The Alternative International Rugby Awards

Worst Team performance Fiji 4 sure!!! Just Disappointed!

Hmmm... perhaps "your argument is almost totally without merit?"

I always mention Lawrence and the WC incident to tease Saffers and sometimes Aussies. But let me put my serious cap on for a minute or two. First of all it is really unfair how Bryce Lawrence was blamed for this. He took the fall and he couldn't say a word about it otherwise he would be in trouble and out of a job. First of all rugby referees have a big influence on games these days. Most of it is caused by the tackle situation. We as fans sitting infront a tele with much emotion pumped into the moment watching a game we see it either right or wrong. Its either black or white. To us and the general fan there is only one outcome and that is that our team is going to win. Same thing in a tackle situation we know we will the ruck unless the referee allow something that disagrees with it. Then our total bias and emotional response which is natural and we do it without realizing it we say its wrong cause its either right or wrong. But rugby is not black or white it is grey. That means basically the outcome of a thing is not based on my, yours, fans, spectators, coaches or players interpertation that its right or wrong but the referees. In todays game player will always push the boundary and see what the referee allows and what not. The ones who adapts the quickest and can come to grips of it are normally what seperates the good from the really good. Australia did that and South Africa not. International and other profesional teams analyze the referee and see what he allows and to what point. They study him thouroughly and then go practice according to that. Yes its really happening. They actually practice with a profile of what the referee will allow and what not. In this case go back to the game between Ireland and Australia. Just to explain quickly before I get into that game is who will be benefitted when a referee allows what. If a referee is strict on the tackle and do not allow anything and be quick to blow it up then the attacking team will be benefitted as players will stand back and the ball wilL come out quicker. But sometimes players will still try and not come to terms with the interpertation and the scenario of two team fight it out in a battle of the boot cause they getting blown up for infringing the whole game. If a referee allows so leanway to players and allow them more freedom at the tackle then the defenseive team will be advantaged as they are allowed to slow the ball more and that gives time to rearrange the defense. Now the Ireland Australia game Bryce Lawrence over policed the breakdown and Australia did not adapt and lost. He did not spoil the game the players did who did not want to step back lost the game hence the scoreline. The IRB analyze referees and give them feedback wher improve or instruct them to be more lenient in some aspects. Bryce Lawrence were instructed to ease on the tackle situation. Now just think. A referee who tries to consistant and is use to apply the same general thinking around the tackle situation and have his judgement fine tuned to what he allows must now change it to a new judgement and go into uncharted territory. there is no a bit more lenient in the tackle situation as a referee makes over 170 decsions just around that aspect in 80 minutes most times even more. Now he goes into the game aferee under performs. Allows a lot and that is when we don't see much tries as well. Lawrence had his intrepertation constant and Australia adapted SA not and lost. Not Lawrences fault but SA and its coaching staffs for not adapting to it. De Villiers will swipe at Lawrence because after all they did analyze him practice to it and went into the game tuned to it. Suddenly Lawrence was incosistant and he took a flogging. Not his fault cause he was instructed by higher management to change his normal ways and do a thing strange. Its like playing a new position for first time. But fans carry emotion into it and the referee pays for the IRB'S lack of transparency.

Sigh* I suggest you go look up the laws my friend. Wait let me help you with that. First off all he is not on his feet. So he is not allowed to hold onto anything. Let me start with Law 10.4 DANGEROUS PLAY AND MISCONDUCT (f) Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball. Sanction: Penalty kick but Law 16 Ruck 16.6 SUCCESSFUL END TO A RUCK A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line. So even if he was on his feet he is not to allowed to hold on as the moment the ball leave the ruck its over Law 14 DEFINITIONS A player who makes the ball unplayable, or who obstructs the opposing team by falling down, is negating the purpose and Spirit of the Game and must be penalised Law 15 Tackle: Ball Carrier Brought to Ground (i) After a tackle, any player on the ground must not tackle an opponent or try to tackle an opponent. Sanction: Penalty kick 15.7 FORBIDDEN PRACTICES (d) Players on their feet must not charge or obstruct an opponent who is not near the ball. Sanction: Penalty kick 10.1 OBSTRUCTION (c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier. Sanction: Penalty kick So no its foul play.

Like I said let's agree to disagree. Your logic has flaws just like you believe mine does.

Your argument is full of logic Jerry, hard to argue with its reasoning.

