Chat Forum
It is currently Sun Jun 24, 2018 9:34 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 469 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14430
guy smiley wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
I'm talking about Alaatoa, the ref explicitly stated that the sanction was mitigated by the attackers action. It was a high swinging arm - would have been interesting if DMac stayed down like Crotty did actually. While I can fully see how a Crusaders fan would not want the same consistency applied to a potential Crusaders try I think it's bollocks that the ref ascribes mitigation to some incidents and not others.


ah.. ok, the dirty Aussie prop :lol: :thumbup: gotcha.

In the Crotty incident, you can hear him telling Cane that if it weren't for the fact it was in the actof scoring and stopped that happening it would have been penalty only but the act of scoring meant it had to go penalty try / YC.

So... can you see why I am saying I'm happy with both calls being fair and clear?

Of course I know why you're happy. My patch is on the opposite side though. :)

Still, if a red card can be mitigated down to a yellow for the actions of the attacker then it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a penalty shouldn't be mitigated down to no sanction because of the actions of the attacker ;) .


Last edited by UncleFB on Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42829
guy smiley wrote:
SecretAgentMan wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
Shrekles wrote:
Little comment has been made re the gutsy leadership from Sam Whitelock to twice spurn kickable penalties with a three point lead to go for the try. Great decision in that if you kick the penalty you hand field position back to the opponent with only a 6 point lead and plenty of time to play. Score the try and you have an 8 point lead but miss it and the worst that will likely happen is that you will have possession back inside the opposition half. Next All Black captain right there folks.

Didn't one come off and the other one didn't but, the Chiefs ballsed up the next phase which meant the Crusaders could still press the attack? In saying that I agree that Whitelock would be a good ABs captain. Not sure if he's the next long term though, is he going to outlast Read by much?

I reckon Cane will get the gig.


Same here and it would be a good call going by what we've seen and can expect re. longevity. Cane's got more years in him... and I'll go further and suggest he'll be captain for the next RWC.


I would like to see Cane as the long-term captain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37217
Location: in transit
UncleFB wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
I'm talking about Alaatoa, the ref explicitly stated that the sanction was mitigated by the attackers action. It was a high swinging arm - would have been interesting if DMac stayed down like Crotty did actually. While I can fully see how a Crusaders fan would not want the same consistency applied to a potential Crusaders try I think it's bollocks that the ref ascribes mitigation to some incidents and not others.


ah.. ok, the dirty Aussie prop :lol: :thumbup: gotcha.

In the Crotty incident, you can hear him telling Cane that if it weren't for the fact it was in the actof scoring and stopped that happening it would have been penalty only but the act of scoring meant it had to go penalty try / YC.

So... can you see why I am saying I'm happy with both calls being fair and clear?

Of course I know why you're happy. My patch is on the opposite side though. :)

Still, if a red card can be mitigated down to a yellow for the actions of the attacker then it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a penalty shouldn't be mitigated down to no sanction because of the actions of the attacker ;) .

:lol: :lol:

With all due respect...

f**k off. :nod: :P


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20959
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
Seriously, how was the call controversial? It was interpreted exactly as the laws currently require.

Whether the law is an ass or not, now that's a totally different conversation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16209
Fat Old Git wrote:
Seriously, how was the call controversial? It was interpreted exactly as the laws currently require.

Whether the law is an ass or not, now that's a totally different conversation.

And when do you think this conversation will take place? After long-term rugby fans have already deserted the game in droves? As I said at the time, this feels a lot like the lawmakers, in their infinite wisdom (OK, and with a sincere desire to reduce the number of head injuries), are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14430
Fat Old Git wrote:
Seriously, how was the call controversial? It was interpreted exactly as the laws currently require.

Whether the law is an ass or not, now that's a totally different conversation.

It's controversial because it caused controversy enough for us all to argue over it (to the point that Guy used bad language at me that I haven't fully recovered from yet)? At any rate the controversial call was the ref applying a mitigating factors to the Alaatoa decision. (And TBH I don't even have a problem with that really, but you blokes have drawn a line in the sand with the other decision and a letter of the law ruling, that I'm happy for friendly fisticuffs over it :D)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 3:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37217
Location: in transit
UncleFB wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
Seriously, how was the call controversial? It was interpreted exactly as the laws currently require.

