I expected the closeness, the tenseness, the edge of seat stuff, and even the boring kick chase game plan from the boks, but I didn’t expect the bumbling drop ball stand away from breakdown not contesting game plan from the ABs. Strange way to approach a game, but it worked.

The media across the globe, and the majority of journos who identify as such, are moving perfectly in sync with one another and marching in step toward… Inclusivity? Really? In Britain the media is hailing a fellow media type as a hero and man of great courage and bravery for abandoning his two children and wife of 27 years to selfishly “come out” and spend the rest of his life chasing other men.
Meanwhile in Brisbane a woman who chooses to love her husband and do all she can to make him happy is condemned and ridiculed. Inclusive? What a load of crap.

I truly hope that this win brings with it the realisation of the hopes, aspirations, and peace to a troubled nation. Congratulations SA.

Two groups of people will benefit from the third place play off. The Japanese fans first. They have been sensational in their support of all teams throughout the tournament.
Second, I don’t know of any Welsh fan, or player, who would pass up the opportunity to beat NZ. But Wales have been so battered, I think they would struggle against aNZ b team on Friday. But then, I thought England would struggle against the ABs.

England will no doubt be a more difficult mountain to climb than Ireland. But before the tournament started, I didn’t see in England anything that I considered particularly threatening to an AB side in top form. Englands game yesterday didn’t impress because unlike Ireland, Australia’s errors were not the result of pressure from the opposition. Sorry Oz fans, but England still haven’t faced an opposing side that has truly tested them.
The only team at this tournament that has the potential to upset the ABs is SA. although I think Japan would not be the pushover many believe if they made to the final.

Having viewed several RWC matches including the Samoa/Ireland game, and a couple of Mitre10 cup game, it seems the referees in NZ are operating on the same mindset as those in Japan. But I’m going to go a step further than most commentators. While we all agree that head clashes are dangerous, and laws must be enforced in order to establish more conscientious decision making by players, I believe that for true justice to prevail, and common sense to be embraced, there ought to be no penalties whatsoever for head contact where there was clearly no intent…in other words, accidental. And I think the law makers should give the referees the benefit of their support and allow them to judge on the paddock what is and what isn’t ‘intent’.
One related incident took place in the Mitre10 cup game between Hawkes Bay and Tasman, where two opposing players were about to compete for the high ball, and one slipped, forcing a contact of the other player in the air. The law demanded the player to be penalised…because it could have been dangerous…but hey, it was an accident. He was not to blame, and to penalise him at all (the mitigating factor removed a yellow card) I think is wrong.
The same should be applied to the current tackle fiasco in the WC, the Aki incident a case in point. Clearly Aki’s collision was unintentionally high. So also were the several contacts with the head by an arm as the ball carrier was suddenly dipping/falling/ or even almost to the ground before contact was made…all completely harmless, no intention of foul play…no intention of head contact…and in some cases totally unavoidable. The law states yellow card if not red…I say no card and no penalty. Just get on with the game.

I have two questions for you more knowledgeable souls…how did Smith do? I didn’t see the match, so am relying on comments of live blog and subsequent articles. The live blog suggested a bad’un.
Also, what position did Perenara play and how did that go?

Recently watched the highlights of the Lions tour to Oz in 2013. Genia was the same then as now. Two steps sideways and the Lions were in the backline playing cards till the ball arrived.

AB supporters very very rarely blame the ref. In fact, hardly ever. Only when they lose.

As an ex hooker the scrum issue is my pet peeve. I can’t remember the last time any half back was pinged for not putting the ball in straight. Nor can I remember the last time a tight head was won through hooking.

Curious photo of Barret and Kolbe…Cheika could learn from Rassie’s attitude . Analytical and fair.

Which is why only a penalty and not a card.

This whole column is on how pedantic the referring was, and you don’t think the TMO looked?

I would like to personally thank Mr. McKenna for his article as it has inspired one of the most entertaining threads I’ve read in weeks.

That was brilliant.

After reading through several different articles, and the following comments, I do appreciate the more technical aspects of the conversations, particularly the analysis of the rush defense and the plans devised to combat it.
I’m an AB fan through and through, but was just a smidgen apprehensive before Saturdays game. Would everyone turn up to play? Would the occasion create too much nervous tension and force errors? 10 minutes into the game however I relaxed. Despite the constant pressure from SA, and the marked territory and possession advantage, as well as the 3 points gained, the ABs looked relaxed, they weren’t panicking, they weren’t ‘just holding on by the skin of their teeth’ as some commentators seem to be insinuating, and at least to me, despite looking to be on the back foot for long periods, appeared as if they were working well within their limits… Were not being seriously tested to the point of losing control, and looked as if they were capable at any time to step up, increase the intensity, do what’s necessary without over exposing their potential. I always felt they had plenty in reserve throughout the game.
But that is purely a subjective opinion and I am sure others have a view quite contrary to mine. Thing is though, after Saturday, I am a lot more confident for the rest of the event that I was before.
I am surprised though at the negative reactions I’ve read to England’s game. They were I thought a major contender after watching them demolish their opposition in the lead up games. But that I’m too unhappy about the re evaluation.

