Absolutely shagged.
October 23, 2011 4:56 AM   Subscribe


 
Finally got rid of the Jonah ... well done NZ.

Good game, too.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 5:09 AM on October 23, 2011


Congratulations, NZ!

You are very much overdue a celebration!
posted by Wolof at 5:25 AM on October 23, 2011


France were robbed by Joubert.
Which for me, makes it better.
posted by fullerine at 5:26 AM on October 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


The match finished some hours ago (it's 1:30am Monday here) but I'm still hearing "WOOOOO" from people on the streets probably once every few minutes and impromptu haka probably once every half hour.
posted by doublehappy at 5:30 AM on October 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


France deserved to win the final, but not the world cup.
posted by knapah at 5:31 AM on October 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


Hey doublehappy. Its 1:35 now...it took me 2 hours to travel 4 miles. 1:45 was spent in the last half mile. Tons of people doing the haka and waving flags. I also collected 3 bottles of beer from people who just wanted me to have a drink...while I was driving.

Wow.

Also, France played well. NZ played ugly and I feel they got lucky. But in the end, its the points that matter.
posted by hal_c_on at 5:38 AM on October 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


A ref gave a spot in the final to France.

Another ref gave the final to New Zealand.

I'm happy for the All Blacks and their supporters, because they absolutely deserve the Webb Ellis trophy, but that game was terrible. Be interesting to see if the IRB does anything about the poor refereeing.
posted by kalimac at 5:38 AM on October 23, 2011


but that game was terrible.

This was my first every Rugby game. I was kinda disappointed at the lack of strategy or a workable defense from NZ...

Also...are scores usually that low? I've been at stadiums for baseball games that had higher scores.
posted by hal_c_on at 6:16 AM on October 23, 2011


In terms of Rugby that scoreline would be on the low side, yes.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 6:20 AM on October 23, 2011


This is neat.
posted by hal_c_on at 6:21 AM on October 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


That was an unusually low score, yes, but not too surprising when you consider the strength of both teams defence and the prize at stake.

It wasn't a pretty game, but I enjoyed watching it as a neutral. Great performances from Rougerie and Dusautoir, and a breathtaking line-break by Trinh-Duc in the first half. Thought the All Blacks were due for another choke when Weepu kept fluffing the kicks, but they did what was needed and probably deserved it in the end.

Agree about the standard of refereeing in this tournament. The Aus v RSA QF match, the Wales v France semi and now the final were all influenced too much by the refs. How many high tackles did Joubert miss today? The IRB may as well just replace scrummaging with rock-paper-scissors because for the most part the decisions are totally random.
posted by afx237vi at 6:31 AM on October 23, 2011


Fuck 'em all. Gaddam rugby finals kept everyone away from my gig tonight, and I'm in fucking JAPAN!

Gaddam rugby finals.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:39 AM on October 23, 2011 [1 favorite]


I am English. I none the less enjoyed seeing the French getting their karmic deserts for their undeserved win against Wales[1]. The British Empire, it rises again. ;)

[1] That said, they were the better team tonight.
posted by jaduncan at 9:19 AM on October 23, 2011


Oh, and I was in NZ for the start of the tournament, in Vanuatu (where they are all AB fans) for most of it, and in a bar in Tbilisi for the final. I gave away my RWC merch to emotional kiwis present in the bar. It seemed the right thing to do.

24 years of hurt, eh?
posted by jaduncan at 9:23 AM on October 23, 2011


The world's gays will be expecting a trophy-themed All Blacks calendar soon. Please hurry: 2012 is two months out.
posted by psoas at 9:24 AM on October 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


And there was much drinking.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:52 AM on October 23, 2011


