6N: Wales v England, Sat 16th March 1700 RTÉ/BBC

Pudsy33

fryup wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

did they?? didn't know that....more the fools them

The opposition have to agree.

dtpc191991

Swiwi wrote: »

Ah Fits Morris, welcome back. One swallow a summer does not make, and neither does one very good win over England a golden generation make, unless your definition of golden generation is 2 consecutive 6N championships.

If I understand your logic you are saying because England beat NZ and Wales beat England, that Wales are amazing. But Ireland beat Wales... And of course England "only" beat NZ in a "friendly", so well that doesn't count then does it?

Which do you think Wales would rather have, a victory over Scotland in the 6N or a victory over NZ in a "friendly"?

Wales could win 6N until the cows come home, until they beat SH teams on a regular basis they won't be taken seriously in the SH (I'm simply stating this, regardless of my own viewpoint), currently they haven't beat NZ since 1953, they have lost 5 or 6 consecutive games v Aussie, and it's been a while since they beat SA.

I do agree that if they win 2015 that would be a golden moment, as they would have escaped the pool of death AND beaten the likes of France and the 4N on the way to victory AND they would have done it at Twickenham.

They were excellent yesterday, but they were dire v France, and until they start stringing victories like these together, and most importantly accumulate a few SH scalps, I don't think you can talk of a GG, unlike England 2003 who had a number of significant victories over the SH, including beating NZ with 13 men in Wellington....and of course a RWC to boot.

A Grand Slam, Six Nations, Triple Crown and World Cup Semi Final with a team that is that young is definitely the starting point for a Golden Generation. If they can get it right against the SH next Autumn then I would definitely hand them that title.

Swiwi

dtpc191991 wrote: »

A Grand Slam, Six Nations, Triple Crown and World Cup Semi Final with a team that is that young is definitely the starting point for a Golden Generation. If they can get it right against the SH next Autumn then I would definitely hand them that title.

Obviously if you do a grand slam, you also win the triple crown and the 6N. They got 2nd in their world cup pool (losing to SA in pool play), beat a disappointing Ireland in the 1/4s and promptly lost to France.

I'm not denigrating their achievements, but they are not currently in the same league as the English team circa 2003, in particular they are yet to achieve any notable SH scalps, certainly not away from the Millenium stadium (in fact their last results at home to SH opposition are losses to Australia, NZ, Samoa & Argentina)

Clearlier

Tox56 wrote: »

The opposition have to agree to close it and on this occasion England did

Actually, I remember reading during the week that England asked for it to be closed first. I understand that a closed roof actually makes handling more difficult because the moisture created by the crowd makes the ball much slippier than in dry conditions. Perhaps England were hoping that it would give them an advantage or perhaps they were trying to do a bit of reverse psychology.

I know that the final scoreline was decisive but their first try was the decisive point in the game. Much as Ireland weren't 36 points worse than England in 2003, England are not 27 points worse than Wales.

Swiwi

Clearlier wrote: »

Actually, I remember reading during the week that England asked for it to be closed first. I understand that a closed roof actually makes handling more difficult because the moisture created by the crowd makes the ball much slippier than in dry conditions. Perhaps England were hoping that it would give them an advantage or perhaps they were trying to do a bit of reverse psychology.

I know that the final scoreline was decisive but their first try was the decisive point in the game. Much as Ireland weren't 36 points worse than England in 2003, England are not 27 points worse than Wales.

Or the ABs 17 points worse than England. It was a fantastic performance by Wales in the weekend, but it is consistency of performances rather than one-off results that make a great team, hence why the Golden Generation talk is not yet justified in my opinion.

.ak

duckysauce wrote: »

Croft on Halfpenny doesn't look good

"Just to clarify, I did NOT spit on @LeighHalfpenny1 during the Eng v Wal match, I think it's disgusting and has no place in the game," Croft said yesterday.

Taken from rugbydump.

That looks bad, tbh. Not the spitting, but just the leaning all his weight onto his head part.

Also has Ashton been cited for the stamp?

irishbucsfan

.ak wrote: »

That looks bad, tbh. Not the spitting, but just the leaning all his weight onto his head part.

Also has Ashton been cited for the stamp?

Ah he's just letting him know he's there.

If this is the sort of game where you can't drive your palm into someone's temple while spitting into their face then I want no part of it.

English Lurker

.ak wrote: »

That looks bad, tbh. Not the spitting, but just the leaning all his weight onto his head part.

Also has Ashton been cited for the stamp?

It's all the rage now, the hand on head thing, dunno why really. Caused a massive fight in my last game mind. Anyway, Halfpenny's said nothing's happened, so fair enough.

