collar? Or is it only when the people of colonies use the English language in ways you disapprove of that you find it so necessary to become so pompously indignant over such banal issues?
November 28th 2011 @ 8:15pm
trakl said | November 28th 2011 @ 8:15pm | Report comment
Rugby league and rugby union – so difficult for the Dans and Bears of this world to comprehend – but so easy for a working class lad playing his first ever game of rugby union.
The “league man” as opposed to the “union men” was the context provided by the (shorthand) union commentators….
Dan, have you finished your thesis on the Gestapo, concentration camps, Jews, Russia and colonialism yet?
If so – can I pay to hear a private reading?
November 28th 2011 @ 8:36pm
Dan said | November 28th 2011 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
Tell me traki, have you sent the IRB a letter yet demanding that the “Rugby World Cup” be renamed the “Rugby Union World Cup”? After all, the League alternative is called the “Rugby League World Cup”, and not the “League World Cup” or the “other Rugby World Cup” (though actually the Union world cup should really be called ‘the other Rugby World Cup’ if League has just as much a right to “Rugby” as a shorthand – seeing as how League had a WC first).
I’m just seeking a bit of consistency here trakl, and so far you’ve provided very little.
For the record, the union commentators did make reference to some pretty good “rugby” played by the wallabies in the second half, and didn’t actually provide the context you speak of – that was only implicit, much like Horwill’s.
You make excuses for English people who use the same shorthand you berate Australians for using, so I can only assume you’ve some weird chip on your shoulder.
November 28th 2011 @ 9:52pm
trakl said | November 28th 2011 @ 9:52pm | Report comment
Dan – every reference by the union commentators regarding Tomkins was placed in the context of a league player playing union or a rugby league player playing rugby union.
And your reference to the Wallabies playing “rugby” means that you still don’t get it. They did play rugby . They do play rugby. Tomkins would never say of Horwill that he hasn’t played much “rugby recently” He would say that he’s not a rugby league player.
Can you yet figure out the lack of “consistency?”
This is the simple and basic truth – a truth too complex for one who feels “chips are “weird” and whose references to the Gestapo, Jews, concentration camps, Russia and colonials suggest that it is he who might, after all, be lacking a little “perspective.”
November 29th 2011 @ 12:08am
Dan said | November 29th 2011 @ 12:08am | Report comment
Trakl, how very artfully you avoid the central point there, but it was still fairly plain that you weren’t able to address it.
The point is this: Why is it considered ok for “Rugby” to be used as a shorthand for Rugby Union so widely, that it’s even in officially branded tournaments and the name of the international governing body? After all, it is the International Rugby Board, and not the International Rugby Union Board; it’s the Rugby World Cup, not the Rugby Union World Cup; it’s the “Super Rugby Tournament”, not the “Super Rugby Union Tournament”, and so on and so forth. The same simply cannot be said of Rugby League; it’s the National Rugby League; the English Super League; the Rugby League World Cup; the Rugby League International Federation, and so on…
Given these facts (yes, actual facts trakl), Horwill would be well within his rights to claim he was simply adhering to the accepted norms of the vast majority of the English speaking community – both in England and beyond – in saying Tomkins hadn’t played any “rugby recently” as a shorthand for saying he hasn’t played union before. In fact, in light of the self-evidently normative application of “Rugby” as referring to “Rugby Union” for the bodies and competitions making up that sport, and the contrasting absence of this usage in equivalent Rugby League tournaments and bodies, one might even say that Horwill’s statement was “manifestly true”.
And that, my dear trakl, is called consistency. Your argument on the other hand is inconsistent as it refuses to accept these norms and claims that some small section of English society’s own perspective on the issue – one that isn’t reflected in the official naming or branding – is some how more “true” than that which is clearly accepted by the majority. And yes, I feel comfortable speaking for the majority in light of the above.