As others have said it wasn't a pretty game, it was a war zone. I think overall the missed penalties evened out. No one "deserved" to win and, at least to me, it was a good game in that no one ran away with it, and the results where in doubt until the very last few moments, that is a good game, perhaps not the best visuals or most excited pump your fist in the air game, but a good game nonetheless. France played better then anyone expected, and I kind of felt sorry for Weepu, his play was ok, and he has had a few brilliant games, hell his kicking won them at least one game outright this tourney, but his kicks in the final weren't even close and he got yanked.
posted by edgeways at 10:49 AM on October 23, 2011 [3 favorites]


and YAY ALL BLACKS. Wearing my ratty AB cap today
posted by edgeways at 10:50 AM on October 23, 2011


I will also say that in that game France played very good, but they have been a bi-polar team this year, which makes me wonder why. Lost two games in the pool series, almost lost to Wales. Some commentator had it right when in the pre-game he said it all depends on which French team shows up, it easily could have been an AB blowout if the other French team had walked on the field. So, while I won't say "deserved to win" I will put a "?" next to France deserving to make it as far as they did.
posted by edgeways at 10:58 AM on October 23, 2011


The French team need their own war dance: in response to the haka, they should have done the can-can.
posted by homunculus at 12:35 PM on October 23, 2011 [3 favorites]


I enjoyed the French arrowhead in response to the Haka - wondering if the England team will try a Morris dance one of these days.

[Still sobbing at the Wales v France semi-final debacle.]
posted by humph at 12:38 PM on October 23, 2011


From the final & the other handful of games I watched this world cup, it seems to me that the backs have little clue when it comes to penetrating the defensive line.

You'd think all the rucks, mauls, lineouts & scrums would provide heaps of opportunities for set backline moves, but they almost always resulted in pointless drifting towards the sideline, crowding the outside men & making easy prey for the sliding defence.

Has the emphasis in international rugby shifted to outside backs who are purely defensive, and aren't really expected to be line-breaking ball runners? I'm sure it used to be a lot flashier.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:32 PM on October 23, 2011


France deserved to win.

Bloody Sir Richie and his magic cloak of invisibility.
posted by wilful at 4:56 PM on October 23, 2011


What's this magic cloak thing? Is it something to do with the All Blacks having Bilbo Baggins at scrum half?
posted by UbuRoivas at 5:08 PM on October 23, 2011


I'm happy for the All Blacks and their supporters, because they absolutely deserve the Webb Ellis trophy, but that game was terrible.

Funny, because every Kiwi and Frog I was at a couple of bars with during the evening thought it was an incredible match. No, it wasn't pretty or high-scoring. But it was an amazing struggle.

Bloody Sir Richie and his magic cloak of invisibility.

The same one every decent openside flanker tries to wear?

For me the two high points were the performance of the French team: the match was a giant "fuck you" to the contempt heaped on them, most notably from the various xenophobic fuckwads the British Isles chose to represent them through the media; the second was Stephen Donald, who went from the 4th choice in his position to landing the kick that won the world cup.

And I see Eddie Butler is choking on his own bile; the venom directed against the All Blacks in particular and New Zealand in general by the British press is all the more delightful.
posted by rodgerd at 6:01 PM on October 23, 2011 [2 favorites]


Has the emphasis in international rugby shifted to outside backs who are purely defensive, and aren't really expected to be line-breaking ball runners? I'm sure it used to be a lot flashier.


I think this is pretty inevitable in the World Cup, and, alas, will spread as it continues to influence world rugby. You can't afford Quade Coopers, Carlos Spencers, Christian Cullens, or David Campeses in knockout tournaments. New Zealand have tried to stick to running rugby type play in most RWCs and have had early exits through not being, well, this brutally pragmatic.
posted by rodgerd at 6:04 PM on October 23, 2011


It was a great match. Scrappy and more than a few fluffed catches and kicks, but both teams played their hearts out.
Les Bleus almost stole the WC out from under the All Blacks' noses and frankly, as knapah says, they deserved to win the game but not the world cup, so a good result.

The French supporters in the bar I was in were magnanimous in defeat and the Kiwis were gracious winners, and everyone had a good time - which is what it's all about.