Whether the law is an ass or not, now that's a totally different conversation.

It's controversial because it caused controversy enough for us all to argue over it (to the point that Guy used bad language at me that I haven't fully recovered from yet)? At any rate the controversial call was the ref applying a mitigating factors to the Alaatoa decision. (And TBH I don't even have a problem with that really, but you blokes have drawn a line in the sand with the other decision and a letter of the law ruling, that I'm happy for friendly fisticuffs over it :D)


I'm not sure you're taking this matter seriously. :x


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20959
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
SecretAgentMan wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
Seriously, how was the call controversial? It was interpreted exactly as the laws currently require.

Whether the law is an ass or not, now that's a totally different conversation.

And when do you think this conversation will take place? After long-term rugby fans have already deserted the game in droves? As I said at the time, this feels a lot like the lawmakers, in their infinite wisdom (OK, and with a sincere desire to reduce the number of head injuries), are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


Unfortunately the conversation seems to be more about allowing dangerous tackles in some situations, rather than about the merits of the variously consequences of making a dangerous tackle.

If we're saying giving a yellow card on top of awarding a penalty try is excessive in many situations, including this one, than I agree completely.

But mostly we're not saying that. Mostly we're talking about tiddlywinks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14430
guy smiley wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
Seriously, how was the call controversial? It was interpreted exactly as the laws currently require.

Whether the law is an ass or not, now that's a totally different conversation.

It's controversial because it caused controversy enough for us all to argue over it (to the point that Guy used bad language at me that I haven't fully recovered from yet)? At any rate the controversial call was the ref applying a mitigating factors to the Alaatoa decision. (And TBH I don't even have a problem with that really, but you blokes have drawn a line in the sand with the other decision and a letter of the law ruling, that I'm happy for friendly fisticuffs over it :D)


I'm not sure you're taking this matter seriously. :x

I will admit I was taking it very seriously around 7pm on Saturday night. But the sun came up the next day so I mellowed a bit.

Actually, I lie, the sun didn't come up the next day, the weather was so shit it was grey and then bucketed down with rain - stupid non summery weather in Sydney. To make it worse I was in Manly for the day.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37217
Location: in transit
UncleFB wrote:

Actually, I lie, the sun didn't come up the next day, the weather was so shit it was grey and then bucketed down with rain - stupid non summery weather in Sydney. To make it worse I was in Manly for the day.


Manly always used to be ok in the summer rain... mind, I lived and worked there so it was easy and it wasn't as busy back then. I like that summer humidity there... used to cycle up the coast to Mona Vale and back and riding through the drizzle was nice.

Nice.



I'm trying more these days to be patient and rational ( :lol: ) around contentious calls. I think the refs get it right nearly every time and it's up to us to understand the Laws more.

there... I said it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 1:18 pm
Posts: 1207
I was at the game and had an argument with my son while we waited for the decision.....and we were both supporting the red and blacks. His take was he saw nothing wrong with the tackle....started low and rode up....and the try was stopped....no problem.

I had the benefit of the replay on the big screen moments later. It was every thing he said....and more as the tacklers arm on the neck was what pulled the player back....head high tackle. I'll give O'Keefe his due....he never rushed the decision...consulted line umpire...TMO...watched replays...then agreed...head high tackle on which he'd already adjudicated with a Canterbury player and yellow carded...similar decision...correct call. However, because a yellow card had stopped the try, he was left in the position where he had to enact another rule.....penalty try. Correct call.

My son however was adamant it was too harsh a call...I thought it was the correct call.......we are still talking to each other and choose to disagree.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14430
guy smiley wrote:
UncleFB wrote:

Actually, I lie, the sun didn't come up the next day, the weather was so shit it was grey and then bucketed down with rain - stupid non summery weather in Sydney. To make it worse I was in Manly for the day.


Manly always used to be ok in the summer rain... mind, I lived and worked there so it was easy and it wasn't as busy back then. I like that summer humidity there... used to cycle up the coast to Mona Vale and back and riding through the drizzle was nice.

Nice.