November 29th 2011 @ 3:11am
trakl said | November 29th 2011 @ 3:11am | Report comment
Dan – if only your responses adjured artifice and sophistry and acknowledged that Tomkins plays for a rugby league club (not a league league club) affiliated to the Rugby Football League (not the League Football League) and has played this code of “rugby” all his life rather than the “union” code of rugby – and who would simply not recognise Horwill as speaking sense but rather that the latter speaks in ignorance and with hubris that Tomkins has not played “rugby recently…”
You speak of Russia, colonialism, concentration camps, Jews, Gestapo – and seamlessly(!) segue into a “reading” of how the English rugby union commentators, Miles Harrison and “Tubby” Barnes contextualised Tomkins’ fleeting moments in what was a dire game that is (and I put it charitably) disingenuous.
As for issues surrounding the nomenclature of a competition such as the “Rugby (sic) World Cup” – rugby league’s original World Cup was known as that but not patented.
Let’s try again. The Wallabies play no more “rugby” than Tomkins has all his life. It is not for an Australian rugby union forward or his cheerleaders in the Australian press – including the rugby league press – of taking away from Tomkins what is his birthright. Tomkins wouldn’t speak with such arrogance of a player he knows nothing about. Horwill should have admitted he knew nothing of Tomkins – rather than revealing his ignorance by saying something as false as it is ludicrous.
It is the height of arrogance – only exacerbated by Horwill’s equally idiotic “recently” remark – to suggest that Wigan is anything other than a great club that has produced some of the greatest “rugby” players of all.
Tomkins has played “rugby” all his life. Your lordly proclamation to speak on behalf of the “majority” is suitably exalted but neither here nor there.
Tomkins knows what he’s been doing with his life – irrespective of your saying he’s done something else altogether.
November 29th 2011 @ 10:28am
Dan said | November 29th 2011 @ 10:28am | Report comment
Trakl,
If there is anyone guilty of an argument characterised by sophistry and artifice here it is you – a fact that is obvious with how inconsistent you are with your application of history.
You speak of the correct application of sporting nomenclature and how Horwill’s use of ‘Rugby’ as a shorthand for Rugby Union – and Rugby Union alone – represents the height of ignorance and insolence to Rugby League – which you see as having an equal claim to the shorthand (even if it’s not applied in reality that way in any formal capacity).
You argue that Tomkins “plays for a rugby league club (not a league league club) affiliated to the Rugby Football League (not the League Football League) and has played this code of “rugby” all his life rather than the “union” code of rugby”.
This line of reasoning invokes etymology to some degree and assumes that it is nonsensical to say that Tomkins has played “League” all his life presumably because you believe that a shorthand or abbreviation can only come from a prefix and that “League” and “Union” are words in their own right which actually have nothing to do with sport and that therefore if one is to abbreviate it makes more sense to sa he actually played “rugby” all his life.
But if you’re really so keen on applying etymological meanings and following this line of reasoning, this is actually incorrect, and in fact ‘manifestly’ so. Tomkins hasn’t played a code of “rugby” all his life at all; he’s played a code of “football”. The name Rugby – as I’m certain you’re aware – comes from “Rugby School” in the town of ‘Rugby’, the original institution in which the game was first codified. The town and the school are still in existence and so the name “Rugby” still has a very specific geographic and institutional meaning quite apart from sport.
So to take your argument to its logical conclusion it makes no sense whatsoever to say that Tomkins – or any league or union player for that matter – plays a code of rugby. Using your line of reasoning – which I can only presume ignores the changing normative uses and meanings of words over time in any language – it makes no sense whatsoever to state that these players play a code of “rugby”, because this is in fact the name of an educational facility in a town of the same name and is merely a prefix to differentiate different codes of “football”.
This is where your argument falls down and why it’s inconsistent. You choose the point in time at which the name “rugby” means rugby football to suit your argument and forget that the name “rugby” is actually only a prefix and carries – in so far as its etymology is concerned – no inherent reference to sport.
