Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Kitchner posted:

Lol plus all their forward passes. I counted at least two.

Pissing on the ref is extremely un-rugby like (unless they are French refs, in which case its fair game). If you want to piss and moan about refereeing go watch football.

especially since Nige is the best ref in the world by a long way

though that probably says more about the rest of them

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



SA are going to get thumped if whenever they get the ball they give it straight back to the England backs

their best bet is to make it a grindfest relying on the size and strength of their pack and try to win like 9-6

but neutralising the English attack is going to be a hell of a lot tougher than it was against a frankly dull and uninspired Wales

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Troy Queef posted:

if you're a neutral you should want the Boks to win because otherwise the British press will be even more unbearable than they already are

I mean however annoying you'd find pictures of Owen Farrell lifting the cup it's a million times better than "now immigrants are giving your children autism - and you're paying for it"

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



video replay is fine in theory but when you have to spend 2-3 minutes going frame-by-frame to see if an infraction occurred that's just too much

there should be a blanket rule across all sports of "30 seconds maximum per replay and if you can't make a call by then the decision on the field stands"

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Vaders Jester posted:

So advantage in the 22 is just "until you score"?

isn't advantage meant to be "until you get a better position"?

which, considering they were 2 metres out keeping it going seems reasonable tbh

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Vaders Jester posted:

It's a nebulous law, if a team spends 5 minutes failing to do anything with that advantage, surely that's on them and advantage over, not just until they score a try or gently caress it right up?

so when do you draw the line? there's no time limit to advantage specified in the law

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Vaders Jester posted:

That's pretty much the problem with the law. It's entirely discretionary and if a team is in the 22 it's basically until they score or gently caress up which seems pretty dumb.

then change the law, I have no problem with that

but complaining when the law's enforced as it's currently written is pretty dumb

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Vaders Jester posted:

I'll get right on changing that law then.

The law being dumb is why people complain about it chief.

yeah, no

the complaining wasn’t “boy the advantage rule is dumb” but “why is the ref continuing this advantage”

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



just lol if you think a typhoon like Hagibis happens "every year"

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Vaders Jester posted:

Not what I said. It's literally called typhoon season, Hagibis was a freak storm even by Japanese standards but it's not like they didn't know that typhoons were a thing.

hmm it's almost as if the lesser typhoons that happen normally would have required far less of a contingency plan

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Vaders Jester posted:

The lesser typhoons are bigger than 14 miles across but at least you tried.

right, and they don't tend to have things like 150mph winds which is the reason the games were called off

the worst that's likely to happen with a regular typhoon is a flooded pitch, hmm I wonder what the best response to that would be

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Vaders Jester posted:

Even the smallest are around 90mph, making play pretty much impossible in the local area.

so instead you want people to be flying to the other end of the country in those winds? yeah that sounds like a great idea, what could possibly go wrong

if the contingency plan had been "play the game on another island" you'd have the SRU saying that the journey would be unsafe for players and fans

and this whole thing is moot anyway because, guess what, the game actually got played and there was no need for the SRU to get their legal dick out and start waving it around

Julio Cruz fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Nov 7, 2019

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Vaders Jester posted:

That's some weird leaps of logic you've made there, I'm not entirely sure where you got that I suggest planes fly through a typhoon but you do you.

well your problem with the original contingency plan seemed to be "the backup stadium is too close to the main one" so I'm explaining how an alternative plan of having the backup stadium a lot further away comes with its own issues

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Vaders Jester posted:

You made up weird hypothetical situations that wouldn't happen to support your bizarre argument about flying through typhoons but carry on.

what exactly is hypothetical about having to fly to reach far-away stadiums in Japan? you realise it's a country made up of separate islands right?

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Vaders Jester posted:

You suggested flying through typhoons, then suggested that the SRU would refuse to move venue if given the option. Neither of which make any sense at all.

I mean if there's a typhoon going on and you've got to get to a stadium on another island I don't think you'd want to do it by boat

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Aramoro posted:

If only there was some way to know about the Typhoon before hand?

yeah there's absolutely no way they were waiting as long as they could before making a decision like changing the venue of the match, none at all

because it might be the case that actually it's OK to have the match in the original stadium after all (spoiler: this is what actually happened)

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



yeah I'm 100% sure that the SRU would have accepted "sorry you're going to have to fly to a different stadium 1000 miles away to have your match, tough poo poo about not having any fans there" without any complaint and definitely wouldn't have in any way threatened World Rugby with legal action, because come on who would do that, I mean really

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Vaders Jester posted:

They literally said they were happy to move to any other stadium to ensure the match was played. They even offered to play the game behind closed doors if need be.

which is all well and good but Italy didn't get that option so I'm really not sure why the SRU thought they deserved to get it

threatening to sue when World Rugby doesn't break its own tournament rules solely to benefit you doesn't seem like a very good idea really

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Vaders Jester posted:

The fact Italy didn't get the option seems to poo poo all over the idea that the "robust contingencies" that were supposedly in place were fit for purpose then, doesn't it.

At least try to keep the goalposts in the the place for once post at least.

yeah they should have known there was going to be a once-in-a-century storm before they drew up the rules that said "no rescheduling of pool games"

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Vaders Jester posted:

So is defending contingency planning that resulted in 3 matches being cancelled, but here we are.

what has that got to do with the SRU though? you know the group who threatened legal action when World Rugby wouldn't break their own tournament rules for them

and you accuse me of moving goalposts

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Vaders Jester posted:

And we're back to typhoon season being a thing in Japan so it hardly snuck up on them.

And the rules covered no rescheduling to a different day, not venue. Try not to cherry-pick.

and we're also back to Hagibis being just a little bit bigger than the usual typhoon

turns out that contingency planning for the biggest typhoon in half a century is actually quite difficult

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



well if there are multiple Frances it's no wonder we lost

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Scotland need to be a good few points in front at half time given this wind

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



why are England kicking into this wind, they're not even making territory

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



tarbrush posted:

Force of habit, and flinging it around in these conditions would probably result in giving Scotland a score or two.

giving Scotland the ball and not even getting any territory with it is going to result in giving Scotland a score or two

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



tarbrush posted:

Not so far

because so far the Scottish lineout has been terrible

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



did both teams bet on each other

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



bessantj posted:

It's the Chris Benoit of rugby matches.

I definitely feel like I have CTE after watching that

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



dunno if I can see Italy winning this but I can certainly see Scotland losing it

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



I'd forgotten what an actually good 6N game looked like

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Sexton is having a shocker

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



Ireland's scrum is falling apart

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



that's the most blatant obstruction I've ever seen

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



just watching that makes me feel tired

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



goodnight boyos

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



I like this sky-blue Scotland kit

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



there's a red for sure

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



gotta think that France need the losing bonus point here to have any chance at the trophy

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



France are starting to fall apart

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Julio Cruz
May 19, 2006



ouch that looked loving nasty in slowmo

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply