agreed and echoed in my own comments elsewhere

Stan Commentary team in particular the likes of SBW and Gook over in France nailed it on the head. This whole thing needs structural reform from the top down and why would any team go into battle for a coach who has openly been canvasing a future role in another position. From Hoopers commentary EJ may be working all the hours but it makes no difference if the outcomes do not reflect the input. Changing the coachs ( only) has never ever fixed the problem. There is a message there

From the outset let me say I am a Kiwi living in Australia. There will be a lot of blood letting over this enormous loss. Pointing fingers , laying it at the feet of coachs, and some players. However one this is for sure RA has all but killed off the chance for Australia to be a force in rugby at least while they continue with their total lack of awareness and understanding . Grass roots rugby was in decline. So many put there faith this in a good performance at this world cup, not necessarily winning it, but certainly making a good fight of it. There are some good players on that team and they are likely to be tarred with the brush of venom. EJ probably is not the right coach. His coaching staff choices, his squad selection and then game selections have shown a series of poor choices. The question goes above that. Phil Waugh was no great shakes a a player and now as CEO of RA , he does not have the teeth to do the job. The Chairman is no dfferent.
Like it or not the Wallabies is professional team and RA is a business. Its not being run as a business, its being run as a hobby by the senior exective
As Stan commentary teams says, time for a complete reset from the top down. Cut the number of super rugby franchises and concentrate on supporting local player growth .
Sad to say for a kiwi….but NZ really needs Australian rugby to thrive otherwise we will rely on the strength of SA to challenge is and the likes of Fiji and Argentina to give is some degree of challenge of the feild,

The wording is to the effect of the playing being allowed to ‘reach out’ in one dynamic movement. There was no dynamic movement, he was stationary in the ground for at least a second or two and then while the ball did reach the line, in that I have no dispute, it is HOW it reached the line, because as you yourself say, it ws tucked into his body. So by extension there was no ‘reaching out’ . We can argue the semantics all day. It is not any different to Teleas tap and go. Vision shows his toe touch the ball but because , as the rule says, there has to be noticable movement, the try was not allowed. So be it. I am simply saying , apply the rules as they are written CONSISTENTLY. The TMO, in BOTH cases was the one making the judgement, Not Barnes. He was being lead by what the TMO said,

While the try was given BY THE TMO, there is a conjecture over the rule.
Yes a player is permitted to extend ( a limb) to ‘reach out’ Watch the replay carefully. There is no lim extension, the ball remains tucked into you. What seems to happen is his body lifts and is propelled foward. Now it could be by momentum of the players behind, or it could be himself off his knees. One of those two scenarios in a clear double movement under the rules of the game. His momentum to the line had stopped well before his body raises and yes the ball reaches the line. In the end the try was given. I think the explanation given by the TMO which Barnes accepted and regurgitated was flawed. But in the end , it made to difference to the game, other than perhaps to make the ABs more determined

Jazz they can and probably should make a statement to the effect as you say but it counts for nothing when they do not support it with aligned actions. It seems a case of them being paid to the talk the talk but when it comes to walking,,,they have feet in the concrete

Here is something out of left field. There is lots of pros and cons for different players being selection. I think we all believe or at least assume the selection is made by the coaching team, BUT given the penchant for continually chosing players who for the most part the public voice as expressed on this forum do not agree with,,,,perhaps there is some external influence being applied to the selection process. Perhaps it is contractually based, perhaps it is favouritism based, perhaps it is ARU driven, any or all of the above or something else.
If it truly is the coaching group only…then they need to have a good hard look at the validity of the reasons they select each and every player. The notion that experience is needed from ‘old heads’ does not always give rise to a winning team.
I was bemused, but also impressed that Quade Cooper seemed to be the voice the the players in the huddle post game. Not any of the captains or co captains. Perhaps QC is not there for his playing talent, but instead his leadership talent. I do not know., but certainly seems he had the groups ear and from the body language I observed, had their interests very much at heart. A gooe leader does not actually have to be on the field to lead.

Well done Quade, and actually for the record I am no fan of his dancing footstep style of play which for the most parts still ends up with him being tackled these days. He may no longer have the playing edge, but seems to a leadership edge.

whats your point….that its what a half back should do. ?? RUBBISH…half back is there to distribute the ball NOT debate the referee decisions all the god damn time

Black is Black , dark scary, Yep…we are all those things. New meaning to the phrase Black Power

Its the fact you had a man in the bin for 20 mins. That is one of the issue muppet. And you cannot say that Ab’s would not still have made the game a win even if you had no one in the bin. So yes Wallabys played better but they just did not do it for more the the first 20 mins and maybe the first 10 of the second half. Look at the try opportunities they turn over at the AB’s line.
Give them credit where due by all means, but do not assume AB’s won only because of 3 tries scored when Wallabies were at 14 men. It ‘maybe’ made it easier…that is all

” Way I see it, ARU are victims of 3 things.. their own ignorance, their own laziness and their own poor decision making. ”

got it on one ( three)