What you fail to understand is that the normative application of the word “Rugby” has effectively changed its meaning over the course of the last 100 years, and that the word – when used on its own – almost always now implies “Rugby Union” (unless of course you live in Rugby, Warwickshire – or apparently in your house). As I’ve previously stated, this usage has become so accepted that even Rugby League administrators don’t even contest it – not even in England it seems.
So no trakl, it is not “the height of arrogance … to suggest that Wigan is anything other than a great club that has produced some of the greatest “rugby” players of all.” (speaking of arrogance “greatest of all”? Really? Not in living memory…). No, what it is is an accurate and accepted usage of shorthand for Rugby Union. Moreover, if you want to be a pedant, your statement isn’t even correct according to your own reasoning, as what Wigan has actually produced is some great “Football” players in the Rugby Football League competitions of England. To suggest that they produced some great “Rugby” players would be – presumably – to imply that they were all students in Warwickshire’s Rugby school who were excelling at some game whose name has been inexplicably left out of the sentence.
Now, let’s try again. According to the normative use of the word today, Tomkins has in fact played very little “rugby” or “union”, but has played an awful lot of “Rugby League” – or “League” or even “footie” (interestingly rugby is never called footie in my experience – even in countries where it is dominant). It is not for some overzealous Englishman to dictate to the rest of the English speaking world what nomenclatures are to be accepted as meaning one thing or another. Tomkins has no “birthright” to the name “rugby” – that is pure and utter dribble. Language is the most democratic system we have and on this subject the votes were in long ago and your party – birthright and all – lost out to the majority by a margin significant enough that you – like the Japanese solider holding firm in Lubang 30 years after WWII had ended (one last historical allegory for you
) – appear to be the only left fighting on this forgotten outpost.
November 29th 2011 @ 11:01am
trakl said | November 29th 2011 @ 11:01am | Report comment
Dan – The thesis featuring your thoughts on the Gestapo, Jews, concentration camps, Russia, colonialism and now etymology suggests that either you’re a true Renaissance man or – more probably – spreading yourself too thinly.
Tomkins is a rugby player as much as is Horwill. Tomkins plays rugby league for a famous club that has produced some of the greatest (dig deeper in your memory or does history start only when you decree?) and Horwill plays rugby union for a lesser club…
They are both rugby players. Both footballers. Both rugby footballers. What is not true is to assert from the “colonial” posture which you willingly adopt that Horwill is right to say of Tomkins that the latter has played no “rugby recently” – any more than it would be true were the situation reversed.
Rugby league people here define themselves from rugby union people – wait for it – through the “league” and “union” bits and not the “rugby” bit and no matter that you seem keen to allow ignorance and arrogance to hold sway on the part of a rugby union player pontificating on someone of whom he knows nothing – it doesn’t just make it right. It doesn’t even make sense. And it is insulting to Tomkins, his club and the game he represents. He has no trouble referring to “rugby union” and “rugby league” in those interviews that have been extensively quoted in our newspapers after the shambles of the Barbarians fixture. Not “rugby” and “league” but “rugby union” and “rugby league” – funny that!
Your point about rugby being a football code should be directed at Mike as this is what I’ve told him in trying to explain just why it is that a rugby league club like Hull can be called Hull FC.
Unfortunately, like you, he appears to run into the ever-waiting arms of his nurse, Miss “Bemusement” whenever he hears something that fails to tally with what he’s been fed on the Roar.
Your comments on the RFL, what happens in my “house” and your understanding of the culture and ethos pertaining to Rugby School I’m afraid are drivel – although “dribble” if you prefer. They get us nowhere – as does your final paragraph which again suggests that the “perspective” you called for in an earlier post has been mislaid along the way – maybe somewhere between Captain Cook and the Sands Of Iwo Jima?
I repeat, I’d pay money to hear a private reading of the thesis for which this thread is proving to be a useful trial run – but I wonder what your conclusions might be?