And no citing for Ashton... maybe not a stamp? I know it looks bad, but you can also see Walsh stood right by happy as larry, so maybe it's ok once you've got the right angle. I'm totally guessing here mind, because it looks pretty poor at first, hence me thinking why nothing happened.

toomevara

England to lodge a complaint about Walsh and his refereeing of the scrum...Do they have a point?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/mar/19/england-complain-irb-referee-steve-walsh

Swiwi

toomevara wrote: »

England to lodge a complaint about Walsh and his refereeing of the scrum...Do they have a point?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/mar/19/england-complain-irb-referee-steve-walsh

No they don't. Their scrum is not quite all it's cracked up to be. Just like no-one had any sympathy for NZ after Barnes in 2007 (trust me, I know), or for SA after the NZ ref in 2011.

It's best just to suck it up, and concentrate on improving their scrum for the future. There is no chance the IRB will publicly sanction a ref, and TBH I thought Walsh was evenhanded throughout the contest.

twinytwo

Swiwi wrote: »

No they don't. Their scrum is not quite all it's cracked up to be. Just like no-one had any sympathy for NZ after Barnes in 2007 (trust me, I know), or for SA after the NZ ref in 2011.

It's best just to suck it up, and concentrate on improving their scrum for the future. There is no chance the IRB will publicly sanction a ref, and TBH I thought Walsh was evenhanded throughout the contest.

It just sour grapes by england, they are looking for excuses rather than realise the faults in their own game/team.

Lightbulb Sun

Its not like the refereeing in the scrum decided the match anyway, they were soundly beaten. They should just move on and stop complaining.

duckysauce

toomevara wrote: »

England to lodge a complaint about Walsh and his refereeing of the scrum...Do they have a point?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/mar/19/england-complain-irb-referee-steve-walsh

:D:D:D

France should lodge a complaint of Craig's reffing of their English match, that's crazy sour grapes big time.

Clearlier

Swiwi wrote: »

No they don't. Their scrum is not quite all it's cracked up to be. Just like no-one had any sympathy for NZ after Barnes in 2007 (trust me, I know), or for SA after the NZ ref in 2011.

It's best just to suck it up, and concentrate on improving their scrum for the future. There is no chance the IRB will publicly sanction a ref, and TBH I thought Walsh was evenhanded throughout the contest.

I don't think that you're wrong about what will happen but given the ref involved I thought I'd point out that he was publicly sanctioned in the 2003 world cup for his behaviour as the 4th official in a match involving England.

The only other instances I can remember all involve Paddy O'Brien. The first one was where it was let known some time afterwards (at least I only heard it a couple of years later) that he was stood down for a little over a year following his performance in France v Fiji in the '99 world cup (possibly the worst refereeing performance I have ever seen at international level) and then his public musings on the performances of refs who had incurred the wrath of the NZ public usually because NZ had lost. Thankfully he has moved on now.

.ak

He was also sanctioned about his exchange of words with Shane Horgan incidentally.

Having said that I think he's actually a good ref on his day. Probably the best during the 6N this year.

Swiwi

Clearlier wrote: »

I don't think that you're wrong about what will happen but given the ref involved I thought I'd point out that he was publicly sanctioned in the 2003 world cup for his behaviour as the 4th official in a match involving England.

The only other instances I can remember all involve Paddy O'Brien. The first one was where it was let known some time afterwards (at least I only heard it a couple of years later) that he was stood down for a little over a year following his performance in France v Fiji in the '99 world cup (possibly the worst refereeing performance I have ever seen at international level) and then his public musings on the performances of refs who had incurred the wrath of the NZ public usually because NZ had lost. Thankfully he has moved on now.

If I might speak in Paddy's favour re the Fra v Fiji match, he openly & publicly admitted that he had a shocker, and I cannot remember any other ref since who has held up his hands in such a way. He was actually one of my favourite refs, as he had an excellent understanding of the right way to use the advantage law.

I do recall him chastising Stuart Dickinson (a far more annoying ref than Paddy, with absolutely no feel for the game whatsoever) after the Italy v ABs game, but I don't otherwise recall him speaking out. In fact, he CRITICISED the NZ public for its reaction to Wayne Barnes performance in 2007.

What public musings were your referring to exactly?

Clearlier

Swiwi wrote: »

If I might speak in Paddy's favour re the Fra v Fiji match, he openly & publicly admitted that he had a shocker, and I cannot remember any other ref since who has held up his hands in such a way. He was actually one of my favourite refs, as he had an excellent understanding of the right way to use the advantage law.

I do recall him chastising Stuart Dickinson (a far more annoying ref than Paddy, with absolutely no feel for the game whatsoever) after the Italy v ABs game, but I don't otherwise recall him speaking out. In fact, he CRITICISED the NZ public for its reaction to Wayne Barnes performance in 2007.

What public musings were your referring to exactly?

