FootballNews

ozzie owl wrote:

Bomber wrote:So, this about to start soon.

Main threats - NZ, Saffers, Micks and Taffs.
On their day - Poms, Frogs and Wallabies
Huge odds - Jocks, Argies
Even bigger odds - Samoans, Grosso's lot
Forget the rest

Latest Odds

New Zealand 6/4
England and South Africa 9/2
Ireland 10/1
Wales 12/1
Australia 20/1
France 33/1

NZ odds don't surprise me.

Bomber wrote:

ozzie owl wrote:

Bomber wrote:So, this about to start soon.

Main threats - NZ, Saffers, Micks and Taffs.
On their day - Poms, Frogs and Wallabies
Huge odds - Jocks, Argies
Even bigger odds - Samoans, Grosso's lot
Forget the rest

Latest Odds

New Zealand 6/4
England and South Africa 9/2
Ireland 10/1
Wales 12/1
Australia 20/1
France 33/1

NZ odds don't surprise me.

Hope the All blacks and South Efrikaans make the final!

Bomber wrote:So, this about to start soon.

Main threats - NZ, Saffers, Micks and Taffs.
On their day - Poms, Frogs and Wallabies
Huge odds - Jocks, Argies
Even bigger odds - Samoans, Grosso's lot
Forget the rest

England in the same group as australia? I think we'd have to be on par (at least) with wales and ireland.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:So, this about to start soon.

Main threats - NZ, Saffers, Micks and Taffs.
On their day - Poms, Frogs and Wallabies
Huge odds - Jocks, Argies
Even bigger odds - Samoans, Grosso's lot
Forget the rest

England in the same group as australia? I think we'd have to be on par (at least) with wales and ireland.

Just seeing if you were awake. :wink:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:So, this about to start soon.

Main threats - NZ, Saffers, Micks and Taffs.
On their day - Poms, Frogs and Wallabies
Huge odds - Jocks, Argies
Even bigger odds - Samoans, Grosso's lot
Forget the rest

England in the same group as australia? I think we'd have to be on par (at least) with wales and ireland.

Poms should easily beat the aussies

Michael wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:So, this about to start soon.

Main threats - NZ, Saffers, Micks and Taffs.
On their day - Poms, Frogs and Wallabies
Huge odds - Jocks, Argies
Even bigger odds - Samoans, Grosso's lot
Forget the rest

England in the same group as australia? I think we'd have to be on par (at least) with wales and ireland.

Poms should easily beat the aussies

Could happen in QF depending on where teams finish in their groups.

Looked at it last night and you could consider not wanting to win the group of death and avoid NZ until the final.

JNehru wrote:How are you people watching rugby worldcup in the US? Is a VPN necessary to unblock geo-restriction and watch it online

I decided to get a flight to australia to watch it, I had to change flights in Japan which was weird because there was loads of rugby fans there.

JNehru wrote:How are you people watching rugby worldcup in the US? Is a VPN necessary to unblock geo-restriction and watch it online

I decided to get a flight to australia to watch it, I had to change flights in Japan which was weird because there was loads of rugby fans there.

JNehru wrote:How are you people watching rugby worldcup in the US? Is a VPN necessary to unblock geo-restriction and watch it online

I decided to get a flight to australia to watch it, I had to change flights in Japan which was weird because there was loads of rugby fans there.

Aussie whingeing again, after defeat to the Welsh!

JNehru wrote:How are you people watching rugby worldcup in the US? Is a VPN necessary to unblock geo-restriction and watch it online

I would say 99.99999% of forumites arent in the USA. :wink:

Michael wrote:Aussie whingeing again, after defeat to the Welsh!

For once, I agree with you.

Couple terrible decisions but overall the Wallabies can blame themselves for such poor starts, poor kicking (at times) and basic hand/skill errors.

Never really gave them a chance prior to the tournament and they haven't shown me anything so far to believe otherwise.

Bomber wrote:Couple terrible decisions but overall the Wallabies can blame themselves for such poor starts, poor kicking (at times) and basic hand/skill errors.