November 29th 2011 @ 11:28am
Dan said | November 29th 2011 @ 11:28am | Report comment
Trakl I think we’ve covered about as much ground as we’re going to here, but to sum up again my major disagreement with you is simply in statements like this:
“They are both rugby players. Both footballers. Both rugby footballers. What is not true is to assert from the “colonial” posture which you willingly adopt that Horwill is right to say of Tomkins that the latter has played no “rugby recently” – any more than it would be true were the situation reversed.”
My criticism of your reasoning isn’t really even necessarily about the subject matter itself, but with the way you speak about it. You are simply not entitled (or, it is not your “birthright”, if you prefer) to claim that Horwill is actually “incorrect” or that his statement is “not true”, because this isn’t a matter to which a double-blind scientific test can be applied; it’s purely a matter of perspective. And in this case your perspective on the issue isn’t more valid than his no matter how offensive you may feel it to be, and your talk of “birthrights” and history don’t affect that in the slightest. Opine and hypothesise all you like, but that doesn’t actually make the statement “untrue”; the most you can really say from your point of view is that it is simply a disagreeable presumptive usage of the word given the context.
Nonetheless, none of what you’ve stated in any of your arguments here have actually shown or demonstrated that “Rugby” is an accepted shorthand or abbreviation for “Rugby League” and all the evidence we have out there in terms of official naming and general usage counters your argument. You’re quite welcome to claim that Rugby League should be entitled to use “Rugby” as a shorthand for itself, but again, judging by the usage most of us witness on English television, hear from English colleagues and see in all official naming, it seems pretty clear that that ship sailed long ago even in most of the UK.
November 29th 2011 @ 11:56am
trakl said | November 29th 2011 @ 11:56am | Report comment
Dan, this really isn’t all about language, or etymology, or hermeneutics or even Australia.
Your comments vis-a-vis the rugby union commentators on the Barbarians game bare little comparison with what I heard – ie Tomkins’ league background placing him in a difficult position to deal with “union’s” patented subtleties and nuances. League and union were the points of comparison – not league and rugby.
You have failed to engage at all with my contention that Tomkins has as much right to call himself a “rugby” player as has Horwill – slightly different from your contention that what I say is that “rugby….is shorthand for rugby league…” Rugby league players all play rugby however.
You also fail to acknowledge this simple truth: Horwill really didn’t know who Tomkins was and was in no position to say of him that he has played no “rugby recently” – the “recently” being a dead giveaway as to the meaninglessness of Horwill’s statement.
I’ve given plenty of examples to illustrate the witlessness of Horwill’s remarks within the context of the 116 years of English rugby league history – but am more than happy to refer you to the premier “rugby” historian Tony Collins and his work on both rugby codes.
As I said elsewhere, English rugby league’s sensitivity to the word”rugby” might well be as a result of the very different and torturous history of the two codes.
We feel, in general, that it is for the game – its officials, players and, most of all, fans – to give away “rugby” and not have it taken from us through a combination of arrogance, ignorance, laziness and simply a lack of appreciation as to the battles through which rugby league has endured. Against all the odds.
And, it must be said, against so many of the wishes of posters on the game in the pages of the Roar.
November 29th 2011 @ 12:19pm
Dan said | November 29th 2011 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
Trakl,
I haven’t misunderstood you at all or failed to engage on any of those points. Indeed, with regard to the latter ones I feel as though I’ve dealt with them thoroughly enough simply by drawing attention to the official titles of the respective codes’ competitions and governing bodies.
As I said, I understand your point of view very well, but that’s precisely what I understand it to be; a point view. It’s not an indisputable fact, nor a law of nature, nor even a law of the English language; it’s simply a perspective, and one that is clearly far from universal. What you don’t seem to grasp is that I find your statements offensive for a similar reason to why you find Horwill’s offensive.