Great tournament all around, shame we have to wait 4 years. Also, Mrs A. is now a convert to rugby and loved watching the game yesterday.
posted by arcticseal at 6:51 PM on October 23, 2011


I watched the entire tournament with great interest, and even though I had hoped for a more compelling matchup in the final, I was pleasantly surprised at the France that showed up.
The All Blacks looked like they were playing to not lose rather than win, but Wipu's misses and the loss of their 3rd #10 had them understandably on the back foot.
The tension of the last ten minutes of that match was awesome.
I just wish that Daniel Carter had not gotten injured, he deserved to be a bigger part of the win.
posted by OHenryPacey at 8:48 PM on October 23, 2011


DC being out was a bummer for him and a shock for the team, but it was awesome to see new talent in the limelight and give the AB fans a lesson on not putting all your faith in one player. Weepu has been amazing and, kicking aside, he played a good game. I was watching with my family last night and they were calling Stephen Donald all kinds of names when he was subbed in for Cruden - a lot of people have undoubtedly changed their tune about him now. The ABs seem to have a set routine for subbing in the second half and I don't think that worked in their favour last night. But all that aside it was a deserved win for them and I can't imagine how it feels to know an entire country is proud of you.

And lo! there was much celebrating.
posted by tracicle at 2:10 AM on October 24, 2011


My sons watched a bit of an NFL highlight/halftime show yesterday and they were unimpressed...but when I put on this match (about 50 minutes in), they were thrilled. They kept asking me questions, and I kept answering with a cheerful "I have no idea!" We loved it!
posted by wenestvedt at 8:14 AM on October 24, 2011


If you can find the Aus-NZ semi anywhere then check that out, because that game is just extraordinary.
posted by Sebmojo at 11:14 AM on October 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


As an All Black supporter, I was thrilled that they got the monkey off their back and won. The game itself was certainly ugly, and not indicative how either one of these sides usually plays. I think the ugly nature of the game was the byproduct of several things.

- It was in France’s best interest to try and keep possession and grind it out. They did a great job of controlling the flow of the game and never letting the All Blacks establish anything.

- The All Blacks were missing their biggest weapon. While Slade is a serviceable player and Weepu played his heart out, Carters kicking and ability to read the game are without peer. Carter in that game changes the way France has to defend and gives space for the AB's backs.

- The pressure, the pressure to win this game was enormous. They have come up short so many times with teams much better than this one. Each loss continued to weigh on the players I think. I know as a fan I could feel it.

- New Zealand played not to lose, they turtled up after the try and did not seem to want to take any chances.

In the end I was proud of the players for playing smart the final five minutes and driving the French back in that ruck to eat up the clock and not taking a dumb penalty. Despite what the UK media might say the French are never a team to count out when you are in the knock out stages. Their fans should be proud of the effort they put on.
posted by remo at 11:42 AM on October 24, 2011


So Sir Richie didn't even mention France in his speech after the game. What a sportsman he is.

And apparently the IRB are going to fine France $10 000 for their response to the haka before the game. What tools.
posted by wilful at 3:58 PM on October 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


I actually agree with the IRB on this one. The way the French players were all holding hands brings the game into disrepute.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:40 PM on October 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: every Kiwi and Frog I
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:01 PM on October 24, 2011


The final was an epic battle. I am curious to know why some you feel the French were "robbed," how a ref "gave" a spot in the final to France and how another "gave" the final to NZ, and whether anyone would care to elaborate about the standard of refereeing. Can you cite specific errors in the application of law or poor game management?
posted by jleisek at 8:58 PM on October 24, 2011


people like to bitch about refereeing no matter what the sport, and yeah there are always missed calls or borderline calls, but this was the only close game for NZ, and France where lucky to get this far despite playing a corker final game, so eh... people are going to bitch if the outcome wasn't to their liking. TBH there where some missed high tackles against NZ in the final but they also called McCaw for a pretty crucial penalty that was crap... it's a pretty dynamic sport, that si what I like.

