I don’t think you can say that the US was in the hardest group given the reigning champions and two world cup winners did not progress through. But they did play very well to make it through to the knock out stage. A win against Belgium would be massive and they definitely have the quality to do so. I happen to think they will lose, but it is indicative of the old footballing knowledge to see the European teams struggling in south America.

8/16 teams in the knockout phase were American, with that number to be reduced to potentially 5/8 assuming an ARG and USA win, but probably more realistically 4/8. All of this after Europe is given 19/32 teams in the world cup.

Even though Europe and Asia may have “underperformed”. I actually think this balance is pretty close to spot on. The breakdown by regions is quite competitive and the awarding of half spots allows for strong regions. As much as I feel for NZ, they would never have made it out of their group, so Mexico were deserved in the world cup berth.

Great article! Good insights into game theory scenarios. Very challenging and difficult with all the variables in the group(s) of death, where the competitive nature of the group might push teams either way – a win in the opening match for the dutch is a very valuable reward, especially if Spain plan on beating Chile. I would suggest both teams will play for the draw, as Chile and Australia play later and represent the ‘unknown’ factors.

That’s an amazing statistic from Germany. Getting keen, only four hours or so until the Spain vs Netherlands match.

Your comment about home continent weighting is slightly misleading I think. The only teams to ever win outside their home continent are Spain (once – South Africa) and Brazil (twice, Sweden 58 and Japan/South Korea 02). So while Belgium may go farther than Chile, to win the world cup would be the first time a European team has ever won in the Americas.

The proof will be in the pudding, I’m excited just to wait and see.

Personally I like the way that Craig Joubert uses the TMO as the remote. I think giving the on field ref the view on the big screen is fine for close decisions, he is the referee after all, he ‘should’ know the laws. It just feels right, official, chain of command stuff, to me to have the referee review the play and then make a decision on it.

I don’t think it is a good precedent to have the on field ref not being the foremost authority during the match.

It will be interesting to see if and how other teams react. Maybe other teams could use it, a fair few attacks generally come in the mountains anyway. Might be psychological more than anything – he’s a pretty good rider I guess.

What an odd thing to have happened… I’m genuinely on the fence with this one. I’m ‘sure’ all is above board, but yet why not mention it… ever…? And then her response…? Very strange. Good article.

That was the message I took from the article Shane.

The Japanese have the same word for crisis and opportunity (crisitunity…?) and I never understand how teams can feel so hard done by to lose players to representative duties – whatever they are. As a rugby union fan (yes I know they are completely different sports – but it is amazing how they play about the same number of matches each year) it is almost treated as a non issue regarding rep call ups. For example at the moment the club season is taking a break while the national team plays and yet somehow the clubs don’t complain that their stars are being ‘overworked’. What is telling is the difference in product (origin is better than club) and I have no idea if that is because the players are willing to ‘give’ more in origin or if it is a skill difference between club and SOO. I would suggest the former, thus conferring your point.

Maybe we could call these 6-9 weeks the ‘rookie rounds’…?

I love how these stories of the world cup controversies become the stuff of legends as the time passes. A very good friend of mine is from Hungary and I recall his father telling me of the great Ferenc Puskas of the mighty magyars losing 3-2 in the final of the 54 world cup final to the West German team. I remember being shown a documentary on how the Germans accidentally left the sprinklers on overnight to sodden the pitch as they had changeable studs, the controversial off side call, the allegations of methampethamine use, the whole shabang. It almost adds to the theatre, the great political movements that come about (capitalism vs communism in this case). Truly amazing.

Yep, probably best sums up the mindsets of both teams in that play. It would have been a very good decision to take the kick at goal. So good England would have taken the kick. As the legs and minds faded, a chink formed in the English armor and the All Blacks capitalised. It just shows how you have to be on our game for the full 83 minutes to win a tight game of rugby.

Regarding the Nonu tug: I think by definition, If the team with the ball has a team mate in a position to receive a legal pass, they would have to quite obviously interfere with the defender’s, in this case Nonu’s, ‘line’ to the ball. The way he was tugged from behind made me think he was not illegally interfereing, rather running a support line. Just the way I saw it. Knock-ons are hard ones, if the ref thinks it went back/forwards, he calls it – Not much more to it than that I suppose. Still, cracking game!

The trip incident is a very strange one for me to adjudicate on as I referee and play a lot of the round-ball game. If this was a soccer/football match, and a player made a challenge like that, he would be looking at a red card and 12-14 weeks suspension I would suggest, so I think that may be biasing my angle on it, as it seems most people are not to bothered by it.

A similar thing happened to me when I saw Billy Slater slide feet first into an opponents chest in a grand final to stop a try. Nothing was done about it (the rules have since been changed), but I couldn’t believe what I was seeing as my fellow viewers carried on like nothing had happened…

Yeah, the message might have been lost, but all I was really trying to say, was that while technically I think the ref made some bad calls, I thought it turned out into an awesome game

Don Bradman was in favour of it… Why aren’t we…? It is clearly against the rules and also the spirit of the game to be ‘ahead’ of the bowler.