You see his statement as presumptive, offensive and ignorant and therein lies the source of all your anger against him. But whilst Horwill was clearly ignorant of how his comments would be received (by you at least), he never tried to impose his views on anyone. You, on the other hand, come here and wax indignant over it all, taking an imperious tone from the get-go and speaking of “truth” and “manifest” reality in a tirade against the man in which you make it sound as if his inconsequential and off the cuff comment was tantamount to breaking some sacred divine law. It is YOU trakl, and not Horwill or the “Australian Rugby League/Rugby Union fans and commentators etc” who is using language inappropriately by the very act of attempting to claim that you opinion is somehow “fact”. That you feel entitled to do so is both wrong and arrogant, and precisely why I have taken issue with you here.
I know you feel we ought to better understand the historical grievences that are responsible for your rancour, but consider this for a moment: you’re mad at a union man for being flippant with a league player and club of which he knows little. I get it, context is everything, but you’re also an English man trying to tell a bunch of Australians that they’re WRONG in the application of their language regarding the sports they love. Are you honestly not seeing the irony here at all?
November 29th 2011 @ 9:58pm
trakl said | November 29th 2011 @ 9:58pm | Report comment
No Dan, you fail repeatedly even to acknowledge let alone seriously to address anything.
And it’s so easy too.
Horwill answered a question on a player of whom he knew nothing.
This ignorance didn’t stop him saying something that is both untrue and insulting ie Tomkins has not played any “rugby recently.” And, again I ask, why “recently?”
Horwill is a rugby union player. Tomkins a rugby league player. They both play “rugby.”
Tomkins has always played “rugby” – and he plays it for one of the world’s great “rugby” clubs who have produced some of the world’s great “rugby” footballers. There is no Wigan player or fan in history who would even countenance Horwill’s comment as being anything other than unmitigated drivel.
If someone were to have asked Tomkins about Horwill, I dare say he would have admitted straight away that he’s never even heard of him. On being told who he was, Tomkins would never assume that Horwill’s being a rugby union player meant that he had not played “rugby recently.”
There’s a Wigan Rugby League club. And a Wigan Rugby Union club. They both play “rugby!”
Rugby league people here never refer to “league” versus “rugby” – because it just isn’t true apart from anything else – but rather “league” versus “union.”
France is a place where rugby leaguers fought – belatedly – to have the name “rugby” restored after it was snatched away from them for many years. They play Rugby for 13 and not Rugby for 15… Again, the notion that their great players – and they used to have some rather too long ago – were not “rugby” players would simply be anathema.
You still fail to see that it is not always all about Australia or semantics or etymology – and nothing at all to do with colonialism, the Gestapo, Jews, concentration camps, Russia… Can you not see the “irony” when referring to a lack of “perspective?”
November 29th 2011 @ 10:29pm
Mike said | November 29th 2011 @ 10:29pm | Report comment
Trakl,
Dan didn’t do anything of the sort. Neither did Horwill.
And why do you keep inserting “the Gestapo”, “Jews”, “concentration camps” into your posts? You seem to be obsessed with the words.
November 29th 2011 @ 10:34pm
trakl said | November 29th 2011 @ 10:34pm | Report comment
Mike, what “sort” are you talking about?
And do let Dan speak for himself – he knows an awful lot more than you do and can at least express his thoughts articulately.
Alas, the words you say I “obsess” about are Dan’s and not mine – my point being to highlight the lack of “perspective” of which he accuses me.
Your perspective, however…
November 29th 2011 @ 10:38pm
Mike said | November 29th 2011 @ 10:38pm | Report comment
Trakl,
You bring up Jews and gestapo in several posts, and they don’t appear to be in response to anything anyone else has written, nor can I see the relation to any topic on the thread.
November 29th 2011 @ 11:16pm
trakl said | November 29th 2011 @ 11:16pm | Report comment
When commenting on a thread, Mike, it is wise to read posts other than your own.
I repeat, all those words were articulated by Dan and not by me.
If you feel that they are irrelevant then I respectfully suggest you let him know.
