Some NZ fans were trying to claim that them going down to South Africa was because the 'game wasn't important.' But last night suggests they have lost momentum.
And as always, kicking and discipline win matches.
Some NZ fans were trying to claim that them going down to South Africa was because the 'game wasn't important.' But last night suggests they have lost momentum.
And as always, kicking and discipline win matches.
As was also just proven by Eng vs Arg. Good result for the english, but I expected better from Argentina…
Italy and Ireland were both pretty authoritative. Ireland looking truly scary.
I didn't watch the other games but those weren't really convincing margins. Although I would have liked to see Argentina get the win.
I hope we can really make the game against Scotland count, sorry bbk1980. And get really good wins in the rest of our pool.
So far France and Ireland are bringing their pre tournament form to bear. England put in an impressive shift but that should not have mattered and I would not like to be in the Argentinian debrief this morning. Away to start sacrificing small mammals to the gods of rugby for this afternoon.
Some NZ fans were trying to claim that them going down to South Africa was because the 'game wasn't important.' But last night suggests they have lost momentum.
And as always, kicking and discipline win matches.
Apparently England read your last remark there and took it to heart. 
That's the most drop-goals I've ever seen in my entire history of watching rugby (which, granted, is short and not that often).
Also, what is the deal with the absolutely horrible national anthems they're doing before each game? When watching the NZ/France game I thought my TV sound was off or something...it was a cacophony.
Well, that's what commentators call 'a game of two halves.'
Scots scrum was very surprising and impressive in the first half, I think our forwards got a good talking to at half time.
Well, that's what commentators call 'a game of two halves.'
Scots scrum was very surprising and impressive in the first half, I think our forwards got a good talking to at half time.
South Africa were the better side but we played well. I am still raging about the Kriel decision though. Clear as day that was a red and it has been in other matches. I spend 3 hours a week drilling mini rugby tackling and if any of my team did that they wouldn’t play for a week. Such a shame after good quality reffing up to now.
Apparently England read your last remark there and took it to heart.
It was a Janni De Beer tribute act Your text to link here... 
MrDeVil909 wrote:Well, that's what commentators call 'a game of two halves.'
Scots scrum was very surprising and impressive in the first half, I think our forwards got a good talking to at half time.
South Africa were the better side but we played well. I am still raging about the Kriel decision though. Clear as day that was a red and it has been in other matches. I spend 3 hours a week drilling mini rugby tackling and if any of my team did that they wouldn’t play for a week. Such a shame after good quality reffing up to now.
Didn't even see it when it happened, but going back and looking now yeah, very lucky call for us. There's probably going to be fallout from that.
Finn Russell also got lucky he wasn't carded for his shoulder charge. So reffing wasn't great.
Good performance from Scotland though, they just couldn't quite handle it when our forwards actually started playing.
I am still raging about the Kriel decision though. Clear as day that was a red and it has been in other matches. I spend 3 hours a week drilling mini rugby tackling and if any of my team did that they wouldn’t play for a week. Such a shame after good quality reffing up to now.
Cautiously pokes head up in thread.
I'm not really a rugby person beyond The Six Nations and World Cup, so my knowledge of the rules is extremely limited. However, I have to say that whatever this new rule or rules are about head injuries and tackles / actions that cause them, I am beyond confused about how they are getting interpreted. I've seen several "tackles" that looked far worse that what Tom Curry got sent off for today alone, including several attempts by the Fijian team launching themselves at Welsh players with the seeming intention to incapacitate them rather than get the ball. I am at a loss to understand why that's not penalised, but what looked to me to be an unintentional clash of heads did for Curry. It's making some of the football VAR decision making look rational and sensible, and that's not a good comparison to be drawing....
However, I think I know enough about the game to be quite impressed with England yesterday - it felt like that they knew the limitation the sending off gave them, and George Ford led the way with dealing with those circumstances. I can't help thinking Argentina should have been able to do more about it, but there we go. I'd not liking the idea of England meeting anyone good though. Any one of France, Ireland or South Africa are going to wipe the floor with them.