I'm trying more these days to be patient and rational ( :lol: ) around contentious calls. I think the refs get it right nearly every time and it's up to us to understand the Laws more.

there... I said it.

Yesterday wasn't summer rain, it felt like Palmerston North in winter except a few degrees warmer. We nearly missed the end of the cricket too, my mate was driving us down to the ferry terminal as the last over was playing out and we were watching on his phone in the car ... if Santner hadn't hot a 6 we would have missed it, we bolted as soon as he whacked it and were the last people through the gates.

I think even knowing the Laws (I've had a pocketbook copy given to me each year by a ref mate for the last 10 years) sometimes doesn't help understanding a decision. Take the Frenchie last year in the 3rd lions test for example.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42829
terangi48 wrote:
I was at the game and had an argument with my son while we waited for the decision.....and we were both supporting the red and blacks. His take was he saw nothing wrong with the tackle....started low and rode up....and the try was stopped....no problem.

I had the benefit of the replay on the big screen moments later. It was every thing he said....and more as the tacklers arm on the neck was what pulled the player back....head high tackle. I'll give O'Keefe his due....he never rushed the decision...consulted line umpire...TMO...watched replays...then agreed...head high tackle on which he'd already adjudicated with a Canterbury player and yellow carded...similar decision...correct call. However, because a yellow card had stopped the try, he was left in the position where he had to enact another rule.....penalty try. Correct call.

My son however was adamant it was too harsh a call...I thought it was the correct call.......we are still talking to each other and choose to disagree.


That is exactly how I saw it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37217
Location: in transit
UncleFB wrote:
I think even knowing the Laws (I've had a pocketbook copy given to me each year by a ref mate for the last 10 years) sometimes doesn't help understanding a decision. Take the Frenchie last year in the 3rd lions test for example.



Well, see you've enacted a Law of Universal Physics there. No-one knows what the f**k the French are up to. Especially the French. Putting them in charge of anything is just begging for trouble.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14430
guy smiley wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
I think even knowing the Laws (I've had a pocketbook copy given to me each year by a ref mate for the last 10 years) sometimes doesn't help understanding a decision. Take the Frenchie last year in the 3rd lions test for example.



Well, see you've enacted a Law of Universal Physics there. No-one knows what the f**k the French are up to. Especially the French. Putting them in charge of anything is just begging for trouble.

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 5:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22120
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
Shrekles wrote:
Little comment has been made re the gutsy leadership from Sam Whitelock to twice spurn kickable penalties with a three point lead to go for the try. Great decision in that if you kick the penalty you hand field position back to the opponent with only a 6 point lead and plenty of time to play. Score the try and you have an 8 point lead but miss it and the worst that will likely happen is that you will have possession back inside the opposition half. Next All Black captain right there folks.


I wonder what happens when he gets a ref that doesn't manufacture penalties to give him that field position. The call on DMac was very very harsh.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 42829
Enzedder wrote:
Shrekles wrote:
Little comment has been made re the gutsy leadership from Sam Whitelock to twice spurn kickable penalties with a three point lead to go for the try. Great decision in that if you kick the penalty you hand field position back to the opponent with only a 6 point lead and plenty of time to play. Score the try and you have an 8 point lead but miss it and the worst that will likely happen is that you will have possession back inside the opposition half. Next All Black captain right there folks.


I wonder what happens when he gets a ref that doesn't manufacture penalties to give him that field position. The call on DMac was very very harsh.


It's the Crusaders or the ABs we are talking about, refs will under instructions to manufacture penalties. When will you learn?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20959
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
Enz has had years honing is posting style by observing a certain segment of opposition fans during AB games.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:21 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1437
UncleFB wrote:
BillW wrote:
SecretAgentMan wrote:
RodneyRegis wrote:
FFS. The TMO stopped it at the point of contact. It was directly on his neck, and he pulled his head round.

This debacle is not the officials' fault. They're victims, too. Who would want to be a ref under these conditions? Charged with butchering the game you love. As I said before, the law is an ass.