You didn't really show the flaws though, beyond essentially saying "Well, we don't know for certain so anything could have happened". Yes, it's possible that SA could have won in Aus. It's just as possible they could have won in NZ and lost in Aus. It's LIKELY however, they would have lost both matches. Can we say for certain? Obviously not. If NZ and SA had fielded their A teams in the TN last year, it probably wouldn't have changed the results of the SA matches. It's more likely, but still not probable, that it would have changed the result of NZ's match in SA and while more time together may have meant NZ performed better in Brisbane, surely you'd have to agree not likely that NZ would have won in Aus, regardless.

ha ha, jezebel is what Mum calls me when she is upset with and trying to needle me! It just isn't true that Cooper used maximum force, neither he nor Higgers lifted their foot and didn't swing their knees, would have been quite easy for either of them to deliver a lot more damage than either of them chose to do. Thomson didn't follow through with his boot, had his weight on his other leg and pulled back after making contact with Strokosch's head. If you can't see it then I guess we'll not agree.

Is it really Jerry? Your missing the point completely. You tried to use history to support your argument I in turn gave examples as to how your argument is flawed in that regard. Let's agree to disagree had NZ and SA fielded their strongest possible teams at every opportunity I believe Australia would not have won the Trinations last year. I also believe had the Wallabies fielded their A teams against Samoa and Scotland they would have won. Lastly it was you who brought up history to prove a point not I. I did however use your thinking to show it's flaws.

By the way, I mean to call you jez not jezebel, dam auto correct!

Jezebel, both cooper and higgers used as much force as they could from the positions they were in - so I don't think that is a valid excuse for either of them (apart from higgers knee). I am Australian - its not an Aussie kiwi thing, it's joust that the overreaction from some people is largely due to frustrations with NZ being consistently best in the world.

Quade and Higgs did not intend to injure. Seriously? Greyling did, Hore did but if you think little bumps like that were thuggery... McCaw gets more hurt when he makes an ave run or tackle. It was niggle, def a cheap shot but not intended to do damage of any real kind.

Please. Who are those people? You hold on to whoever you can when you clean out. Have you played?

I dont follow Greg, the difference is that three guys used a fraction of the force they could bring to bear while one bloke used maximum force. I love that all the people who disagree with me keep making it an Aussie/Kiwi thing yet everyone ignores that I am defending Thomson as well. Would it be easier for you all if we just discussed Thomson and Hore? My argument stays the same.

Jezebel, if Cooper had of copped McCaw on the chin he could have easily knocked him out, and Higgers is an out and out thug. Hores hit on Davies got what it deserved, snd was an ugly incident. But he had more provocation than either cooper or higgers, and did only hit with an open hand, it was falling on him that knocked him out. Keep it in perspective - they were all regretful imcidents, but to say hores was in a different league stinks of tall poppy syndrome.

You must be on drugs Ryan. Very good drugs. It is amazing the level of delusion displayed. Bath salts?

I applaud Hore for the remorse he has shown but condemn him for his act. Higgers I have very little issue with his act, I think it was correctly penalised and this quote from him suggests he unerstands a need to modify his behaiviour: "That really did point out where you could get to and where to draw the line," he said. "It's a physical game but I suppose it taught me that off-the-ball stuff you can leave out." http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/higginbotham-regrets-ban-but-not-attack-on-mccaw-20121119-29lns.html That comment says more to me than the bits about no regret. Seriously if you bump someone with your knee should you hold much regret? I'll re-state my case Thomson, Higgers and Cooper acted inappropriately but not one of the three was seeking to maim or injure their opponents. Hore attacked with full force from behind in an animal act - they are not comparable and I do not understand people who want to lump all four acts into the same group.

How bout how higgers said he didn't regret a thing? Us Aussies have trampled all over Andrew Hore, but if you look at the list of foul play dished out over the last year by each team, the wallabies would be top of the list.

Ryan, the Thomson, Cooper and Higginbotham acts have become a sore point because people keep calling them thuggish acts, when not one of the three caused any damage. I leave Ioane out because tip tackles are a completely different kettle of fish, I'm not going to sit here and defend Simmons either. Lippy and yourself both bring up a national card while ignoring that I am including Thomson in the group of players I am defending - I find that strange. To your comment that Higgers in particular was intending to injure McCaw - I'd suggest that if someone tried to use their knee to injure another player's head - that they might lift their foot off the ground to give their leg freedom of movement and give themselves a chance of doing some damage. I'm delivering the biggest joke yet? Sorry mate, don't think so.