November 29th 2011 @ 11:22pm
Mike said | November 29th 2011 @ 11:22pm | Report comment
“I repeat, all those words were articulated by Dan and not by me.”
Trakl, that is not correct. I cannot see one post where Dan referred to Jews or Gestapo or concentration camps. But you did, in five posts, with no obvious reason why. You do appear to be obsessed with the idea.
I would have been happy to let it go, but when you deny what is patently obvious to everyone who reads the thread, that has to be called out.
November 29th 2011 @ 11:39pm
trakl said | November 29th 2011 @ 11:39pm | Report comment
To be “called out” would be fine – but Gestapo, concentration camps, Jews, colonialism, Russia etymology – were all brought into the discussion by Dan.
Oh dear – I’ve repeated them!
Oh and the Japanese soldier holed up in Lubang 30 years after WW2…
November 29th 2011 @ 11:46pm
Dan said | November 29th 2011 @ 11:46pm | Report comment
For the record trakl is in fact making reference to historical comparisons I’d made in jest in one or two posts on another thread.
“Gestapo” was in reference to saying he’d gone “grammar-gestapo” on me (the moderators wouldn’t let me say “grammar nzi”) after he corrected my slip up in using the noun “boor”, instead of the verb “bore” (though in the same sentence trakl himself incorrectly used “its”, instead of “it’s” – playing the role of a grammar and spelling pedant on a message board requires you to tread carefully).
“Concentration camps” was in reference to my saying his indignation at Horwill’s comment were so vociferous in nature that you’d think Horwill had made a Jewish joke – the most offensive kind – while on a tour around Auschwitz.
And “Russia” was really just a random reference about different languages that doesn’t really require explanation.
Anyway though trakl, I think we’ve reached that point at which we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You’ve made your claims as clearly as they can be made, and I have mine. It’s all provided an interesting distraction, but I think we can safely say this topic is well and truly exhausted now.
I look forward to finding something we can actually agree on now.
November 29th 2011 @ 11:50pm
Mike said | November 29th 2011 @ 11:50pm | Report comment
But Dan, what Trakl has written is still untrue. He brought up the issue on this thread, and then kept referring to it, over and over again. He just can’t help himself, utterly obsessed.
November 29th 2011 @ 11:52pm
trakl said | November 29th 2011 @ 11:52pm | Report comment
Dan, thank you for having the courtesy to inform our friend Mike that it was indeed not I who referenced initially the Gestapo, concentration camps, Jews, Russia, etymology, the Japanese soldier holed up in Lubang 30 years after WW2…
Oh dear Mike I’ve mentioned them all again!
I’ve enjoyed talking with you Dan. I think we’d get on well otherwise…
November 29th 2011 @ 11:54pm
trakl said | November 29th 2011 @ 11:54pm | Report comment
Mike, let Dan speak for himself.
He can do it so much better than you can.
November 29th 2011 @ 11:58pm
Mike said | November 29th 2011 @ 11:58pm | Report comment
I have never purported to speak for Dan, Trakl. Rather, I have simply asked why you continually brought up concepts that had no relevance to the discussion – and that remains the case, regardless of what may have been written on another thread.
November 30th 2011 @ 12:08am
trakl said | November 30th 2011 @ 12:08am | Report comment
Mike, even when Dan acknowledges he is the author of these “concepts” – you deign to speak for him.
You lack his knowledge and articulacy
I don’t need your permission to “call out” – as you eloquently put it – anything that has been posted by Dan or anyone else.
What are your thoughts on the Japanese soldier holed up in Lubang 30 years after WW2 and its relevance to rugby league and rugby union?
(Drat! I’ve mentioned it again).
November 30th 2011 @ 12:22am
Mike said | November 30th 2011 @ 12:22am | Report comment
Well, since you ask, the reason is that you wrote this:
“To be “called out” would be fine – but Gestapo, concentration camps, Jews, colonialism, Russia etymology – were all brought into the discussion by Dan.”
