Was that a boring WC GF ?

[cos789]

A big part of rugby is the forward battle at the breakdown and in the set pieces and the strategic implications around that. If that's not your thing watch rugby 7's or rugby league. Or just watch certain teams who tend to play the way you like.

It's all a question of your balance point.
In American Football it's a similar running Vs passing preference.
Rugby 7s is at the ridiculous end.
Rugby League has too much of the interesting bits stripped away.
Your right, I watch teams that entertain my tastes.
At present that balance isn't there. I would like to see more backline moves.
That mightn't be a winning strategy but it's an entertaining one.
IMO one of the attractions of RU is the set scrum but not so much the rucking and mauling that dominated the WC final.

 

[cos789]

Teams already try to keep play deep in the other half.

No they don't. They kickoff shallow and try to regain possession.

What point are you trying to make with scrums? You seem to be pointing to rugby league as an example of ideal scrums...which must be a joke.

rl scrums don't have the same problems as RU scrums.
They have their own problems.

Last year there was a super rugby game that ended 72-65, it was a joke. If it was 13 a side that would happen regularly.

Yes maybe if they continue to tackle so poorly as they do in RU.
I was presupposing that RU teams lifted their defensive workrate.

 

[Mint Condition]

They don't tackle any better or worse than rugby league players. I've explained why it could potentially be easier to pile on points in rugby union with less players. Obviously that game was an outlier but it still happened in a top level professional game with 15 a side.

Lots of rucks are a result of the ball being in play a long time. Mauls happen mostly off lineouts, and I love a good driving maul, but I think teams are better at defending and disrupting them now so it's not as successful a tactic as it was a few years ago.

I think you'll probably get your wish for more expansive back line play. Not so much because of a change of rules, but because I think now that the All Blacks are world champions they'll play with a hell of a lot of freedom and force other teams to change the way they play to keep up. They'll be the Barcelona of rugby.

 

[cos789]

They don't tackle any better or worse than rugby league players.

I beg to differ. One thing rl players do well is tackle .

I think now that the All Blacks are world champions they'll play with a hell of a lot of freedom .

They won by stonewalling - not by throwing the ball around.
Get real.

 

[Mint Condition]

They won that particular match mainly through their defence in the 2nd half, but overall they are the team most capable of playing the most expansive and dynamic rugby and have been for a long time. I think now the monkey is off their back they will. I don't think you realise quite how much pressure they were under to win that game and it's no surprise to see a team tighten up a bit in a final.

The RL players used to be a lot better defensively before rugby union went professional but now it's the same. The coaching and professionalism is exactly the same. Rugby league involves less counter attacking from deep and there's less unstructured ball, so in union you might have a higher missed tackle percentage on occasion but the one on one, direct defensive ability is pretty much the same.

 

[Aucklander]

I don't think you realise quite how much pressure they were under to win that game and it's no surprise to see a team tighten up a bit in a final.

In a nutshell.

Yea, it wasn't an open free flowing game, but it was played for the ultimate prize in that sport by the two teams most notorious for choking in the big games. The pressure would have been enormous and especially so for the All Blacks in front of their home crowd.

You knew, well some of us knew beforehand, that we were in for a titanic struggle by the French's response to the Haka.

 

[cos789]

it wasn't an open free flowing game, but it was played for the ultimate prize in that sport .

Isn't that whati've been saying.
If it wasn't the WC final it wouldn't been attractive.

 

[Mint Condition]

It was attractive because of it's intensity and physicality. And both teams still displayed ambition with the ball, particularly the French who flung it very wide. Neither team set out to play negatively which is what characterises a bad game IMO. NZ were in their shell a little bit in the 2nd half, but they were bruised and battered by that stage of the tournament and the French hit them with everything. They did all they could to hold on.

That level of play was very high and would have been great for any test match. Sometimes intensity and physicality can be more exciting than open games. Not just in rugby union. In rugby league state of origin isn't most popular because it's the most open rugby league - it's not. It's because of the intensity and physicality. Sometimes you get an open origin game, often you don't, but it's almost always very physical and intense. It's good to get a mix.

 

[Aucklander]

Isn't that whati've been saying.
If it wasn't the WC final it wouldn't been attractive.

For someone who has played Rugby Union I'm surprised you don't seem to be getting it.

MC, who is probably the most astute poster on this board, has explained it very well on more than one occasion.

BTW, please don't take peoples replies and strip them down to a few words and then reply. That won't be acceptable here.

 

[cos789]

For someone who has played Rugby Union I'm surprised you don't seem to be getting it.