I think the IRB fining France for their pre-game display is absurd, as well couldn't give a rats ass if Sir Richie mentioned France or not, lord almighty not everyone has to fall over-themselves praising their rivals, even if they played a solid game, in the aftermath of a huge victory. That is just looking for something to nitpick against.

What struck me, I caught some of the USA rebroadcast the next day, was the stark difference in production values and sensationalism between the USA commentating and the Kiwi/British stream I watched live. Man.. it was an education to say the least.
posted by edgeways at 9:35 PM on October 24, 2011


I am curious to know why some you feel the French were "robbed," how a ref "gave" a spot in the final to France and how another "gave" the final to NZ, and whether anyone would care to elaborate about the standard of refereeing. Can you cite specific errors in the application of law or poor game management?

In Wales v France, the ref sent off the Welsh captain for a dangerous tackle, so they played around 3/4 of the game with 14 men versus 15. That's a heavy penalty for a breach that could subjectively have been worth only a free kick or 10 minutes in the sin bin.

In France v NZ, McCaw supposedly got away with plenty of infringements in the rucks, as Pocock had for Australia against South Africa. To me that's just a bit of gamesmanship on the part of the respective players - it's in the nature of professional sports that you infringe as much as the ref will let you get away with; if the ref starts giving penalties, you cut that particular behaviour out. But letting McCaw do whatever the hell he likes in the breakdowns is handing the All Blacks a huge boon on a silver platter.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:55 PM on October 24, 2011


edgeways: thanks for the comment, I was stuck with the US announcers, they made a lot of mistakes and added nothing to the experience, but I had to be happy that NBC chose to air this match on a Sunday afternoon, great exposure for the game. I need to watch a replay with the real announcers.

UbuRoivas: I was at least as disappointed as you were, I was really hoping for a NZ-Wales final, but the red card was valid, I am disappointed by the vitriol hurled at Rolland for his decision. The law is quite clear, as was the IRB directive. And while I agree with you on players pushing the limits of the law (this is especially true for guys like McCaw and Pocock), I don't know what "supposedly got away with plenty of infringements" means.

Two of the great things about refereeing rugby are the advantage call and the concept of materiality. The referee can play advantage when one side offends, the referee doesn't have to blow his or her whistle if the non-offending side can gain an advantage. And other offenses that are not material to play can be dealt with through game management.

Play on!
posted by jleisek at 10:10 PM on October 24, 2011


jleisek, this thread talks at great length about the game that Joubert had. Wisdom of the crowds there, from a southern hemisphere but not kiwi crowd, seems to be that the Final wasn't too bad.

Personally I thought Richie was what Richie is, a person who gets away with as much as he can. Which is usually a lot. Erm, ruspect to him? And there was a LOT of not rolling away by the darkness.

See also this article, written before the final, about inconsistent reffing.
posted by wilful at 10:25 PM on October 24, 2011


I don't know what "supposedly got away with plenty of infringements" means.

It means I'm using weasel words, because I hear people saying that he was infringing all the time, but I didn't notice that myself, through a combination of (a) being well out of the loop on the minutiae of Union rules at the moment, and (b) beer.
posted by UbuRoivas at 10:45 PM on October 24, 2011 [1 favorite]


wilful: Thanks for the links, I personally think Joubert had a very good game and I was not surprised he got the final. But I also understand that rugby is a very emotional game, for players and coaches and fans.

UbuRoivas: Being in the loop isn't all it's cracked up to be, and cheers.
posted by jleisek at 10:57 PM on October 24, 2011


If you can find the Aus-NZ semi anywhere then check that out, because that game is just extraordinary.

My go-to extraordinary game is All Blacks-Wallabies in 1996 at Athletic Park, Wellington. It's played in heavy rain, wind, and the All Blacks just toss the ball around in a fashion that defies belief.