They were not brought into the discussion by Dan; they were brought in by you. So what I wrote was accurate. And I am still at a loss as to why you are obsessed with these things.
November 30th 2011 @ 12:35am
trakl said | November 30th 2011 @ 12:35am | Report comment
Mike, Dan brought them into the discussion. Not I. He says so.
I can refer to them with as much or as little “obsession” as I like – without first seeking your permission.
Why are you “obsessed” with my referring to Dan’s historical analogies?
November 30th 2011 @ 12:44am
Mike said | November 30th 2011 @ 12:44am | Report comment
No, he didn’t. Apparently it was brought up on another thread, but you were the one who raised these matters here,for reasons known only to yourself.
November 30th 2011 @ 12:56am
trakl said | November 30th 2011 @ 12:56am | Report comment
You say he didn’t. He says he did.
On this thread – colonialism, etymology, the last Japanese man standing in Lubang 30 years after WW2.
On this topic ie rugby league players being told they don’t play “rugby” – Jews, concentration camps (specifically Auschwitz) and Russia.
Why are you so “obsessed” with what you deem my “obsession?”
Must one ensure one’s own “obsessions” tally with yours before airing them in public?
Or are your “obsessions” better left firmly in the closet?
November 30th 2011 @ 8:17am
Tristan Rayner said | November 30th 2011 @ 8:17am | Report comment
Guys, just letting you know we won’t tolerate this any further. The Roar is a place for good honest debate on sport – not a place for back and forth trolling.
Please respect this, and you may be added to moderation if it continues.
Tristan
The Roar
November 30th 2011 @ 8:32am
Riccardo said | November 30th 2011 @ 8:32am | Report comment
Thank God, Tristan.
November 30th 2011 @ 9:16am
Mike said | November 30th 2011 @ 9:16am | Report comment
Thanks Tristan. I’ll get back to my debate with OJ
November 29th 2011 @ 9:40am
Mike said | November 29th 2011 @ 9:40am | Report comment
I have been a little bemused by the above exchange between Trakl, Damo, Dan et al. I travel to the UK from time to time, plus correspond with friends there, and as best I could recall most brits use the term “rugby league” for league and “rugby” for union. Pretty much the same usage as we colonials. I couldn’t think of a single brit that I had heard use “rugby” or “rugby football” to mean league.
Then I saw a post at the bottom of this thread by Trakl where he asserted that Hull FC’s players play “rugby football”. This seemed to have a stamp of authority about it, given Hull’s very august status in the league tradition, so I had a look at their web-site. And what did I find? Several places where it talked about Hull players playing ‘rugby league’ and nary a mention that I could see of them playing ‘rugby’ or ‘rugby football’.
Then I popped over to the Wigan site – surely a bunch who know as much about rugby league as anyone – and the first sentence was: “Welcome to the official website of Wigan Warriors, the 2011 Challenge Cup Winners and a club with the proudest tradition in the sport of Rugby League.” The site then goes on much as Hull’s site does, talking about players playing ‘rugby league’ and nothing about them playing ‘rugby’ or ‘rugby football’.
Given that I support an Australian rugby club that has an older continuing tradition than about 95% of British rugby league or union clubs, I was intrigued by the idea that we colonials are somehow out of touch with proper usage.
November 27th 2011 @ 11:29am
mickh said | November 27th 2011 @ 11:29am | Report comment
If you’re going to accept an invitation to play for and coach the Baa Baas then at least show the common decency to turn up and play.
Most of the players last night embarrassed themselves, if they didn’t want to be there they should have declined the invite. They not only disrespected the tradition of the barbarians they disrespected their opponents.
World Cup hangovers are no excuse when a paying public get ripped off like last night.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
November 27th 2011 @ 1:17pm
shahsan said | November 27th 2011 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
Totally agree. The likes of Rabeni, Shaw, Perugini, Bergamasco used to be very good but should not have been invited for this match. Instead they should have asked players such as DTH van der Merwe, Jacques Burger, Kahn Fotualii, Fumiaki Tanaka, Mamuka Gorgodze, Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu, Tusi Pisi etc — unheralded players from the smaller natrions who were in form and lit up the recent RWC and would have shone when combined with players such fading giants such Kaino, Matfield, Mortlock, Habana etc. Opportunity missed.