You're taking this real hard SAM.
The yellow card was not for the high tackle - that was just a penalty.
A penalisable offence prevented a try from being scored, so a penalty try was awarded, resulting in a mandatory yellow card.
Hell's bloody bells it happens all the time from way lesser offences, such as deliberate knock downs, early tackles etc.
Remember SBW batting a high kick dead in goal?
Made no difference to the end result.

Yes it did, it happened when the match was still a contest, and caused the match to no longer be a contest.

On it's own this incident probably wouldn't have caused so much consternation, but coming after a high swinging arm was mitigated by the actions of the attacker in ducking, it highlights the inconsistency prevalent in rulings like this.

The match was only a contest because the Crusaders had played close to twenty minutes with 14 men.
You saw what happened when the Chiefs were reduced to fourteen men for ten minutes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14430
BillW wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
BillW wrote:
SecretAgentMan wrote:
RodneyRegis wrote:
FFS. The TMO stopped it at the point of contact. It was directly on his neck, and he pulled his head round.

This debacle is not the officials' fault. They're victims, too. Who would want to be a ref under these conditions? Charged with butchering the game you love. As I said before, the law is an ass.

You're taking this real hard SAM.
The yellow card was not for the high tackle - that was just a penalty.
A penalisable offence prevented a try from being scored, so a penalty try was awarded, resulting in a mandatory yellow card.
Hell's bloody bells it happens all the time from way lesser offences, such as deliberate knock downs, early tackles etc.
Remember SBW batting a high kick dead in goal?
Made no difference to the end result.

Yes it did, it happened when the match was still a contest, and caused the match to no longer be a contest.

On it's own this incident probably wouldn't have caused so much consternation, but coming after a high swinging arm was mitigated by the actions of the attacker in ducking, it highlights the inconsistency prevalent in rulings like this.

The match was only a contest because the Crusaders had played close to twenty minutes with 14 men.
You saw what happened when the Chiefs were reduced to fourteen men for ten minutes.

:lol: The Chiefs only scored a try when the Crusaders were down to 14. Before the penalty try it was 26-23 to the Crusaders and the score blew out after that because of a) the penalty try and b) the Chiefs were just throwing the ball around in an effort to generate points and gave away intercepts.

The match was a contest for 72 minutes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:57 pm
Posts: 3125
Since I didn't get an answer on the last page, is this match worth a watch? Wasn't able to watch live for various reasons.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37217
Location: in transit
Andalu wrote:
Since I didn't get an answer on the last page, is this match worth a watch? Wasn't able to watch live for various reasons.


Sorry, I thought I had answered that :lol:

You've seen the highlights, yeah? Only a diehard would watch the rest. Both teams made mistakes, it wasn't a spectacle of magnificence. Cane's sprint from halfway was outstanding. Both half combinations frustrated... meh, yeah... nah.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:57 pm
Posts: 3125
guy smiley wrote:
Andalu wrote:
Since I didn't get an answer on the last page, is this match worth a watch? Wasn't able to watch live for various reasons.


Sorry, I thought I had answered that :lol:

You've seen the highlights, yeah? Only a diehard would watch the rest. Both teams made mistakes, it wasn't a spectacle of magnificence. Cane's sprint from halfway was outstanding. Both half combinations frustrated... meh, yeah... nah.

OK, cheers. If I was a Crusaders fan I'd watch it regardless, but watching my team lose a in a rusty game, a few days after it was played? I'll pass.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37217
Location: in transit
Andalu wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Andalu wrote:
Since I didn't get an answer on the last page, is this match worth a watch? Wasn't able to watch live for various reasons.


Sorry, I thought I had answered that :lol:

You've seen the highlights, yeah? Only a diehard would watch the rest. Both teams made mistakes, it wasn't a spectacle of magnificence. Cane's sprint from halfway was outstanding. Both half combinations frustrated... meh, yeah... nah.

OK, cheers. If I was a Crusaders fan I'd watch it regardless, but watching my team lose a in a rusty game, a few days after it was played? I'll pass.


Yeah, no need. Nothing academic to gain through watching it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14047
Location: Coalfalls
UncleFB wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
UncleFB wrote:

Actually, I lie, the sun didn't come up the next day, the weather was so shit it was grey and then bucketed down with rain - stupid non summery weather in Sydney. To make it worse I was in Manly for the day.