Also a real shame to see the shambles that was getting fans into the ground beforehand. About the only lesson the French authorities seem to have learned from the Champions League final last year there is "don't use tear gas, it really upsets everyone when we do that....."
Oh no. That's a knock on that probably cost them a quarter final spot!
Maybe Wales and Fiji can both beat Australia.
Video unavailable in my country.
Perhaps a comment to provide context?
Also, what is the deal with the absolutely horrible national anthems they're doing before each game? When watching the NZ/France game I thought my TV sound was off or something...it was a cacophony.
Here's what's going on. Feels a bit harsh in my opinion.
Prederick wrote:Video unavailable in my country.
Perhaps a comment to provide context?
Just the highlights from the Wales Fiji match culminating in the most unfortunate knock on ever.
After the hooter Fijian player knocked a pass forward. If it was scored and converted it would have been their win.
I hadn't really noticed the anthems. I generally dislike them under most circumstances, but I thought the choir did justice to South Africa's one.
I personally really like the anthems done this way. Thinks some of the arrangements have been fantastic!
I personally really like the anthems done this way. Thinks some of the arrangements have been fantastic!
I think the arrangements are great. I think listening to the players try to keep in tune and the rest of the fans in the stadium try to keep up absolutely hilarious.
KramNesnah wrote:I personally really like the anthems done this way. Thinks some of the arrangements have been fantastic!
I think the arrangements are great. I think listening to the players try to keep in tune and the rest of the fans in the stadium try to keep up absolutely hilarious.
That’s a general problem with anthems in a stadium though, isn’t it?
Oh yeah. I watched the Wales - Fuji match and… yeah, I have thoughts too. 
I think the arrangements are great. I think listening to the players try to keep in tune and the rest of the fans in the stadium try to keep up absolutely hilarious.
This. This right there. XD This is a recurring problem I’ve noticed for our own anthem, particularly since it’s not super easy to sing (having sung it at the embassy as a child in the school choir, I have some experience in the matter). You can see this as well when French fans spontaneously start singing in a stadium, it gets…. Messy.
Was lucky enough to be sitting in the sixth row in the stadium for Australia versus Georgia. At least for the first half. It was a lot, sensory wise, for the kids, even though I’d brought hats, sunglasses and noise cancelling headphones for everyone. We left at half time. Lesson learned though. We got there way too early. Wasn’t too pleased with stadium security taking our bottle caps away (seeing as it was 34°c, I’d brought eight 50cL bottles, plastic of course, since glass and aluminum aren’t allowed). So yeah, baffling that they made me unscrew the bottles and took the caps.
I'm not really a rugby person beyond The Six Nations and World Cup, so my knowledge of the rules is extremely limited. However, I have to say that whatever this new rule or rules are about head injuries and tackles / actions that cause them, I am beyond confused about how they are getting interpreted. I've seen several "tackles" that looked far worse that what Tom Curry got sent off for today alone, including several attempts by the Fijian team launching themselves at Welsh players with the seeming intention to incapacitate them rather than get the ball. I am at a loss to understand why that's not penalised, but what looked to me to be an unintentional clash of heads did for Curry. It's making some of the football VAR decision making look rational and sensible, and that's not a good comparison to be drawing....
I was hoping bbk would answer because as a coach he's the best qualified, but to give a fan perspective.
Rugby is a rough and risky sport, see the thread title after all. Part of the point of the game is to physically dominate the opponent and wear them out. Even cuts and bruises are part of the game.
But there are some things that are particularly dangerous and can end someone's career or life, and they don't necessarily look all that bad in comparison with regular tackles. A hard tackle might look like a car accident, but the players are conditioned for that.
What they aren't conditioned for is clashing heads and there's been a spike in concussion cases in the last few years. So it's become clear that it's important for rugby players to exercise some caution when tackling.
