The Roar
The Roar

Evanfinity

Roar Pro

Joined July 2017

12.4k

Views

17

Published

58

Comments

In the time of chimpanzees, I was a monkey.

Published

Comments

Where's my moral outrage?

It’s dark out here beyond the circle. There air is sweet with smoke and sweat. Angry eyes all wet and vacant. Teeth glint off burning lanterns. Hey, what’s going on in there? I clench my pitchfork all the same. Tonight, they seethe, there’s witches afoot.

Totally agree biltongbek. Glad I’m not completely alone on this one. Seems to just be myself and everyone else in the world who isn’t a casual Australian cricket fan or part of the media.

I posted about the vendetta angle without any traction. Brett Geeves insinuated as much over on fox sports – but he’s got journalistic integrity to maintain. I’d be very surprised if there isn’t an appeal. Interested to know if the ACA and CA had allowed for referral to the court of arbitration for sport.

Rousing debate rages on Aussie ball tampering

Disagree on your first point. I feel the apparent divide is perpetuated more so from the league side. The rags to riches cliché of the “kid from Dapto” made good is venerated and played on loop. Even the Ch9 commentators pose the “rah-rah” disparagingly against “our great game”. It seems a kind of conscious self-determination. I don’t feel union paints itself as is quite so insular. But could just be from where I’m standing…

However, I do agree on your second point. All this plays out perfectly for the real competitors – the AFL and soccer. It’s time that someone heeded that the enemy of my enemy is my friend…

League versus union: Letting go of the code war bitterness

All good mate. Was funny. Got me thinking though. If, as you conjecture, the latest and most immediate action is decisive – that’s akin to removing the hysteresis from our scoring system. I.e., we’re left with “last try wins” for 80 mins. Try imagine how that test would be played! Enjoy the vodka Ralph.

Joubert gets it. Garces gets it. Why don't we?

Ha! That went somewhere I didn’t anticipate. But perhaps time is symmetric, and causality a mere abstraction? I can see Garces sucking the pea back into his whistle now!

P.s: Thanks. I grew it myself.

Joubert gets it. Garces gets it. Why don't we?

Cheers mate. Will definitely have another go sometime – just hard to pick something that’s sufficiently contrarian.

Joubert gets it. Garces gets it. Why don't we?

Thanks Tim.

Appreciate the input.

Re: “The ABs were beaten because they chose to play a conservative game with the loss of SBW, understandably. They almost pulled it off but were let down by two poor defensive efforts …” Totally agree. That’s it right there.

And I suggest the lions deserved the win on the back of tries (2-0) and line breaks (6-1). Most of the other metrics were even – save for possession due to how narrow the ABs chose to play. The card on SBW was irrelevant. You get no consideration for being a man down.

FWIW – I felt that the lions were well on top when the whips were cracking. And I was cheering for a black out! They definitely were when that 77th minute penalty was blown. They knew it, the lions knew it, and – most importantly – Jerome Garces knew it. And that, I argue, was the context for his decision.

Joubert gets it. Garces gets it. Why don't we?

Thanks for the feedback mate.

However, I feel I may have been a bit subtle…

Re: “The law is clear, the ref got it right”. Agree. But most laws are clear, at least by wording. It’s the interpretation and application that isn’t. It’s theory versus practice, if you will. The responsibility rests with the ref, who makes decisions based on how he sees the contest. This may either be active of subconscious. If the lions were up by 10, would the penalty have been blow? I’m not sure.

Re: “Faumiana didn’t wrap his arms in the ‘tackle.’ End of discussion”. Sounds more like shifting the discussion.

Joubert gets it. Garces gets it. Why don't we?

Thanks mate. FTR – I think the lions did deserve the win. Very much looking forward to Saturday.

I guess my subtext was that a ref doesn’t view each contest as an independent trial – be it a ruck, maul, or set piece. And nor should they, so nor should we. It’s implicit in the basic laws of the game. Equality exits only in mathematics. I’ve just seen a lot of hand wringing over isolated penalties and decisions. So I thought I’d test whether there was a silent majority out there…

Joubert gets it. Garces gets it. Why don't we?