Manly always used to be ok in the summer rain... mind, I lived and worked there so it was easy and it wasn't as busy back then. I like that summer humidity there... used to cycle up the coast to Mona Vale and back and riding through the drizzle was nice.

Nice.



I'm trying more these days to be patient and rational ( :lol: ) around contentious calls. I think the refs get it right nearly every time and it's up to us to understand the Laws more.

there... I said it.

Yesterday wasn't summer rain, it felt like Palmerston North in winter except a few degrees warmer.


I've not had the dubious pleasure of fair dinkum winter rain at a game in Palmerston North; but I've sat there, shivering a tad in my mackintosh, watching a game on a rainy Saturday afternoon in September. (The occasion of the Famous Victory over the Cantabs, he says humblebragging outrageously).

Sydney people deserve all that discomfort and worse, but without the last-minute elation of an unexpected win....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34136
Location: Queensland
Andalu wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Andalu wrote:
Since I didn't get an answer on the last page, is this match worth a watch? Wasn't able to watch live for various reasons.


Sorry, I thought I had answered that :lol:

You've seen the highlights, yeah? Only a diehard would watch the rest. Both teams made mistakes, it wasn't a spectacle of magnificence. Cane's sprint from halfway was outstanding. Both half combinations frustrated... meh, yeah... nah.

OK, cheers. If I was a Crusaders fan I'd watch it regardless, but watching my team lose a in a rusty game, a few days after it was played? I'll pass.


I just realised that I always thought your name was spelt 'Analdu' and was a play on the word Anal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 4:57 pm
Posts: 3125
:?

I actually made this account in Andalusia, Spain. Hence the bull, I'm not from the Naki.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5583
guy smiley wrote:
Andalu wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Andalu wrote:
Since I didn't get an answer on the last page, is this match worth a watch? Wasn't able to watch live for various reasons.


Sorry, I thought I had answered that :lol:

You've seen the highlights, yeah? Only a diehard would watch the rest. Both teams made mistakes, it wasn't a spectacle of magnificence. Cane's sprint from halfway was outstanding. Both half combinations frustrated... meh, yeah... nah.

OK, cheers. If I was a Crusaders fan I'd watch it regardless, but watching my team lose a in a rusty game, a few days after it was played? I'll pass.


Yeah, no need. Nothing academic to gain through watching it.


Although, as you say, Cane's try was majestic as was Whitelock's


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14430
MungoMan wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
UncleFB wrote:

Actually, I lie, the sun didn't come up the next day, the weather was so shit it was grey and then bucketed down with rain - stupid non summery weather in Sydney. To make it worse I was in Manly for the day.


Manly always used to be ok in the summer rain... mind, I lived and worked there so it was easy and it wasn't as busy back then. I like that summer humidity there... used to cycle up the coast to Mona Vale and back and riding through the drizzle was nice.

Nice.



I'm trying more these days to be patient and rational ( :lol: ) around contentious calls. I think the refs get it right nearly every time and it's up to us to understand the Laws more.

there... I said it.

Yesterday wasn't summer rain, it felt like Palmerston North in winter except a few degrees warmer.


I've not had the dubious pleasure of fair dinkum winter rain at a game in Palmerston North; but I've sat there, shivering a tad in my mackintosh, watching a game on a rainy Saturday afternoon in September. (The occasion of the Famous Victory over the Cantabs, he says humblebragging outrageously).

Sydney people deserve all that discomfort and worse, but without the last-minute elation of an unexpected win....

I assume you mean people who live in Sydney! :x

Well the discomfort sucked, but walking on to the ferry knowing we'd just won a tight one made the rain hurt a bit less - and to be completely honest I don't give a shit about cricket, but getting one over the Poms anytime is enjoyable.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 469 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alliswell, BillW, booji boy, camroc1, Chilli, Davedj77, DOB, DragsterDriver, feckwanker, foobar, frillage, Google Adsense [Bot], grouch, Joost, Lobby, New guy, ovalball, pandion, Petros, Raggs, Saint, Sefton, Southernscot, Still Playing, Thomas, unseenwork, Wendigo7, Xupi, Yourmother and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group