NW has angry little man syndrome. He was angry before he got on the feild last night. Angry he was not the number one choice. He has tickets on himself, he always has had. It is not just chirpy, he is down right argumentative., How many times have you seen him challenge referees, not just ask, but challenge and often when he is not the captain. How often have you seen refs warn him, warn the team captian for it too stop. You are right HE IS A PROBLEM.
Lonegran, Mc Dermott Jake Gordon , they can all get on the feild and do their job. EJ needs to drop him. I doubt he has any capacity to change his bad habit. Last night was a good example of ‘more of the same’
Wallabys need to stop this bad apple souring the barrel

Wise words you speak. Learn from them we must. Yoda knows all

you are joking right. Bring back Foley really….!! thats your best opton at 10??? CG even QC can outplay foley on any given day. He was a good player in his day. That day has past. Like so many of the old guard that people want brought back because they think they will make the team better. They will not and the consequence is you deprive young up and coming players the chance and experience to grow and develop. Australia lacks depth. That is well known. Holding onto the old guard beyond their use by date, is the very reason you lack depth. New players are never being given the chance. Sure CG and TmcD made some poor choices last night, but they will learn and grow from those. That is how you develop a team /teams of the future.. Why do you think the ABs have enough of a pool of players to feild potentially two A grade teams AND a B team as well

absolutely 100% correct.,..as I responded to another similar post

Hmmm The Eddie Jones record speaks for itself. Perhaps he should speak less in drumming up anything and focus more on getting his team structure organised. It was a much better Wallaby performance by far, no question, but to then turn that around and make out the Wallaby forwards some how out played the AB forwards smacks of a wounded Australian.
They certainly had their moments , specially in the first half, the in the end the score line speaks for itself and you do not get that scoreline without the forwards being able to build the platform on which tries can be scored, by the backs, or the forwards.

agreed. The fitness , being able to play the 80 and consistency are the issues now. EJ can run his mouth, his coaching staff and the team in general know all too well where the issues are. They all regularly articulate them , it just seems to be an ultra slow burn in fixing them , but last night there were certainly glimpses and Tim Horan is right, there was hope from 56 mins from them. If the RWC was another 12 months away , Australia would/should be in much better shape to be a real threat. As it stands, at this time, they are just a threat to themselves

Hmmm The Eddie Jones record speaks for itself. Perhaps he should speak less in drumming up anything and focus more on getting his team structure organised. It was a much better Wallaby performance by far, no question, but to then turn that around and make out the Wallaby forwards some how out played the AB forwards smacks of a wounded Australian.
They certainly had their moments , specially in the first half, the in the end the score line speaks for itself and you do not get that scoreline without the forwards being able to build the platform on which tries can be scored, by the backs, or the forwards.

spot on

any HC can be made to look good…or bad…by the quality of his support staff, and from them the players actions on the feild. Listen to the comment by RM about needing to be trusted…that is an indictment on Foster, not a praise. How long did he persevere with BB and aimless kicking/kick passing game . Perhaps he learned, albeit too late and with Ryan and Schmidt pulling the strings. If they were not there, the outcome would have been different. So yes he gets some credit for sure, but it was not all him

its not about who is best ( on a give day/game0 but that we have the depth with 3 number 10 available in the team and god knows the others coming up thru the ranks. I certainly was not sure of the experiment with WJ at 14 and BB at 15, but it seemed to work, at least for that game. Once again it is about depth, the ability to have players that can play multiple positions with some proficiency, They may not be the best at it on a given day, but their ability is also influenced by the players around them on the day and the team they are facing. It is a team that plays as a unit, not as a bunch of individuals. Last night the better team was the ABs, the Boks had no team presence until the bench came on in the second half and then you saw the change.,
Our bench came on and we saw more of the same. That is depth. That is players understanding their role within the team.

He is not the one on the field making the choices as the game progress. I made a comment on another post, reflecting the words of Beauden Barrett in his pregame commentary against the Boks. ” we will have to adapt’ The referred to the understanding the Boks would vary the game plan and the ABs would need to adapt. Thats on the players on the field. Yes, true EJ and his coach team pick the players, but the players decide their actions in the moment on the field. They decide to make stupid choices, decide to give away penalties, decider not to roll away from the back of rucks…MORE than once by a certain player. Eddie is not blameless..but he is not ONLY to blame

Old dog…new tricks. Bit like Eddies Datsun…cant be fixed so put it down before it savages someone from its mental illness

well written well said

On the current performance of the current players…if they take those things to the RWC the only smash and grab will be them getting grabbed by the nuts and smashed off the park but all the tier one teams and likely a good percentage of tier two ones as well. That means they will be lucky to ven make the QF

Certainly there is an issue with the very senior executive, but they are not the ones on the feild making silly choices and lacking discipline, giving opponents the opportunity to take the game away. Listening to Beauden Barret pre the AB game yesterday he made the comment ” we will need to adapt’ referring to the game play of the Boks who would vary their plan to try and out play. Adaption on the field, at the time, relies on players , not the coaching staff. Few if any of the current Wallabies can view anything more than what is in front . Marky Mark was perhaps the only person who had any apparent greater vision. He was always trying to anticipate the Pumas next play. Most of the rest of the Wallabies were just waiting for it too happen