This highlights reel is a nice taster, but I'm sure the full game is around somewhere. It's all the more impressive that while it does have some of the finest All Blacks in history, they're playing an Australian side that has a number of Aussie greats.

how a ref "gave" a spot in the final to France

In Wales v France, the ref sent off the Welsh captain for a dangerous tackle, so they played around 3/4 of the game with 14 men versus 15. That's a heavy penalty for a breach that could subjectively have been worth only a free kick or 10 minutes in the sin bin.

Yeah, but the subjective bit is bullshit because the laws are written to make it an automatic red card, and just shows how desperate "home nations" scribes are to dump on the French (until supporting them became the only way to dump on the All Blacks).

A bit of history for the original asker: in 2005 the Lions, a composite of Wales, England, Scotland, and Ireland, toured New Zealand. Their captain was injured in the first game in a lift-and-dump tackle by two All Black players, which attracted no significant punishment, because the laws around dangerous tackles basically required some sort of proof of intent. The referee and the citing board (who handle suspensions) didn't assess a punishment. Even as an Kiwi I thought it was a bit limp but, applying the Welsh logic this year, it was a big occasion and you wouldn't want to spoil it, right?

The outraged Lions team, British Isles journos, and a large number of supporters went apeshit, demanding anything up to and including lifetime bans for the two All Blacks involved.

In the following years, the four Lions nations lobbied to have the laws changed to make the default for spear/lifting/etc tackles a red card and a ban from the game for a minimum period. No discretion.

Now, 2011, a Welsh player does a spear tackle, and suddenly the ref is corrupt/incompetant/should have "had the big occasion in mind" for applying the laws as written.

Hypocritical horseshit.

Even more so when you consider the ref was Joubert, who also ran the final. Many of the Guardian/Times/Telegraph scribes and commentators who have been abusing him for applying the letter of the law were suggesting he should instead consider Wales were the better team, it was a big occasion, the tournament shouldn't be ruined with over-harsh refereeing...

...and this week they're abusing the same guy for supposedly not being strict enough, being too cowardly to penalise the All Blacks out of the final, and so on.

At the heart of it seems to be a belief in certain Anglo-centric circles that the only reason those filthy fucking colonials beat England (and the other "home nations") is because Convicts, Jaapies, and Chippy Kiwis are a bunch of thugs and cheats, because no filthy colonial could be better than something than the British.

In France v NZ, McCaw supposedly got away with plenty of infringements in the rucks, as Pocock had for Australia against South Africa. To me that's just a bit of gamesmanship on the part of the respective players - it's in the nature of professional sports that you infringe as much as the ref will let you get away with; if the ref starts giving penalties, you cut that particular behaviour out

It's practically the job discription for no 7s. The same Poms who want McCaw run out of the game cheered Neil Back on, just as the same Poms who complain about Australia and New Zealand's "over-vigourous rucking" celebrate Danny Grewcock.

One of the more priceless moments in the NZ v Aus game was watching Pocok try it on, get penalised twice (then work out the limit and stick to it), only for McCaw to try something dodgy and work out his limit.

Flankers cheat in the ruck. Get over it.
posted by rodgerd at 1:22 AM on October 25, 2011


At the heart of it seems to be a belief in certain Anglo-centric circles that the only reason those filthy fucking colonials beat England (and the other "home nations") is because Convicts, Jaapies, and Chippy Kiwis are a bunch of thugs and cheats, because no filthy colonial could be better than something than the British.

Chip much?

I think most of the rugby understanding press in the UK understand full well that the chances of a Northern Hemisphere team beating a Southern one are slim most of the time. Hence the jubilation when we actually do it (or in the case of Wales, come ever so close allowing us to keep our plucky losers self image).

The card for Warburton was harsh/correct. The red was not mandatory. The International Rugby Board's instructions were to start at a red card, and consider if it should be less. He felt it wasn't (him being Allan Rolland, not Joubert incidentally).

The problem, with the refereeing in the Wales - France Semi was that having given a harsh red, he then decided to not actually ref the rest of the game correctly. France should have been getting penalties at almost every other scrum after the Adam Jones went off. He then tried to gift the game to us with a ludicrous penalty towards the end (which we missed).

Enjoyed the final though. Admitting to shouting for France got me strange looks from my English inlaws though.
posted by couch at 2:45 AM on October 25, 2011


The problem I have with Warburton's red card is that there have been plenty of similar tackles throughout the RWC and none of them have resulted in a red card. While Rolland's decision may have been correct if you apply the rules literally, it still rankles when you see similar incidents that are not treated the same. It's not the interpretation of the rules that piss off rugby fans, but the consistency with which they are applied.

Example from the 3rd place playoff. That's not a tackle, that's an NFL style "hit". No use of arms, no attempt to take the player down safely, just late and mistimed. Sonny-Bill Williams got a yellow card for something similar against Australia in the semi, but here Wales don't even get a penalty.
posted by afx237vi at 6:00 AM on October 25, 2011




That's not a tackle, that's an NFL style "hit". No use of arms, no attempt to take the player down safely, just late and mistimed.

That was a nice tackle. Are players turning into lily-livered milquetoast pansies, that they can't deal with solid hits like that?

Remember that this is a game in which 120kg men are lifted twelve feet into the air because, I don't know, they used to jump using just their own legs but that wasn't spectacular enough or something so now they get lifted by two even chunkier men.

Later, the same monsters plus another dozen or two will all pile on top of each other & the guys on the top will use the studs on their boots to try & either get the ball or dislodge somebody's eye or Adam's apple.

When the ball doesn't come out (which it wasn't really going to anyway, the whole idea was just to help some public school boys release some testosterone) there's a really cool set move where around 1,600 kg of guys smash head on into each other, with the general aim, technique & tactic being to act as if you want to snap the spines of the three guys in the front row.

But god forbid that somebody should go vaguely sideways in the air, or land with their head past the horizontal. It's not as if it's an integral & much loved part of any other contact sport or anything.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:39 AM on October 25, 2011


UboRoivas, I fully agree, but my point was: why is one a red card, one a yellow card and one doesn't even get a penalty?
posted by afx237vi at 1:14 PM on October 25, 2011


Because refereeing is, by nature, arbitrary & inconsistent? You'll find no argument with me there, and it's not confined to one code.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:14 PM on October 25, 2011


Ten days late, here I am to say refereeing is not arbitrary and inconsistent, and to help delineate the yellow vs. red vs. no card issues.

Rugby Union has a law book and issues guidelines for referees. While knowledge and application of law and game management may not be perfectly consistent among referees, the sport makes every attempt to standardize refereeing. And when you get to the very highest levels of the game, referees are under intense scrutiny by those who train and manage them. Evaluations, match video review, law study and analysis, meetings with coaches prior to international matches; all of this and more are employed to make sure the players are permitted to play as fast and safe a game as possible.

Of course, not every performance is perfect. But bear in mind that a lot of work goes into making refereeing as consistent as possible.

All referees are charged with this order: safety above everything else.

Segue to the cards.

Sam Warburton was sent off for a dangerous tackle that even he now acknowledges was the correct decision. Picked up player, dropped player. The yellow card awarded to SBW was for a shoulder charge with no thought to using his arms at all. That's foul play. Like Warburton, SBW is a great, exciting player who suffered a momentary lapse of reason. For the non-card touchline spill involving Shane Williams, it looks to me like one Aussie player goes for the charge-down (Pocock) while another (Polota-Nau) goes lower and extends his arms for a tackle. There is a collision and Williams suffers the worst of the impact. But there is no foul play. No flag, no card, and no citing.
posted by jleisek at 1:15 PM on November 5, 2011


The yellow card awarded to SBW was for a shoulder charge with no thought to using his arms at all. That's foul play. Like Warburton, SBW is a great, exciting player who suffered a momentary lapse of reason.

Or, in other words, he forgot that what was OK for him to do in league (and he was known for his shoulder charges) is against the rules in Union.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:47 PM on November 5, 2011


« Older Next, rubber gloves at the supermarket checkout   |   Something wicked delicious this way comes Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments