Thread: The Rugby World Cup 2015

Allez Les Bleus.....

Actually I really do not care about that game..... but NZ will win.

Wales v Seth Iffrika is the only game of note to me.... we have back line selection issues and there is still talk that Lydiate isn't fit.

I'd start with Lydiate for a maximum of 60 minutes, minimum (not a WR minimum) of 40. I think we should start with Tyler Morgan at 13, a bold move, but he is the outside centre left in the squad, give him a run.....

Hook on the bench is the closest I want him to the game.

Argentina Ireland.... don't really care but I love Argentina and I have no love for Ireland so I would like Argentina to win but Ireland will.

Australia Scotland. Can't look any further than Australia in that one, no chance of an upset.

Originally Posted by Bobcock

Wales v Seth Iffrika is the only game of note to me.... we have back line selection issues and there is still talk that Lydiate isn't fit.

I see Matfield is out.

Bokkes may be the only team where injuries have actually been a good thing vis-a-vie team selection.

Originally Posted by Bobcock

I would like Argentina to win but Ireland will

I'm not so sure about that one... History... Form...

Yes, it often happens in tournaments such as this where someone considered vital is out and the replacement shows to be just as good if not better. I don't think losing de Villiers is a bad thing and Matfield is well past his sell by date.

In fact it seems that Meyer has cast aside JdP as well....

This is a far better Bok team than played Japan...... and I don't think our team will be as good as what we put out against England, but them's the breaks....

One thing Wales have going for them is that they already know the Bokke game-plan: bosh, bosh, bosh... And then bosh again.

somewhat similar to ours.....

Battle of the Bosh.

Totally agree with this:

Rugby World Cup 2015: Nigel Yalden - Make the judicial decisions public

11:33 AM Thursday Oct 15, 2015

Early yesterday morning, prior to what was a very busy and high profile day at the Rugby World Cup judiciary, World Rugby put out a press release entitled "Statement of clarification - the independent disciplinary process".

It was part response part attempt at rebuttal to those who have been publically challenging what they believe to be inconsistencies and/or bias at the judiciary during pool play at this Rugby World Cup.

The six carefully worded paragraphs highlighted the experience, diversity and neutrality of the Citing Commissioners and Judicial Officers, the duty of care to protect players on the field via officiating and disciplinary process as well as pointing out World Rugby's 2012 review of Regulation 17 which covers "discipline - foul play" and the subsequent recalibration of the sanctions table.

The final paragraph of the statement began with this:

"World Rugby is satisfied that the fully independent disciplinary process is being fairly and consistently applied across the board at this Rugby World Cup"

... if you do say so yourselves.

It is, of course, their right though to make such statements as it is yours and mine to question them.

So I put it to you World Rugby.

If you truly believe everything your public relations department wrote in the Statement of Clarification, I ask you to prove it by opening the doors.

Allow members of the sports media to attend judicial hearings and report on them.

It doesn't matter how you as an organisation perceive yourself, it's how you are perceived by (apologies for using business chat) your key stakeholders.

And it would appear that a significant portion of fans and media would strongly disagree with the word "consistently" as it relates to judicial matters at this tournament.

I understand and appreciate that the disciplinary process in charged with judging each case on an individual basis and to not make comparisons to other incidents.

But the fans and media do.

We look at Nemani Nadolo getting suspended for one week for a remarkably similar incident that Tom Wood does not get a sanction for and ask "where is the consistency?"

We also see Michael Hooper charging into a ruck, leading with a shoulder that makes contact with Mike Brown's head for which he gets a one week ban and we say "how is that possible?"

We ask how the judicial officer judging the Sean O'Brien citing can say "that there were no aggravating factors".

Yet in the full judicial decision, six of the seven camera angles used in evidence showed Pascal Pape "dragging" or "grabbing" O'Brien.

When asked if he grabbed O'Brien or not Pape said "he didn't recall but denied that he was pulling O'Brien to "my side"".

Reads like aggravating factors; comes across as contradictory.

So let the media in.

Allow us to sit at the back of the room.

Allow us to see the all the footage that is available.

Allow us to hear the words as they are spoken.

Allow us to view the documents as they are presented.

Then report back to the fans and then together, allow us to judge what you believe to be true.

That being "that the fully independent disciplinary process is being fairly and consistently applied across the board at this Rugby World Cup"

Because in order to truly obtain fairness and consistency, there has to be an acceptable level of openness which is not the case at the moment.

- NZ Herald

Apparently ... and this is a good one.... Sean O'Brien received a reduction of his sentence from the minimum, to below the minimum because of his exemplary behaviour during the hearing....