Of course I get what MC is saying.
He is saying in his opinion it was an attractive game of RU because of the standard of technnical features displayed. not unexpected from a RU purist.
I am saying just because something is executed in a technically good way doesn't mean it's the most attractive game.I've already said that because it is a WC final that alone is an attraction. But if that game was anything but a WC final it wouldn't. I have given my reasons why i think so. It's my opinion. I am not right or wrong. I am only wrong in someone else's opinion.

And if I don't the full diatribe of some'one's post it's because it's not neccessary. I have played both RU and rl. I don't need a lecture on what are the finer points on rugby. We're talking about what is attractive and what's not. If the French had worked the ball a bit closer and managed a field goal forcing the Kiwis to respond similarly then wouldn't everybody agree that that was a better game. If you do agree. Then you have have to agree that there are degrees of attraction. MC seems to be running a black and white case and is not open to any suggestion that it could be better. that is my point and you seem to be missing that. i've even given my opinion how things could be changed. Not unexpectedly prurists aren't open to that,though not kicking out on the full was not rejected outright. Of course RU aren't going to do anything radicle and that suggestion probably seems too radicle ATM.

 

[imadodgyumpire]

FWIW, I thought it was an awesome game! Hard to break down, organised defence keeps an offence honest, in any game, and makes for an intriguing contest, which the WCF definitely was.

 

[moto748]

Some interesting posts here. I'm defintely a league fan first and foremost, and I thought the final was pretty good. Certainly better than just about all the other games I saw. The days of Barbarian-style play in internationals (if it ever happened) are gone for good now. But I thought both teams played decently. The French were mostly on top, and had the possession stats to prove it, but, as they say, there's only one stat that really matters.

As for rule changes, well, despite that fact that a constant criticism of RU is that they're always tinkering with the rules... the comments upthread (from Mint?) about the scrums seems right to me. I don't recall seeing the hassle and re-setting of scrums to the extent that we do nowadays twenty or thirty years ago. Whatever they're doing now, it doesn't seem to be working.

And again, as I may have mentioned before, as a league fan, I'd like to see a stricter interpreation of the offside law. I believe all too often players taking an active part are in front of the kicker, especially from box-kicks. I realise the kicker can 'put them onside', but even so, I'm not convinced this always happens, by any means.

I believe that there are greater restrictions on what can or cannot be referred to the video ref in union compared to league? Perhaps someone could put me right on that?

 

[Aucklander]

Some interesting posts here. I'm defintely a league fan first and foremost, and I thought the final was pretty good. Certainly better than just about all the other games I saw. The days of Barbarian-style play in internationals (if it ever happened) are gone for good now. But I thought both teams played decently. The French were mostly on top, and had the possession stats to prove it, but, as they say, there's only one stat that really matters.

Thing is, there were plenty of high scoring free flowing games. The Tonga v France game was an absolute ripper. It's easy just to pick on the final. It would be like comparing it to the Geelong v Port GF a few years ago which was probably the worst GF in a while, but the PF was a belter.

Pies v Saints GF last year. Low scoring tight match which ended in a draw. Still an excellent game which I thought the RUWC was.

As for rule changes, well, despite that fact that a constant criticism of RU is that they're always tinkering with the rules... the comments upthread (from Mint?) about the scrums seems right to me. I don't recall seeing the hassle and re-setting of scrums to the extent that we do nowadays twenty or thirty years ago. Whatever they're doing now, it doesn't seem to be working.

C, T, P engage takes too long. Fix that up.

I believe that there are greater restrictions on what can or cannot be referred to the video ref in union compared to league? Perhaps someone could put me right on that?

It looks that way, but I'm sure he'd help if called upon by the ref.

 

[Mint Condition]

The video ref can only adjudicate on what happened over the try line (so essentially if the ball was grounded). In the last South Africa vs NZ game the ref and video ref broke this rule to rule on a NZ knock on that had happened just before the line. I thought that was the right thing to do - the referees have to have some discretion and ultimately they got the decision right...but they got in trouble for breaking protocol.

The thing I like about the union video ref system is how they assign benefit of the doubt. If the ref thinks a try has been scored he'll ask "is there any reason not to award a try" - and so if it's inconclusive the attacking team will get the benefit of the doubt. If he has no idea or thinks it's probably no try he'll say "try or no try" ... and the benefit of the doubt will go to the defensive team. In the NRL (not sure about english rugby league) it's supposed to always be benefit of the doubt to the attacking team, but it never happens this way because sometimes it just seems obvious that the defensive team should get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[cos789]

It's easy just to pick on the final.