I don’t know about any problems with funding, the infrastructure is already built (Well, I can name a great many stadia that could be converted/modified easily enough – MCG, Etihad, SFS, Suncorp Stadium, Aussie Stadium, Adelaide oval, Subiaco/NIB). We showed we can beef up transport requirements during the olympics. I would imagine another 45 million would be paid off many times over by hosting the world cup. Remember that’s 64 games, of which we can safely assume the entire second round onwards would be sold out (not a certainty, but playing drawcard teams in the big stadia would help).

I think it would be poor business to not have a crack at it, considering our rival bids. Japan and South korea co-hosted in 2002 and the USA hosted in 1994 (admittedly a bigger stumbling block).

While I agree with not just reacting to situations, the entire process of lifting tackles/ lifting in tackles needs to be re-examined (again). As you rightly point out, the call of “give him six weeks” seems odd to me. However, if he had been seriously hurt, paralysed say, what do we do? How long should you be out for? Once you start down the slippery slope of it’s only how injured you are that reflects the suspension, you open Pandora’s box. I assume there would be doctors out there who would honestly believe he should never play league again and with his injuries, who would blame them. Six weeks, 1 week, lifetime suspension…?

It’s a very difficult and muddled area, not helped by old school enthusiasts and probably an innate human desire to see brutal violence. Luckily we are all on the same page regarding serious spine injuries. We all want to keep the testing physicality in the game, it’s just the tip/lift that seems to be causing all the trouble. I have no idea how to change the culture/system to stop them happening however.

Yes, but I don’t think it is made clear, why that penalty is taking precedence over other potential infringements was what I was trying to say. In the example, I seem to ‘know’ which way the referee will give the penalty, but I think it would be very confusing to the untrained viewer.

I agree with your sentiment about a team deserving to win and being 1 or 2 decisions “ahead”. I suppose it is just in those very close games where you don’t want the game “decided” by one referees call. In the reds rebels match it was very clear what decision had been made (eye gouging, no 18 red), it was the disbelief over the judgement. Let me put it another way, imagine a player running down the touchline (Jarrod Hayne about four years ago in an origin match springs to mind) and almost/maybe catches part of the line. When the referee makes his decision, there is no doubt concerning communication, he just rules his foot was out and that is that.

I am doing a poor job trying to get my point across. I imagine most confusion concerns the ruck. For example, team A held possession going into the ruck, the tackler (team B) does not release the player and as such a supporting player from team A enters from the side to clean out the ruck. Which way does the referee make that call.

Of course I have very few ideas if any to fix this as to me it seems a mostly “gut” feel on why the decisions go which way.

Long story short, I think the lack of communication more concerns why this foul was deemed more offensive than another foul committed by the other team.

Good ideas for the show, seems to remind me of the good old days of Greg Clarke leading the rugby club (Maybe it’s rose tinted glasses stuff but I liked the show about 10 years ago). Really like the proposed segment on the results and why they didn’t turn out the way they ‘should’ have. Back in the day I liked the crosses to NZ and RSA, I think they added a certain balance to situations and given it is an international event it is good to get a quick couple of minutes from the “other” side, so hopefully they could bring that back.

Yep, I get it now, I was assuming when you said two matches a home and away set up. Yep, makes sense. I was telling everyone who would listen last year, that sevens should be being pushed as the third tier. I thought it made sense as a way to keep potential wallabies fit and playing rugby, and to save on cost. I am glad the NRC is coming to fruition, but don’t see why we can’t also have some sort of Australian sevens tournament. I see the merit in your system, nice 3 hour time slot for the broadcasters, limits player burnout, easy enough to market and also provides a good platform for these olympic aspirations. Wait, why hasn’t this been done before…?

I’m a little confused how the league would be run, would the force team play all the other teams within those first two days in Perth? Why would the tournament style circuit used by the IRB not work in Australia? One weekend comp in Perth, Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne?

I agree. When you write about the panelists and their lack of insight, I feel their opinions are almost a poll of the population that end up as a committee decision. It is a rare instance they actually disagree on something of any sort of importance. For instance by the time this Thursday has rolled around, the red cards over the weekend will have been dissected many times from many different angles. Unfortunately (and bearing in mind this is just my opinion) I assume the team of analysts will present a united front with the conclusion that it is better to be safe than sorry. I think this opinion by numbers most affects Nick and Georgina. I stand firm with you that we are not chauvinists, rather meritists (I’m pretty sure that isn’t a word, but you get my point).

Further to your gripe about Georgie, I was in shock to learn that she was a Queenslander. I would have bet money on her being a Sydney native… I guess that shows exceptional non-bias to the point of reverse bias…?

Cheerleaders! That’s a fantastic term for them. I was struggling to differentiate between commentating and reporting, this is far more poetic.

Agreed, the set up suffers, in that it is trying to be both fair, and yet ‘push’ it’s own product. I would love a segment on club rugby but feel it is not mentioned because it is not worth anything to Fox.

Fair enough. I think my “ideal’ situation” would be probably similar to the AFL set up, the combination of free to air coverage and pay tv, spreads the game and keeps the dollars from the pay tv deal. I know it is chicken and egg situation, but I feel there is probably some causality in the AFL’s dual coverage systems – this applies both to on field coverage and off field (AFL footy show on free to air and AFL 360 on Fox).

How do you think the rugby coverage could be improved?