Well that depends on your definition of Christian, and how broad or narrow your view of sexuality. There are liberal and conservative perspectives in religion just as in politics. One rejects the Bible as a foundation for Christian faith, while the other accepts it. The question that those professing any Christian faith must ask themselves is, “whose standard of character and lifestyle ought I follow? Do I make myself a little god and set my own standard, or do I follow that standard set out in God’s word?”
And should people who don’t profess any faith whatsoever begin to demand their standards as being the norm for Christian practice?

Or sex education.

Religious beliefs should always be subservient to state law.
Definitely not always, but I agree to a point…where religious behaviour impinges the rights of another. No religion should be able to freely murder others based on “belief”. Or kidnap. Or torture. Or seize property. Sadly, history attests to that being a norm for many religious persuasions. (And most governments). But where I would advise caution is in cases where the belief affects only the relationship with the individual and the God he believes in. For example…should the state legislate for or against prayer in state schools? Should the state legislate in favour of enforced church attendance on Sundays, as was the case in the US in the early pioneer years? Should the state have ever created “holy”days? Why are there no liquor outlets open on Sundays? Isn’t that prejudiced against the Jew who observes Saturday as his Sabbath and the Muslim who observes Friday? I think the state should stay well clear of any religious legislation, either for or against, and saying the state should be above “beliefs” implies the state has the power to coerce one way or the other.
In the words of James Madison…The civil rights of none, shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.

The RU hires rugby players…rugby players have the same worldview and follow the same policies and principles inherent to the game…everyone working to the same result. One would be hard pressed to convince anyone an openly gay teacher would possess the same worldview and want the same results as the parents and administrators of a Christian or church based school … children who are there presumably because their parents want them to have a Christian education.
Similar to a Maccas worker who pops next door every day and buys KFC for her lunch and brings the carton back into the Maccas restaurant area to eat.

Like I have said many times previously in other posts, Folau’s quote from the Bible in no way is against the RU policy of inclusiveness…unless they believe their jurisdiction includes the kingdom of God. Being a sinner in no way excludes anyone from playing rugby. It didn’t me.

I think the essence of political correctness is tolerance. “I will tolerate your activities until such time as I decide to not tolerate your activities”. Toleration is merely a licence for the tolerant to dictate the terms of how others should live their lives. A far cry from freedom.

From Genesis to Revelation, nearly every one of the 66 books inform us that death is the direct result of sin that was introduced into the human race by our distant ancestors. That sin lifestyle continues today in a myriad of forms. The gospel message…repent and find forgiveness…is for everyone. The passage of scripture that Folau quoted illustrated that. No-one is exempt from death. The promise is a coming resurrection for those who accept Christ. This was Israel Folau’s message, and is the common theme that runs through all his posts and tweets etc when discussing the subject. Please tell us, where is the arrogant bullying in that message?

That atheist businessman was possibly a Jesuit trained lackey parroting his superiors lies. The truth is that if it weren’t for the superstitious prelates and political ambitions of the RCC, western civilisation would have peaked hundreds of years earlier.

So quoting a verse from the Bible is now a sackable offense for Australian employees.

One aspect of all this drama that has been forgotten, is that right at the beginning, Izzy was asked, publicly, on social media, a question, and I paraphrase…”what is God’s plan for homosexuals”. Or words to that effect.

Izzy answered according to conscience. It is his answer, that is now the subject of this ongoing debate. He did not offer a personal opinion…merely a quote from the Bible. It was what GOD’S plan is for gays, NOT Izzy’s plan. Now of course Izzy could have refused to answer…lied…obfuscated…or done any number of other things to avoid what he no doubt knew would or could result to some degree of backlash and criticism. But he didn’t do any of those, no, he told the truth. He was honest, not willing to hide in order to protect reputation or career. That takes courage. Far more courage than the many here who say, “he can believe what he wants, but he has to keep those beliefs to himself.” That is cowardice. It would not only be cowardice for a Christian to happily live his faith but be content to see everyone not of his faith die without faith and have no hope or future, but it is also cowardice for the non-believer to demand Christians keep silent simply because they can’t face something they don’t want to front up to. Their own personal sin and their own responsibility before God for their life and the way they live it.

Izzy did not target gays. He was asked what would happen to gays, and he replied that they, along with ALL other unrepentant sinners, would die without hope. What he did NOT say was gays ought not be playing footy. What Izzy was not doing was transgressing any rugby claims to inclusiveness. Izzy was simply relating the spiritual result of sin. He was not demanding anyone who practised sin (of any sort) should be excluded from whatever life, career, sport, or past-time they choose. What he said in other words had nothing whatsoever to do with his contract or his employment. The fact is most here are demanding he practice his religion according to their standards, according to their demands on how they want him to practice. Sorry, but no-one should be dictating to anyone else how they should live their lives according to their own conscientious scruples. Whether you agree with them or not. And Izzy isn’t doing that either. He is merely voicing what the Bible teaches is the inevitable result of wrong choices. But you are still free to make those choices. And Izzy isn’t taking that freedom away from you, or gays, or drunks, or anyone else. And basically, that is the reason why he is still, and always has been, faithful to his employment contract. He has not contravened the rugby union’s policy of inclusiveness. Unless of course you think that the rugby union’s extent of authority includes the kingdom of God.