Rugby has risk, but there are rules around particularly dangerous actions. Head clashing is dangerous, tackling without arms is dangerous. Picking up in a tackle is dangerous. So while a tackler can hit as hard as they like they need to do it right to prevent really serious injuries.
I don't know about the Fijian tackles you mention, but as long as they were using their arms and not at throat height or above that's within the rules and spirit of the game.
Sorbicol wrote:I'm not really a rugby person beyond The Six Nations and World Cup, so my knowledge of the rules is extremely limited. However, I have to say that whatever this new rule or rules are about head injuries and tackles / actions that cause them, I am beyond confused about how they are getting interpreted. I've seen several "tackles" that looked far worse that what Tom Curry got sent off for today alone, including several attempts by the Fijian team launching themselves at Welsh players with the seeming intention to incapacitate them rather than get the ball. I am at a loss to understand why that's not penalised, but what looked to me to be an unintentional clash of heads did for Curry. It's making some of the football VAR decision making look rational and sensible, and that's not a good comparison to be drawing....
I was hoping bbk would answer because as a coach he's the best qualified, but to give a fan perspective.
Rugby is a rough and risky sport, see the thread title after all. Part of the point of the game is to physically dominate the opponent and wear them out. Even cuts and bruises are part of the game.
But there are some things that are particularly dangerous and can end someone's career or life, and they don't necessarily look all that bad in comparison with regular tackles. A hard tackle might look like a car accident, but the players are conditioned for that.
What they aren't conditioned for is clashing heads and there's been a spike in concussion cases in the last few years. So it's become clear that it's important for rugby players to exercise some caution when tackling.
Rugby has risk, but there are rules around particularly dangerous actions. Head clashing is dangerous, tackling without arms is dangerous. Picking up in a tackle is dangerous. So while a tackler can hit as hard as they like they need to do it right to prevent really serious injuries.
I don't know about the Fijian tackles you mention, but as long as they were using their arms and not at throat height or above that's within the rules and spirit of the game.
I was trying not to be that guy but this feels like permission the key to the current tackle laws in relation to Curry and Kriel in my opinion was head to head once that happens it is foul play from the defender end of story. There can be mitigation down for a variety of factors but the defender is at fault and should not have clashed heads it’s an instant yellow and a good chance of a red, if you have things like a change of height from the attacker that caused the head clash then that will be adjudged as a mitigation.
Once the that is out the way we get into other forms of dangerous tackles as mrdevil describes. So head clash is foul play looking for mitigation, then if there’s no head clash you look at height, is the tackle above the shoulders even without a clash? That’s foul play. Now is the tackle beneath the shoulder but with no attempt to wrap your arms around the person being tackled, like a nfl shoulder charge? That is unsafe and foul play. After that you still need to be safe in the tackle so anything like the ball carrier still being in the air from catching a kick when you hit them or being turned over the horizontal line to be at risk of landing on their heads is also an instant foul play. The head to head will likely be a red the rest can vary depending on how it actually plays out.
It’s a rough game played by huge people at the top level and the hits appear brutal ( I am 6 feet 6 16 stone and wince at a lot of them) but these rules are to keep it as safe as can be especially in light of the impact of concussion. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
I was trying not to be that guy but this feels like permission
Hey, I'm not going to argue about the Kriel tackle. He was lucky to not get carded imo, but he hasn't been cited post match either so I dunno.
I actually have the feeling that on field reffing of this issue may be a little less strict than it was in the run-up to the tournament. Nobody wants the tournament decided by red cards.
I hope not because this will cause a lot of controversy, as well as being hypocritical and will cause reffing to become a big discussion point again.
It's just a feeling I have.