What did they think he might do.... turn up and punch them????

WR just making up reasons to protect some......

Heard that too. Focking ridonkulous.

Presumably if he'd turned up with a gaggle of prostitutes in tow, a kilo bag of cocaine, and had called them all eejit cnuts he would've gotten harshly dealt with... Minimum ban, at least.

With all due respect things can get out of hand during a game and constant stealth niggling by one player against another can result in a moment of madness which the judiciary must consider. I feel that punch in the stomach is a perfect example.

Having said that nobody can argue the fact that decisions have not been consistent or fair.

I hope bad refereeing does not rear it's ugly head.

Agreed... but LT this punch was in the first minutes of the game and there had been no incident between the two up to that rather early point.

This is nothing but WR favouritism towards the country where they have their offices and get some....benefits....

Originally Posted by Loy Toy

I feel that punch in the stomach is a perfect example.

A moment of madness, LT, can be glossed over . . . overtly punching someone cannot

Originally Posted by Bobcock

Agreed... but LT this punch was in the first minutes of the game and there had been no incident between the two up to that rather early point.

This is nothing but WR favouritism towards the country where they have their offices and get some....benefits....

It's funny. When the English clubs were rebelling against the Irish Based Heineken Cup and many were pointing at Dublin and the Irish set up weighing influence to protect their golden egg, everyone else cried foul saying that just because they are based in Dublin and staffed mostly by Oirish people, that would not mean that there was favouritism at all.

However, now the same nationality people who refuted the allegations opf blatant favouritism as being fanciful are saying that the Irish World Rugby set up is protecting their national team using the weight of World Rugby being based in Ireland.

I always thought the English had a very fair argument regarding the Heineken Cup.....

..... and we discussed at the time... in person

Originally Posted by pseudolus

It's funny. When the English clubs were rebelling against the Irish Based Heineken Cup and many were pointing at Dublin and the Irish set up weighing influence to protect their golden egg, everyone else cried foul saying that just because they are based in Dublin and staffed mostly by Oirish people, that would not mean that there was favouritism at all.

However, now the same nationality people who refuted the allegations opf blatant favouritism as being fanciful are saying that the Irish World Rugby set up is protecting their national team using the weight of World Rugby being based in Ireland.

Not half as funny as the notion that there's a conspiracy in World Rugby to support a team from a tiny archipelago in the South Pacific.

She isn't a carpet muncher.

^ ok, Stoker will be pleased about that.

Originally Posted by Bobcock

I'd start with Lydiate for a maximum of 60 minutes, minimum (not a WR minimum) of 40. I think we should start with Tyler Morgan at 13, a bold move, but he is the outside centre left in the squad, give him a run.....

You have 3 excellent 7s, so not a big problem who you pick there. Certianly should be playing players o=in their natural positions, so good call at 13; are you free to take up the England job starting from 1st November?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I see Matfield is out.

Bokkes may be the only team where injuries have actually been a good thing vis-a-vie team selection.

Originally Posted by Bobcock

Yes, it often happens in tournaments such as this where someone considered vital is out and the replacement shows to be just as good if not better. I don't think losing de Villiers is a bad thing and Matfield is well past his sell by date.

Yes, agreed. I'm quite keen on the Bokks, and 3 years ago they looked like they'd be in perfect shape to take this WC, but after a couple of injuries to young players the useless coach started to bring back all the old guard... Now, the 7 has shocked me by his excellent play, but the others have been a step down. So, yes, they are better with these excellent young players in, and are now a threat for the tournament, but they could have been a lot better if he'd just kept playing the young players for the last 3 years.

Edit to add: their 10 and centre, who have both been excellent, played in the U20s final in Kiwiland last year. Our captain from that game, who is an excellent player, was dropped out of the final squad - a 37 year old who at his best never played as well as our under 20 captain has done everytime I've seen him, was preferred... & the Bokk manager is distinctly average, so that makes our management, errm, fukin awful.

The Incredible Schalk keeps on keeping on.

Hell of a guy by all accounts.

He fuked us over in the WC final 8 years ago, and he is still better than any loose forward we have - he's played great in this WC, leading their pack forward by example.

Yep defo been a standout. Was just reading a player rankings thing in the NZ Herald earlier and he tops it.

He seems to be playing as well as he ever has, quite amazing really, and he's 32 so no spring chicken.

Back from near-death, the incredible Schalk Burger earns comeback of the year | Rugby | BDlive

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

You have 3 excellent 7s,

We do? You sound like Lancaster....he thinks a 6 is a 7....

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

The Incredible Schalk keeps on keeping on.

Hell of a guy by all accounts.

Good Welsh boy....