England v USA 5pm

wixfjord

At 28-3 and with the USA all over england Barnes on UTV said that the scoreline was "convincing". What awful punditry Barnes is also horribly biased. Hope Samoa give the chariot a right goin over Tackle on Barkley was bad tho

JJ

Anyhoo, great performance from the US. Despite the 28 points given up, the defense was amazing for an amateur team playing against professionals. The US try at the end was very much deserved and it was great seeing Dallaglio carded at the end.

Amz

JJ wrote:

Commentator on Setanta pointed out that the ref is from SA and he "probably" ignored Vickery's trip so that he'd be suspended for England's next match against SA.

I never heard him say that. Will have to watch the replay.

Very, very poor from England they did the simple stuff very poorly and the Eagles never let their heads go down. Couldn't believe how much I was shouting for them, the try at the end was fully deserved.

No bonus point for England either.

JJ

Amz wrote:

I never heard him say that. Will have to watch the replay.

Yeah, I just double checked:

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/fixtures/round=100/match=10076/officials.html

He's from SA all right, very interesting. The guy on Setanta kinda backed off from making any accusation but at least hinted at what I mentioned above.

robinph

I'm not sure what commentary you guys were listening to on itv but they were clearly saying england were rubbish. Not sure why you are all claiming bias.

zAbbo

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/08092007/58/world-cup-england-woeful-against-usa.html


World Cup - England woeful against USA

Defending champions England produced a woeful performance in their opening match of the World Cup as they struggled to defeat part-timers USA 28-10 in Lens.

Supercell

Engerland are going to need to seriously improve when the play Somoa (who can play a bit) - theres a strong risk of a shock there!

Junior

robinph wrote:

I'm not sure what commentary you guys were listening to on itv but they were clearly saying england were rubbish. Not sure why you are all claiming bias.

I'm not claiming bias, I'm just claiming it's woeful ****e commentary.

Amz

JJ wrote:

Yeah, I just double checked:

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/fixtures/round=100/match=10076/officials.html

He's from SA all right, very interesting. The guy on Setanta kinda backed off from making any accusation but at least hinted at what I mentioned above.

Eh, no, I'm watching rugby long enough to know Kaplan is from South Africa, what I was referring to was you saying that the commentator said he would make such a decision possibly to benefit his home team.

I didn't hear the commentator on Setanta saying that and such a claim is dodgy.

zAbbo

I didn't hear it either.

Conspiracy theorys aside, England were poor and failed to get a bonus point over a team which their A's put in 8/9 tries.

irlrobins

Amz wrote:

I didn't hear the commentator on Setanta saying that and such a claim is dodgy.

I heard it. JJ pretty much has it right. Although I wouldn't go so far as say the commentator (NF) was accusing the ref, just an observation.

Amz

Bit of a difference then.

Hardly a conspiracy though, I think Kaplan's credibility would have been questioned sooner had he that kind of motivation while reffing games. I doubt the Springboks are that threatened by England that they need help from a ref in another game anyway.

irlrobins

NF did also question the process of having a match official referring a game in which his home country was in the same pool.

Amz

Well that's what he's paid to do, talk. Why didn't he question it prior to the competition when the refs were assigned to the various matches?

robinph

irlrobins wrote:

NF did also question the process of having a match official referring a game in which his home country was in the same pool.

I did think that was a bit odd that the ref was from South Africa for a pool A game, but I think he was the first non English ref that's been used so far so they are probably working from a very limited set of countries to choose their refs from.

Marshy

robinph wrote:

I did think that was a bit odd that the ref was from South Africa for a pool A game, but I think he was the first non English ref that's been used so far so they are probably working from a very limited set of countries to choose their refs from.

Not really, theres 2 Irish, 3 English, 1 Welsh, 1 French, 2 NZ, 2 SA and 1 from Australia. But as far as I see they each ref 1 game from each of the pools.

I do agree that it should have been better arranged however.

Hugh_C

Amz wrote:

Eh, no, I'm watching rugby long enough to know Kaplan is from South Africa, what I was referring to was you saying that the commentator said he would make such a decision possibly to benefit his home team.

I didn't hear the commentator on Setanta saying that and such a claim is dodgy.

What Neil Francis suggested was that it was possible that Kaplan overlooked the foul because if he had carded Vickery there and then, that would have been the end of it. Having not carded Vickery leaves the possiblility of citing open (and possible suspension against the Springboks).

Peronally, I think Kaplan is just blind and didn't notice.

robinph

Marshy wrote:

Not really, theres 2 Irish, 3 English, 1 Welsh, 1 French, 2 NZ, 2 SA and 1 from Australia. But as far as I see they each ref 1 game from each of the pools.

I do agree that it should have been better arranged however.

Only having refs from 7 of the 16 countries is a bit limited but i guess most of the nations don't get enough high level tournaments to have the need for them at the same international level. How come italy and scotland don't have any though?

Hugh_C

robinph wrote:

How come italy and scotland don't have any though?

too fat.

Pherekydes

robinph wrote:

Only having refs from 7 of the 16 countries...

There're 20 countries. England could be in trouble against Samoa, who've played well against them in the past. South Africa-Samoa could be a cracker tomorrow, well today.

il gatto

I seriously doubt Kaplan ignored that trip to get Vickery cited. Apart from it being risky to his career, South Africa probably don't care if Vickery plays or not. It'd take more than an aging prop to help England beat SA. It'd take a miracle at this stage. BTW, I Wiki'd Vickery to double check his age (31) and it says he qualified as an artificial inseminator before turning pro. Says it needs citation, but it would explain why the England performance was ****:D

Marshy

Its only plausible if Kaplan went into the game with the intention of "missing" such incidents because I can't believe he just thought it all through in the couple of seconds during the game. Even still its all highly improbable IMO and just more of Neil Francis' ****-stirring.

zAbbo

He tripped him, it just so happened his trip was career threatening knee high.

He should be cited, but It won't make any deference.

Fratton Fred

England were poor, it's a good job they weren't playing a world class team....like Namibia:D