November 27th 2011 @ 2:10pm
Colin N said | November 27th 2011 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
van der Merwe’s injured and I believe out for the season, Burger had an important game against Northampton 30 minutes after the Barbarians’ game finished, Fotual’i is now at the Ospreys and also had club responsibilities while Sapolu is banned and if he wasn’t, would have played for Gloucester. Gorgodze was also in action for Montpellier.
It’s the reason why it was almost exclusively southern hemisphere players.
November 27th 2011 @ 2:23pm
darwin stubby said | November 27th 2011 @ 2:23pm | Report comment
exactly … and out of shape ones at that – the majority of that team have been enjoying their first real off season for quite some time …. I can’t believe the number that expected something different and thought this was going to be a serious game …. the ARU got suckered into promoting a travelling babas a few years back which was nothing but an extended stag do – this time they grabbed any game to make some cash and got a bunch of players who fancied a knock about game with a pay cheque attached for some Xmas shopping in London …
November 27th 2011 @ 4:25pm
Mike said | November 27th 2011 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
Not sure is Kaino is a fading Giant – more like an emerging one – but he looked decidedly uninterested..
November 29th 2011 @ 3:11pm
shahsan said | November 29th 2011 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
Sorry, didnt mean to include him in the ‘fading giants’ list.
btw, Kaino himself made his debut with the Baabaas, didn’t he? I think it may have been the game where Mat Rogers played his first rugby game too.
November 27th 2011 @ 11:55am
Jock M said | November 27th 2011 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Looks as if the Barbarians brand is being well and truly trashed now.
Why not?
Rugby has been battered and bruised and violated by the money men so why wouldn’t something as sacred as The Barbarians suffer the same fate?
Is it any wonder that columnists have written that the last World Cup offered very little in the way of excitement.
November 27th 2011 @ 12:20pm
Underarm said | November 27th 2011 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
James O’Connor reminded me of a young Dan Carter, not just in his play but in his passion for the game
November 27th 2011 @ 12:28pm
ahh what a stunner said | November 27th 2011 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
what would of happened if the JOC kick for goal happened in RWC final? all he did was raise his arm, all kickers these days do this kind of crap! he didnt walk forward at any stage like he use to. will this happen in next weeks test? surely the Aussies will be asking questions before next week? Like the forwards get before every scrum the ref should give him a warning at least once? typical Rugby refereeing all over the place.
November 27th 2011 @ 10:42pm
Parisien said | November 27th 2011 @ 10:42pm | Report comment
I thought the goal kicker had to commence his run in before an opponent could attempt a charge down. It was definitely odd. JOC does do a little sway forward before beginning, perhaps this was seen as the beginning of his run?
November 27th 2011 @ 10:52pm
Mike said | November 27th 2011 @ 10:52pm | Report comment
I agree with ahh, I think this was a wrong call by the ref. At least it had no effect on the outcome.
November 27th 2011 @ 12:30pm
HammerTime said | November 27th 2011 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
Barnes left the field due to a back complaint. Wallabies saying he should be right for Wales.
November 28th 2011 @ 10:40am
jameswm said | November 28th 2011 @ 10:40am | Report comment
copped Shaw’s massive knees in his back, accidental apparently.
November 27th 2011 @ 12:50pm
Dan said | November 27th 2011 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
Solid performance for the Wallabies, but the Baabaas really did just lie down in the second half… some of that defence was pretty appalling.
Was interesting to see Tomkins playing – he played pretty well for his first game of Union, but had the misfortune of being marked by Ione – who I personally rate as being one of the most ferocious and powerful wingers in either code (though Uate looks like he’s going to be in a similar mould).