That sort of implies that you agree to a degree with what I said.
I did contain my negative remarks to this one game.

Thing is, there were plenty of high scoring free flowing games.

I did mention in a positive light the Aus Vs NZ game.
I wouldn't put that in the "high scoring" category but there was greater mix.
If Australia had played better it would have been better just like if France had made a breakthrough it would have been better or even NZ for that fact.

 

[Aucklander]

That sort of implies that you agree to a degree with what I said.

Absolutely.

I did contain my negative remarks to this one game.

You did. Welcome to the forum BTW.

 

[moto748]

The video ref can only adjudicate on what happened over the try line (so essentially if the ball was grounded). In the last South Africa vs NZ game the ref and video ref broke this rule to rule on a NZ knock on that had happened just before the line. I thought that was the right thing to do - the referees have to have some discretion and ultimately they got the decision right...but they got in trouble for breaking protocol.

The thing I like about the union video ref system is how they assign benefit of the doubt. If the ref thinks a try has been scored he'll ask "is there any reason not to award a try" - and so if it's inconclusive the attacking team will get the benefit of the doubt. If he has no idea or thinks it's probably no try he'll say "try or no try" ... and the benefit of the doubt will go to the defensive team. In the NRL (not sure about english rugby league) it's supposed to always be benefit of the doubt to the attacking team, but it never happens this way because sometimes it just seems obvious that the defensive team should get the benefit of the doubt.

Thanks for clearing that up, Mint.

Although I don't agree with *any* benefits of the doubt, in either code. The way I see it, it's simple. if the ref (or video ref) can see the ball grounded, they award the try. If they can't see it, then the 'try' shouldn't be given. Surely it's a universal refereeing principle (in all sports, really) that you can't adjudicate on what you can't see? Just as a ref can't give a penalty for foul play he doesn't see, so he shouldn't give tries that he can't see either.

If you want to encourage more try-scoring in union, you ought to find a better way of doing it than that!

BTW as far as I remember (I watch more NRL these days than Superleague), the benefit of the doubt concept is exclusive to the NRL; they don't do it in England.

 

[sighclone]

Of course I get what MC is saying.
He is saying in his opinion it was an attractive game of RU because of the standard of technnical features displayed. not unexpected from a RU purist.
I am saying just because something is executed in a technically good way doesn't mean it's the most attractive game.I've already said that because it is a WC final that alone is an attraction. But if that game was anything but a WC final it wouldn't. I have given my reasons why i think so. It's my opinion. I am not right or wrong. I am only wrong in someone else's opinion.

And if I don't the full diatribe of some'one's post it's because it's not neccessary. I have played both RU and rl. I don't need a lecture on what are the finer points on rugby. We're talking about what is attractive and what's not. If the French had worked the ball a bit closer and managed a field goal forcing the Kiwis to respond similarly then wouldn't everybody agree that that was a better game. If you do agree. Then you have have to agree that there are degrees of attraction. MC seems to be running a black and white case and is not open to any suggestion that it could be better. that is my point and you seem to be missing that. i've even given my opinion how things could be changed. Not unexpectedly prurists aren't open to that,though not kicking out on the full was not rejected outright. Of course RU aren't going to do anything radicle and that suggestion probably seems too radicle ATM.

Anyone can make such a claim.

 

[Mint Condition]

Thanks for clearing that up, Mint.

Although I don't agree with *any* benefits of the doubt, in either code. The way I see it, it's simple. if the ref (or video ref) can see the ball grounded, they award the try. If they can't see it, then the 'try' shouldn't be given. Surely it's a universal refereeing principle (in all sports, really) that you can't adjudicate on what you can't see? Just as a ref can't give a penalty for foul play he doesn't see, so he shouldn't give tries that he can't see either.

In union it's usually for cases where the ref has seen the ball grounded but he may have missed a second or two before so wants to check if there was a knock on or something in the process of grounding. Sometimes bodies just get in the way and I think it's okay to give the attacking team benefit of the doubt in those situations when the ref is pretty sure, but just wants to check if there's anything to suggest that he's wrong (and if there's nothing to suggest that he's wrong he'll award the try).

 

[Hoops]

I always hear that RL is more spectator friendly and you have to be a purist to enjoy RU. I don't have foxtel, so I dont see too much of either. But I watched the recent WC with interest and found to my surprise RU far more enjoyable to watch. I don't know why as I didn't know what was going on half the time, but I do tend to find RL repetative and boring.

 

[Aucklander]

but I do tend to find RL repetative and boring.

Really? Would never have guessed that.