Stalins Organ Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Can some one explain what the f*** The AB's have done to their Haka.Its very very poor now.They used to be so much better a few years ago.Also what does the Haka have to do with most of the AB's any way.Most of them are white. The "new" Haka is "Kapa o Pango" - which literally means "All Blacks" (kapa = group, as in "kapa haka" - a performing group, and pango = black/dark) is a haka specifically created for the All Blacks in 2005 - I remeber seeing it on TV when it was performed & being surprised by it. "Ka Mate" is an old haka - possibly even predating te Rauparaha who is it usually credited to from the early 1800's. The AB's have performed several haka over the decades as per the first link above. Haka are supposed to be about the group performing it - about them, their challenge, etc. te Rauparaha's one is well known.....but not really about rugby, or a game, or the AB's. Being white is no longer an issue for a haka in New Zealand - no more than being a convict is a requirement to enter Australia 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 WTF is this rugby league bomb thing? Whenever we got the ball and drove forward we looked threatening. The rest of the time we just aimlessly kicked. The match kick off out on the full was an apt forecast of things to come. IIRC teh Canadians scored a great try from one that came down about 1/2 metre from the try line As an Australian though I also lament another body blow to the sport here. Not because we didn't win, but because of the volume of points coming through penalties. (Especially if you add on the AB's missed ones!). NRL and AFL already market their games along the lines of "At least you'll see some actual scoring" and tonight's game (and last night's) will just play into their hands. 26 points is still 13-26 times as many as you see in most soccer games...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 IIRC teh Canadians scored a great try from one that came down about 1/2 metre from the try line Yep. But the Australians were doing it in the middle of the field. Why give away possession like that and save the opposition 50 metres of territory? 26 points is still 13-26 times as many as you see in most soccer games...... I guess the analogy is that if so many (the majority?) of soccer goals were only being scored from penalty spot kicks people would feel similarly unhappy. This is just something I regret in our Aussie market because I love the game and it gets dissed here because 'potential' fans look at the game and just see an unending stream of technical penalities, many of which are open to interpretation. I think at this point in the game of rugby the balance is out of whack between 3 and 5 pointers. Perhaps that's a legacy of the uber-kicker trend that England started with Wilkinson. The last time this sort of imbalance crept in was around 1990/91 when we saw a load of games that were being decided 9-6 or 3-0 and then just completely shut down. They upped a try to 5 points then. I'm not sure that's necessarily the answer again but the dearth of tries is something that needs to be looked at. This isn't a refelction on last night. The Wallabies were outplayed on every level and didn't deserve to progress. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Way back when rugby started, a try was worth nothing - except it gave you a chance to kick a goal - ie you could then "try" to kick a goal - and yuo won by having more goals than the other guys. This is also why the "extra point" in american football is officially called a "try" - originally they had hte same system - touchdowns were not worth anything, only the goal or converts kicked afterwards. I think the modern preponderance came about a bit before Johnny Wilkenson - after all the Saffa's won both their world cups without scoring any tries in either final & Aus only managed 1 try in 1991. IIRC it came about in the 80's, when it was much easier to defend than attack - there were fewer rules at the ruck and so defending teams could REALLY slow down attacking ball. Increasing the points for a try to 5 was an attempt to improve the situation, as you say, as were the ELV's from a few years ago that are now part of the official rule book and attempt to improve the attacker's chances of getting quick ruck ball. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 I think the modern preponderance came about a bit before Johnny Wilkenson - after all the Saffa's won both their world cups without scoring any tries in either final & Aus only managed 1 try in 1991. The try went up to 5 points after the 1991 RWC. Australia did manage just the one try in the final and it was an apt demonsration of the situation back then because they were playing against the proponents par excellence of the slow down: England. If you look at the games you can see that England scored no tries against NZ in their poll match, no tries against Scotland in the semi final and no tries in the final. Apart from mismatches agaist Italy and the USA, England's only tries against a reasonable opposition were 2 against France in the quarter final. I singled out Wilkinson because I think he represents a turn in the pro era of the game where high skilled kickers became the machinery for posting big scores. More chance for infrigement + more accurate kicking changed the balance of things a bit more. 20 years ago it would be pretty rare to see a team taking a penalty kick from the halfway line and pretty rare to see it go over. Today it's less remarkable. I don't have a solution. I understand that we don't want killing of the ruck ball. But we need to balance that a bit more against the fact that so many games are turning into teams huddling under the posts waiting for a kick. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 I guess the analogy is that if so many (the majority?) of soccer goals were only being scored from penalty spot kicks people would feel similarly unhappy. This is just something I regret in our Aussie market because I love the game and it gets dissed here because 'potential' fans look at the game and just see an unending stream of technical penalities, many of which are open to interpretation. I think at this point in the game of rugby the balance is out of whack between 3 and 5 pointers. Perhaps that's a legacy of the uber-kicker trend that England started with Wilkinson. The last time this sort of imbalance crept in was around 1990/91 when we saw a load of games that were being decided 9-6 or 3-0 and then just completely shut down. They upped a try to 5 points then. I'm not sure that's necessarily the answer again but the dearth of tries is something that needs to be looked at. This isn't a refelction on last night. The Wallabies were outplayed on every level and didn't deserve to progress. That's basically my impression as a casual watcher of the games who doesn't really know all the rules. Grubbing around on the ground messily, then a penalty that I don't really understand, then points from a penalty kick. I've seen some more enjoyable open flowing games in previous years, but a scrappy game of rugby can be incredibly boring to watch. Maybe solid defense at the highest levels lends itself to brawls in the mud. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 That's basically my impression as a casual watcher of the games who doesn't really know all the rules. Pick a game...any game - they all hae their arcane rules - even AFL which has plenty going on - why do they bounce hte ball?? why do they hit it to each other? What are the tackle rules & what's with them grubbing around on the ground?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 And in actually important news.....Kleeburger shaves his beard, and Warren Gatland, Wales coach, thought about faking an injury to one of his tight 5 to avoid his scrum going backwards - apparently he thought losing a loosie was a problem for the push too..... And the IRB is so incensed he didn't cheat they are going to investigate him!! Meanwhile the minnow nations might actually have an important say in who is the next head of the IRB ....nice for them to have a bit of clout for a change! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 And of course Aaron Cruden's rise to fame has been quite impressive.... Can you guess what he was doing over the last few weeks leading up to Saturday's test?? He had 'em licked Nek minit 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/veteran-lions-lobby-irb-for-scrum-overhaul-20111019-1m6yz.htmlHere's a piece about attempts to change scrummaging laws. The idea of non-convertible penalties for some of these very technical infringements would be worth exploring. "Their analysis of the World Cup pool game between Ireland and Australia, refereed by Bryce Lawrence, indicated 22 scrums, 11 collapses and seven penalties. Just under half - 43 per cent - of the game's points came from scrummage offences and it would have been over half if the kickers had been successful with all their attempts." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Interesting - so they want it to be able to be kicked out & retain possession, which you can't do with a free kick. Perhaps just change the laws so a Free Kick can be kicked out outside the 22 (atm you can't - the other side gets the throw in back at the point you took the kick from same as any other non-penalty kick out on the full)? If they want to stop penalties and replace the scrum with a minor sanction then that would probably be enough - the team in possession can choose to take that possession at the point of the scrum, or take a distance advantage and give away possession with the option of contesting. FC's are mainly for scrum and lineout infringements, so I think that would be a useful change. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I agree. If I recall correctly, when I started playing penalty kicks into touch actually gave the lineout feed back to the other team. They changed that to make a penalty more punishing (giving territory and possession). Though at the time there was no lifting in the line either, so retaining lineout ball was not as regular as it is now. I found the analysis of the scoring in the AUS-IRE game interesting. I think that's really problematic when such a proportion of the points come that way. Though in that game the scrums were particularly bad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrailApe Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I agree that the 'hit' during/after "engage" and the skin tight shirts that they wear are causing all sort of problems. Get rid of the pause/engage and let the props wear something more appropriate. The only WORRY I have is that by reducing the consequences of 'technical' infringment at a scrum is that you are likely to de-power the scrum. If your under the cosh at scrum time and looking likely to go back x number of yards, it's easy to 'slip' or 'technically' infringe (ie bring down the scrum) and thus negate the chance of a try. If your not going to even get three points against you, just keep doing it. Might help to get more former members of the front row union involved in refereeing - even if they are only involved as a Video-Scrum-Ref on the big occasions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 So apparently the French are going to deliberately stomp on McCaw's ankle tomorrow night?? I think if here's any perception by the crowd of that happening they might only make the team bus with broken ankles themselves!