#1
For those rugby fanatics in nz, oz, and south africa...
Makin love, makin love for two, makin love for two minutes... When its with me you only need two minutes... cuz I’m intense

Proud owner of the Anti Gnome Extermination Confederation.

Give me a yell if you wanna join!!!
#3
i believe NZ but after the upset last night, Aussies might have a chance if they do it again.
Sincerely,
Shitstirrer
#4
It blew my mind how poorly South Africa played against Australia.

Both teams are going to get carved up by the Blacks.
Quote by kriscornella2@g
I know i wish i was as cool as you and be into Sum 41 and Taking back Sunday. Gaylord.

Quote by civildp1
you should call one of the songs, "Respecting Old People" just to mix things up.

Quote by вяaи∂ иєw
You just made a very powerful enemy BenFoffenbock.
#6
New Zealand are. If SA get their asses into gear and play better than they have done in the past few games then they will have a shot, I can't see the Ozzies doing it 'cos they're not playing well. The only reason they won yesterday was 'cos they were the less bad side, not because they showed any promise.
#7
Anyone else noticed how amazingly biased the Channel Seven commentary team is? They seem to find it impossible to praise any other team's actions besides the Wallabies. They need Stu Wilson.
Quote by kriscornella2@g
I know i wish i was as cool as you and be into Sum 41 and Taking back Sunday. Gaylord.

Quote by civildp1
you should call one of the songs, "Respecting Old People" just to mix things up.

Quote by вяaи∂ иєw
You just made a very powerful enemy BenFoffenbock.
#8
Well, I think NZ might do it this year, definitely not the South Africans this year, they've been out of form. Sure, if they manage to improve, but... they're not going to get to Australia's and NZ's level overnight.

Doug Howlett's in top form, it'd be interesting to see if he'd get a game. One of the best wingers around now I reckon. He was crazy good for Munster in the Heineken Cup.
Ego inflating praise here:
Quote by Fishyesque
That is SOOOOOOOOOOO sig worthy! Pure awesomeness to you, sir.

C wut I did thar Fishy?

's UG
#9
i'll say nz just because i dont want the country to go thru after what happened last time we lost something big and important... yeah the channel 7 guys are muppets, but i love it whenever tuqiri gets the ball they both yell TUQIRI!!! at the top of their voices. gets me everytime
#10
1. They were so biased it was actually disgusting
2. NZ won't carve anyone, they suck.
3. South Africa is gonna kick ass.
4. Yes I am from SA, no i don't have a pet lion, ok get over it.
#11
What did everybody think of the reffing yesterday? Personally I thought it was crap, it seemed the ref had money on the wallabies. At one point he awarded them a free kick, when the player (I can't remember who it was) tapped it he knocked it forward then made a forward pass, the ref didn't call either one of them.
#12
Australia should have a good chance of winning, with our new coach we are yet 2 lose a game. SA and NZ havn't shown too much promise yet either. GO AUSSIES!!!
#13
Australia's forwards under Jim Williams look a lot better. I was thinking south Africa would win but after yesterday, I'd say it'll be New Zealand. Anyone else hate these new stupid ELVs?
MUNSTER

Heineken Cup Champions 2005/2006 2007/2008

#14
Quote by skux
i love it whenever tuqiri gets the ball they both yell TUQIRI!!! at the top of their voices. gets me everytime


MORTLOCK!!!



Quote by blynd_snyper
At one point he awarded them a free kick, when the player (I can't remember who it was) tapped it he knocked it forward then made a forward pass, the ref didn't call either one of them.

I thought he went alright, except for that moment. Although some of the blame could be put on the touchies for not pulling it up.
Quote by kriscornella2@g
I know i wish i was as cool as you and be into Sum 41 and Taking back Sunday. Gaylord.

Quote by civildp1
you should call one of the songs, "Respecting Old People" just to mix things up.

Quote by вяaи∂ иєw
You just made a very powerful enemy BenFoffenbock.
#15
Quote by Richie_H
Australia's forwards under Jim Williams look a lot better. I was thinking south Africa would win but after yesterday, I'd say it'll be New Zealand. Anyone else hate these new stupid ELVs?

They're shit. I don't even think I need to explain that statement, anybody who follows rugby should understand.
#16
Quote by Richie_H
Australia's forwards under Jim Williams look a lot better. I was thinking south Africa would win but after yesterday, I'd say it'll be New Zealand. Anyone else hate these new stupid ELVs?

Limerick?

Me too.
Ego inflating praise here:
Quote by Fishyesque
That is SOOOOOOOOOOO sig worthy! Pure awesomeness to you, sir.

C wut I did thar Fishy?