It’s a rough game played by huge people at the top level and the hits appear brutal ( I am 6 feet 6 16 stone and wince at a lot of them) but these rules are to keep it as safe as can be especially in light of the impact of concussion. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
Yeah this exactly. I never played because I'm too much of a wuss but there's a world of difference between taking knocks in the course of the game and serious injury. And even as a non-player I know enough to see the difference between a hard tackle and something genuinely dangerous.
Although as an aside, I think the most horrific looking injuries are self-inflicted ones by backs trying clever side-steps.
I was trying not to be that guy but this feels like permission
Once the that is out the way we get into other forms of dangerous tackles as mrdevil describes. So head clash is foul play looking for mitigation, then if there’s no head clash you look at height, is the tackle above the shoulders even without a clash? That’s foul play. Now is the tackle beneath the shoulder but with no attempt to wrap your arms around the person being tackled, like a nfl shoulder charge? That is unsafe and foul play. After that you still need to be safe in the tackle so anything like the ball carrier still being in the air from catching a kick when you hit them or being turned over the horizontal line to be at risk of landing on their heads is also an instant foul play. The head to head will likely be a red the rest can vary depending on how it actually plays out.
It’s a rough game played by huge people at the top level and the hits appear brutal ( I am 6 feet 6 16 stone and wince at a lot of them) but these rules are to keep it as safe as can be especially in light of the impact of concussion. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk.
Thanks for this because it's one of the few measured and non-histrionic (and non-patronising in the most gatekeeping manner possible) answers I've read on line. I still think not penalising either Kriel or Biggar for their challenges is exceedingly inconsistent, but at least I see the decision making behind it.
In other news, turns out that Nobody likes those National Anthem arrangements after all. Poor kids.
In other news, turns out that Nobody likes those National Anthem arrangements after all. Poor kids.
I'm so glad the US didn't make the RWC for this very reason. If France butchered the US anthem, we'd be going through the whole Freedom Fries thing again, and, well, that was a bad look for lots of reasons.
Finally finished up my Round 1 viewing (FRA-NZ, ENG-ARG and SA-Scotland).
* I thought France looked the best of this bunch after getting over some first-half jitters. They'll be downright scary once they get some of their starters back (and after the temperatures go way down).
* I take back every bad thing I've ever thought about George Ford. He was as great as Argentina was disappointing. (I was hoping for an Argentina win simply for MAXIMUM CHAOS).
* I don't know which is worse: Scotland's lineouts or South Africa's goal kicking. Yikes.
* The only Round 2 game I have circled is Australia-Fiji; if I have time, I'll check out England-Japan. Any other games seem close/compelling/interesting?
Also, does anyone have an update on SA's Etzebeth? He's one of my favorite players to watch, and I was sorry to see him go out so early against Scotland.
Etzebeth is out with a shoulder injury and may not be back by Ireland, which is a major blow.
Maybe even worse, Malcolm Marx our hooker is out of the rest of the competition after a knee injury in training.
Fiji genuinely deserve to win here. Still 20 to go but they are just the better game. This Aussie side is all over the place.
To deploy a very Scottish phrase Eddie’s coat is looking on a very shoogly peg but let’s hope people don’t lose sight of how well Fiji played.
Ooh, Fiji win. Nice.
A lot of huff and puff from England here against Japan, but with the necessary result (he says while they still have about 5 minutes to play)
It's really not been pretty but they've just about outlasted Japan, and were also recipients of one of the most fortunate tries I've ever seen, during which I learned a ball bouncing off your head doesn't count as a forward pass.
Errors from both side compound by the fact it's clearly so sweaty in Nice the ball is probably handling like it's covered in a good layer of grease.
England ending the game with 15 players though. Progress in some areas although it's quite noticeable how players are standing off now in some circumstances. Anyone catching a ball from a kick is clearly going to get time to do so.
Yup. 4th try. England have been a lot better in the second half.
Maybe Wales and Fiji can both beat Australia.
It just occurred to me now that I made this comment not really expecting it to be a possibility but now there's a serious chance Fiji gets through, going to hope for a Wales win on Sunday.
Pages