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gautrek Posted October 22, 2011 Author Share Posted October 22, 2011 So apparently the French are going to deliberately stomp on McCaw's ankle tomorrow night?? I think if here's any perception by the crowd of that happening they might only make the team bus with broken ankles themselves!! But I suppose its ok to double spear tackle some one then.Talk about double standards http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtNzJHYrGzg. Or if I could find it the deliberate stamping on Kyran Bracken ( i think) by a All black.In full view in the middle of the pitch who was running back to his line and was cynically stamped on in an effort to break his ankle.(as that could be the only reason to stamp as hard as he did). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 No it's not OK to double spear tackle anyone - and IIRC no-one actually ever said it was...I certainly don't see anywhere where I said so?? But that's OK - feel free to keep the blinkers on..... Jamie Joseph is the AB you are thinking of - back in 1993 - and you guys tell us to "get over it"?? But again I don't see anyone saying it was OK - you seem to have this chip on your shoulder that whenever an AB does something bad therefore the whole of New Zealand thinks foul play is OK - dunno where you got that from - perhaps it is the case for your players and attitudes....over here we tend to grimace and wish it hadn't' happened because people like you go all sill over it. Sorry for your psyche, but AFAIK no-one indicated in either case that they were intending to do those as part of a game plane, a couple of days before the game. I'm sure with your even handed approach to foul play you'll spot the difference, and also of course be happy the IRB is coming down harder on it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Well here we are counting down the final hours. Will NZ finally get the monkey off their backs? Or will the French break their hearts again? I have to support the French in this. (Or I might end up divorced!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 The main thing we're looking for here is that the AB's play a good game - if the French do bring out their AA++ team and play better we can live with that - well I can at least. Worst case scenario - after all the plaudits the AB's play like idiots and the French play marginally less worse to win. Or the ref decides that game :/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Or the ref decides that game :/ Or it just turns into a penalty kicking fest. (q.v.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 (Quick NZ question....) A lot of the Sauv Blanc bottles sold over here is advertised as "Malborough" and also bears the label "Montana", even though the brands appear different. I'm guessing the former is the region? The latter is the company? Fill me in? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Jesus. France so close. Really don't know if the ABs deserved that. Especially based on 2nd half. But hell. What a final. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce90 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Not a great spectacle for us neutrals but well done to New Zealand for winning and to France for making a game of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Yeah - the rugby wasn't all that great.....but there was a heap of tension for the partisan crowds of both sides. Nice to see the AB's not buckle under pressure and keep their breathing passages open And of course knees to the head were even and no ankles got stood on Again a lot of points squandered in missed kicks - the AB's 11 points I think - 3 Penalties & a conversion - the French 6 from 1 Penalty & a drop goal. And some irony or poetic justice that it was Stephen Donald who scored what ended up the winning penalty given he was vilified here for poor performances last year - essentially losing 1 test with a late game penalty clearance that failed to find touch that Aus scored a try from. Not bad for the 4th string 1st 5/8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Also some irony that the cheap shot from McCaw on Parra ended up with Trinh-Duc coming on and he played a blinder. Also that Weepu, the hero of the last couple of games was hopless tonight. STrange how players at that level can be hot and cold. I thought it was a great game and very exciting. I really think France deserved the win based on tonight's game. They were the positive to NZ's negative. The AB's probably deserved it based on the last few years. It's probably France who can now inherit the bridesmaid title though. At least the AB's can rest assured that they will always be able to win a RWC at home. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce90 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 At least the AB's can rest assured that they will always be able to win a RWC at home. Lol. Saucer of milk for Affentitten please. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.