's UG
#17
Quote by blynd_snyper
They're shit. I don't even think I need to explain that statement, anybody who follows rugby should understand.



I think they're exactly what the game needs. Less penalties, more free kicks, less kicks going into touch etc.

Quote by kriscornella2@g
I know i wish i was as cool as you and be into Sum 41 and Taking back Sunday. Gaylord.

Quote by civildp1
you should call one of the songs, "Respecting Old People" just to mix things up.

Quote by вяaи∂ иєw
You just made a very powerful enemy BenFoffenbock.
#18
Quote by blynd_snyper
They're shit. I don't even think I need to explain that statement, anybody who follows rugby should understand.

If those are the new laws, which I'm assuming they are, i really enjoy them. I think they speed the game up, and keep the ball in play longer promoting more attacking rugby than in days gone by. As a junior rugby player, I can't wait to play under these laws.
#19
Yes they do promote more attacking rugby but the problem is that what used to be serious offenses (not releasing for example) no longer hurt the team as much. In the past if you released even a little too late that could put your team 3 points down or push you 50 metres back and take your possession. It's nice to see more free flowing rugby but it's also nice to see the rules enforced. I fear that since the punishments are more lenient people will try to get away with things that they shouldn't and it may corrupt the game.

Ultimately if the refs are up to standard then yes it could work, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
#20
I think NZ wwill win it, but i can't wait till the expansion.
#21
Quote by blynd_snyper
They're shit. I don't even think I need to explain that statement, anybody who follows rugby should understand.

You're European - you teams like to kick for touch, walk to the lineout then kick a penalty - obviously you're not going to like rules that promote scores divisible by five. Indeed, I don't think anyone from the Northern Hemisphere has a right to comment after the crap NZ/Aus/SA were subjected to when England, France, Ireland and Wales toured. Pathetic.

I think South Africa will win. As much as I love Robbie Deans, NZ will win all three matches, but South Africa will win all its home games comfortably.

Quote by blynd_snyper
Yes they do promote more attacking rugby but the problem is that what used to be serious offenses (not releasing for example) no longer hurt the team as much. In the past if you released even a little too late that could put your team 3 points down or push you 50 metres back and take your possession. It's nice to see more free flowing rugby but it's also nice to see the rules enforced. I fear that since the punishments are more lenient people will try to get away with things that they shouldn't and it may corrupt the game.

Ultimately if the refs are up to standard then yes it could work, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
I would hardly call holding on in the ruck a serious infringement - ironically, under the ELVs the referees have been much stricter on attacking teams than under the old rules. I haven't seen much evidence of increased infringing and I've been watching games under the ELVs since last year. They have, however, made the game much more exciting, raised the skill level significantly and have managed to speed up the game significantly.
Last edited by Kiwi Ace at Jul 20, 2008,
#22
Quote by Kiwi Ace
You're European - you teams like to kick for touch, walk to the lineout then kick a penalty - obviously you're not going to like rules that promote scores divisible by five. Indeed, I don't think anyone from the Northern Hemisphere has a right to comment after the crap NZ/Aus/SA were subjected to when England, France, Ireland and Wales toured. Pathetic.

I think South Africa will win. As much as I love Robbie Deans, NZ will win all three matches, but South Africa will win all its home games comfortably.

I haven't seen much evidence of increased infringing and I've been watching games under the ELVs since last year. They have, however, made the game much more exciting, raised the skill level significantly and have managed to speed up the game significantly.

I agree that being a northern-hemisphere rugby fan I will not find the ELVs as favourable as the southerners, but I still believe that there will be increased infringement. Also, aside from this increased infringement is still the fact that what used to be major infringements will now have less of an effect on the game. I have no doubt that these new rules will make rugby more entertaining but the one thing that I have always enjoyed about rugby was that it was a players game, it was never solely designed to entertain those watching it. This is mostly opinion but I believe that these new rules are sacrificing some of the more tactical element of rugby and replacing it with entertainment value, which to me is just selling part of it's soul.

Also, you're going to far by saying that we don't have a right to an opinion, it's our sport too and just because we got our asses handed to us when we toured it doesn't mean that we should have our opinions ignored, that sentence made you sound extremely elitist and was completely uncalled for.
Last edited by blynd_snyper at Jul 20, 2008,
#23
What the hell has happened to Joe Rocokoko?
Quote by kriscornella2@g
I know i wish i was as cool as you and be into Sum 41 and Taking back Sunday. Gaylord.

Quote by civildp1
you should call one of the songs, "Respecting Old People" just to mix things up.

Quote by вяaи∂ иєw
You just made a very powerful enemy BenFoffenbock.
#24
Quote by blynd_snyper
I agree that being a northern-hemisphere rugby fan I will not find the ELVs as favourable as the southerners, but I still believe that there will be increased infringement.

Well you're hardly succeeding under the old rules...
Quote by blynd_snyper
Also, aside from this increased infringement is still the fact that what used to be major infringements will now have less of an effect on the game.
Oh no! Less kicks at goal! What a shame! I would call foul play and offside the only major infringements in rugby anyway. Besides, referees still have it in their discretion to 'up' short arm penalties to full arm penalties for persistent or cynical infringing.
Quote by blynd_snyper
I have no doubt that these new rules will make rugby more entertaining but the one thing that I have always enjoyed about rugby was that it was a players game, it was never solely designed to entertain those watching
it.

Funnily enough there was actually poll of Super 14 players, here are the results:
"The ELVs got a ringing endorsement with 90% of players saying they ere either very or relatively easy to interpret or understand. And 80% believed the ELVs created more continuity in play. Significantly 83% of the players believe the ELVs had either a very or somewhat positive impact on the game overall. Only 10% thought the ELVs had a very or somewhat negative impact on the game while 7% cent felt they had no difference.

In looking more closely at some of the individual rules, the 5m scrum law got an 87% backing from the players while 85% believe the new free-kick law had a positive impact. The rule prohibiting a player passing the ball into the 22m to be kicked out on the full was viewed positively by 82% of the players."
Quote by blynd_snyper
This is mostly opinion but I believe that these new rules are sacrificing some of the more tactical element of rugby and replacing it with entertainment value, which to me is just selling part of it's soul.
Sacrificing the tactical element? How is giving less full arm penalties sacrificing the tactical elements of rugby? Quite the contrary, anyone who watched the Crusaders play under the masterful coaching of Robbie Deans would know that the tactical side of the game is alive and well under the ELVs.
Quote by blynd_snyper
Also, you're going to far by saying that we don't have a right to an opinion, it's our sport too and just because we got our asses handed to us when we toured it doesn't mean that we should have our opinions ignored, that sentence made you sound extremely elitist and was completely uncalled for.

That was a joke, with an element of truth - your sides were crap.
Quote by BenFoffenbock
What the hell has happened to Joe Rocokoko?

Injured, I believe.
Last edited by Kiwi Ace at Jul 20, 2008,
#25
Who knows who will win it. Aus beats RSA who beat NZ the other week. I'm hoping Australia though.
I am so tired of rhetorical questions. Or am I?
#26
Quote by Kiwi Ace
Well you're hardly succeeding under the old rules...
Oh no! Less kicks at goal! What a shame! I would call foul play and offside the only major infringements in rugby anyway. Besides, referees still have it in their discretion to 'up' short arm penalties to full arm penalties for persistent or cynical infringing.

That's just a difference in opinion, personally I believe kicks at goal add an element of variety to the game and within reason are entertaining. Again, this is just a question of what side of the equator you're on.
Funnily enough there was actually poll of Super 14 players, here are the results:
"The ELVs got a ringing endorsement with 90% of players saying they ere either very or relatively easy to interpret or understand. And 80% believed the ELVs created more continuity in play. Significantly 83% of the players believe the ELVs had either a very or
Quote by Kiwi Ace
somewhat positive impact on the game overall. Only 10% thought the ELVs had a very or somewhat negative impact on the game while 7% cent felt they had no difference.

In looking more closely at some of the individual rules, the 5m scrum law got an 87% backing from the players while 85% believe the new free-kick law had a positive impact. The rule prohibiting a player passing the ball into the 22m to be kicked out on the full was viewed positively by 82% of the players."

Just because they prefer the rules, doesn't mean I'm going to, I'd rather play a game of rugby that uses the old rules than the new ones.
Quote by Kiwi Ace
Sacrificing the tactical element? How is giving less full arm penalties sacrificing the tactical elements of rugby? Quite the contrary, anyone who watched the Crusaders play under the masterful coaching of Robbie Deans would know that the tactical side of the game is alive and well under the ELVs.

You cannot deny that the old rules incorporated tactics. When awarded a penalty you could chose to take a tap, go for goal, kick for touch or take a scrum. The choices you made affected the game and one would have to use tactics and make the right decisions at the right time, as well as play well in all other aspects of the game. Trying to deny this is just silly.
#27
Quote by blynd_snyper
That's just a difference in opinion, personally I believe kicks at goal add an element of variety to the game and within reason are entertaining. Again, this is just a question of what side of the equator you're on.
Variety? It seems to be all that ever happens in NH rugby.
Quote by blynd_snyper
Just because they prefer the rules, doesn't mean I'm going to, I'd rather play a game of rugby that uses the old rules than the new ones.

That was in direct response to your statement that "the one thing that I have always enjoyed about rugby was that it was a players game" - well, the players certainly prefer the ELVs!
Quote by blynd_snyper

You cannot deny that the old rules incorporated tactics. When awarded a penalty you could chose to take a tap, go for goal, kick for touch or take a scrum. The choices you made affected the game and one would have to use tactics and make the right decisions at the right time, as well as play well in all other aspects of the game. Trying to deny this is just silly.
I'm not denying that at all. You make it sound like no penalties are awarded under the ELVs - plenty are, just not quite as many. There were 15 full arm penalties given in the most recent NZ/SA game and 13 shots at goal. There were 16 short arm penalties. You still have choices on a short arm penalty, you can tap, take a scrum or kick.

In the final NZ/England game, under the old rules, there were a whooping 28 full arm penalties. Now lets compare. 31 infringements to 28 - it hardly sound like rampant infringing to me, especially considering the NZ/SA game was actually a contest, a tight and physical one at that.

Not being able to kick to touch from passes back into the 22 has meant that infield kicking tactics have become much more important, note, for instance, the kicking game of the Crusaders.
Last edited by Kiwi Ace at Jul 20, 2008,
#28
Quote by Kiwi Ace
Variety? It seems to be all that ever happens in NH rugby.

I'd prefer a game in which is slightly more goal kicking oriented than a game which is far more tap and go oriented. Again, that's just personal preference.

Quote by Kiwi Ace
That was in direct response to your statement that "the one thing that I have always enjoyed about rugby was that it was a players game" - well, the players certainly prefer the ELVs!

Yes, the SH ones do, I doubt the poll results would come out like that if taken by NH players.
Quote by Kiwi Ace
I'm not denying that at all. You make it sound like no penalties are awarded under the ELVs - plenty are, just not quite as many. There were 15 full arm penalties given in the most recent NZ/SA game and 13 shots at goal. There were 16 short arm penalties. You still have choices on a short arm penalty, you can tap, take a scrum or kick.

In the final NZ/England game, under the old rules, there were a whooping 28 full arm penalties. Now lets compare. 31 infringements to 28 - it hardly sound like rampant infringing to me, especially considering the NZ/SA game was actually a contest, a tight and physical one at that.

Yes, there are still tactics present, but nowhere near as many as some of the old games. I'd also rather see 3 less penalties using the old rules than 3 more using the new ones. The problem with the new taps is to my mind it takes away some of the entertainment value, every time a short arm is awarded you know what's going to happen, a quick tap and run, and while this is more entertaining in the short run, in the long run it can get tedious, in a game with more long arm penalties there is the element of choice which adds variety.

Quote by Kiwi Ace
Not being able to kick to touch from passes back into the 22 has meant that infield kicking tactics have become much more important, note, for instance, the kicking game of the Crusaders.

I'm not going to debate this as I actually agree with this one particular rule.
#29
Quote by blynd_snyper
The problem with the new taps is to my mind it takes away some of the entertainment value, every time a short arm is awarded you know what's going to happen, a quick tap and run, and while this is more entertaining in the short run, in the long run it can get tedious, in a game with more long arm penalties there is the element of choice which adds variety.

They won't always just tap it and run. And with less long arms comes less stoppages in play. That is what's hurting rugby, when the crowd realises that rather than keeping their attacking momentum going, the team just opts for a shot at goal.
Quote by kriscornella2@g
I know i wish i was as cool as you and be into Sum 41 and Taking back Sunday. Gaylord.

Quote by civildp1
you should call one of the songs, "Respecting Old People" just to mix things up.

Quote by вяaи∂ иєw
You just made a very powerful enemy BenFoffenbock.
#30
Quote by BenFoffenbock
They won't always just tap it and run. And with less long arms comes less stoppages in play. That is what's hurting rugby, when the crowd realises that rather than keeping their attacking momentum going, the team just opts for a shot at goal.

QFT. I've seen rugby union become much more recognised in Australia after just the last probably two games. People here are used to watching rugby league, which is a much faster game, and end up being bored in a game of rugby. With less stoppages in play, the game is alot faster, and therefore much more appealing to Australian fans.
#31
Quote by blynd_snyper
Yes, there are still tactics present, but nowhere near as many as some of the old games. I'd also rather see 3 less penalties using the old rules than 3 more using the new ones. The problem with the new taps is to my mind it takes away some of the entertainment value, every time a short arm is awarded you know what's going to happen, a quick tap and run, and while this is more entertaining in the short run, in the long run it can get tedious, in a game with more long arm penalties there is the element of choice which adds variety.

Do you now agree that there is no evidence of increased infringing under the ELVs? With short arm penalties I'd say it's tap/scrum/kick 45:45:10.