I can see how I might have given the impression that I thought O'Brien was a bad ref. I don't think that he was exceptional but he was (aside from the aforementioned game) worth of a place among the top 10 or so at his time.

By musings I mean comments so I include the Wayne Barnes comments which incidentally I disagree with you about what he did. I thought he hung Barnes out to dry. That last point in itself is an illustration of why I don't think that someone in his position should ever have commented on a referee's performance.

To answer your question. The Barnes and Stuart Dickinson ones are the highest profile. He also said that Clancy was wrong to disallow a try by Jimmy Cowan when New Zealand were playing South Africa.

Swiwi

Clearlier wrote: »

I can see how I might have given the impression that I thought O'Brien was a bad ref. I don't think that he was exceptional but he was (aside from the aforementioned game) worth of a place among the top 10 or so at his time.

By musings I mean comments so I include the Wayne Barnes comments which incidentally I disagree with you about what he did. I thought he hung Barnes out to dry. That last point in itself is an illustration of why I don't think that someone in his position should ever have commented on a referee's performance.

To answer your question. The Barnes and Stuart Dickinson ones are the highest profile. He also said that Clancy was wrong to disallow a try by Jimmy Cowan when New Zealand were playing South Africa.

That Cowan incident was farcical. Cowan scored a try off a clear forward pass but at the time the video ref couldn't adjudicate on such. Clancy went upstairs about the actual scoring of the try but the SA video ref "kindly" asked Clancy if he wanted to know about the lead up to the try and of course once he told Clancy there was a forward pass no try. It was the correct decision but not allowed at the time. I don't recall Clancy getting stick from paddy (but he might have) but the video ref was stood down from memory. Luckily common sense prevailed and i think now (at least in SXV) the video ref can comment on the immediate lead up to try and so far working very well.

Clearlier

Swiwi wrote: »

That Cowan incident was farcical. Cowan scored a try off a clear forward pass but at the time the video ref couldn't adjudicate on such. Clancy went upstairs about the actual scoring of the try but the SA video ref "kindly" asked Clancy if he wanted to know about the lead up to the try and of course once he told Clancy there was a forward pass no try. It was the correct decision but not allowed at the time. I don't recall Clancy getting stick from paddy (but he might have) but the video ref was stood down from memory. Luckily common sense prevailed and i think now (at least in SXV) the video ref can comment on the immediate lead up to try and so far working very well.

I'm not disagreeing with you but I don't think that Paddy should have commented, particularly considering New Zealand were one of the teams concerned. There were plenty of similar incidents that he could have picked out to comment on. It gave the perception - rightly or wrongly - to the non-NZ public that he favoured New Zealand and was pushing referees to favour them. The last world cup final hardly struck any doubts in that theory did it?

Now that's all a bit too much like a conspiracy theory for me. I don't really think that Paddy was consciously trying to influence referees to favour New Zealand but he did a few things that could have (perhaps unwittingly) caused that perception and I think that he should have been stood down from his position for each and every one of those comments. I didn't know who (if there was one) his predecessor was and I don't know who (if there is one) his successor is. I think that should always be the case for that particular position. Referees have a tough enough time as it is without the head coming out and publicly criticising their decisions/performances.

Swiwi

Clearlier wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you but I don't think that Paddy should have commented, particularly considering New Zealand were one of the teams concerned. There were plenty of similar incidents that he could have picked out to comment on. It gave the perception - rightly or wrongly - to the non-NZ public that he favoured New Zealand and was pushing referees to favour them. The last world cup final hardly struck any doubts in that theory did it?

Now that's all a bit too much like a conspiracy theory for me. I don't really think that Paddy was consciously trying to influence referees to favour New Zealand but he did a few things that could have (perhaps unwittingly) caused that perception and I think that he should have been stood down from his position for each and every one of those comments. I didn't know who (if there was one) his predecessor was and I don't know who (if there is one) his successor is. I think that should always be the case for that particular position. Referees have a tough enough time as it is without the head coming out and publicly criticising their decisions/performances.

Agree with all you say, except I don't think it was Paddy's unilateral decision to award CJ the RWC final.

thomond2006

Steve Walsh gets the boot: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/englands-bte-noir-at-six-nations-finale-in-wales-steve-walsh-dumped-by-irb-8550715.html

Swiwi

thomond2006 wrote: »

Steve Walsh gets the boot: http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/englands-bte-noir-at-six-nations-finale-in-wales-steve-walsh-dumped-by-irb-8550715.html

The article has minimal detail, it's the typical sensationalist newspaper headline. Maybe he was dumped maybe he's just on summer holidays. Will scout the IRB website for more detail.

Swiwi

He still has 2 lions matches as ref. I think the independent would like to think they influence refereeing appts, but until I read a press release from IRB saying Steve has been downgraded I don't place too much store by it.