Never really gave them a chance prior to the tournament and they haven't shown me anything so far to believe otherwise.

What terrible decisions?

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Couple terrible decisions but overall the Wallabies can blame themselves for such poor starts, poor kicking (at times) and basic hand/skill errors.

Never really gave them a chance prior to the tournament and they haven't shown me anything so far to believe otherwise.

What terrible decisions?

Intercept try - way offside - didn't review but reviewed lesser ticky touch stuff.

The fend off that was given a penalty against, clearly play on if anything - even the Welsh seemed surprised by it.

End of, swings and roundabouts and disappointed that Cheika keep highlighting that instead of the poor rugby played at times.

Bomber wrote:Couple terrible decisions but overall the Wallabies can blame themselves for such poor starts, poor kicking (at times) and basic hand/skill errors.

Never really gave them a chance prior to the tournament and they haven't shown me anything so far to believe otherwise.

Considering their BEST player isn't playing, what else did you expect?
Aussies will be lucky to get out of group stage.

Michael wrote:

Bomber wrote:Couple terrible decisions but overall the Wallabies can blame themselves for such poor starts, poor kicking (at times) and basic hand/skill errors.

Never really gave them a chance prior to the tournament and they haven't shown me anything so far to believe otherwise.

Considering their BEST player isn't playing, what else did you expect?
Aussies will be lucky to get out of group stage.

They will get out of group stage but that will probably be about it.

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:Couple terrible decisions but overall the Wallabies can blame themselves for such poor starts, poor kicking (at times) and basic hand/skill errors.

Never really gave them a chance prior to the tournament and they haven't shown me anything so far to believe otherwise.

What terrible decisions?

Intercept try - way offside - didn't review but reviewed lesser ticky touch stuff.

The fend off that was given a penalty against, clearly play on if anything - even the Welsh seemed surprised by it.

End of, swings and roundabouts and disappointed that Cheika keep highlighting that instead of the poor rugby played at times.

Hard to say he was way offside, looked like it may have been very well timed.

You can't lead with your forearm, clear penalty.

^ coming from someone who saw Root's catch as valid, my case rests.

Bomber wrote:^ coming from someone who saw Root's catch as valid, my case rests.

Got him...... YES!

Bomber wrote:^ coming from someone who saw Root's catch as valid, my case rests.

1. It was. Umpires and 3rd umpire saw the same. You're just too biased to see the ssme.

2. You forget, I have no dog in this fight. I just see the laws and what happened.

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:^ coming from someone who saw Root's catch as valid, my case rests.

1. It was. Umpires and 3rd umpire saw the same. You're just too biased to see the ssme.

2. You forget, I have no dog in this fight. I just see the laws and what happened.

1. *Specsavers - clearly grounded and someone even posted a pic of it clearly grounded.
2. You asked "what terrible decisions?" - I merely answered

And given 1, your 2 becomes irrelevant. Once a blind man answers a question to what he saw in a law-court, there's little point asking him what else he saw.

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:^ coming from someone who saw Root's catch as valid, my case rests.

1. It was. Umpires and 3rd umpire saw the same. You're just too biased to see the ssme.

2. You forget, I have no dog in this fight. I just see the laws and what happened.

1. *Specsavers - clearly grounded and someone even posted a pic of it clearly grounded.
2. You asked "what terrible decisions?" - I merely answered

And given 1, your 2 becomes irrelevant. Once a blind man answers a question to what he saw in a law-court, there's little point asking him what else he saw.

The picture was proof, his fingers can only be under the ball, unless there was a whole in the ground or half his fingers have been amputated.

Your bias is showing through here, or is it lack of knowledge?

All it needs is some part of grass to it be "not out" which the picture clearly shows. So perhaps lack of knowledge is something you may wish to revisit.

Or maybe you haven't made that specsavers appointment yet - I hear its cheaper if you only need to get one eye done.

Bomber wrote:All it needs is some part of grass to it be "not out" which the picture clearly shows. So perhaps lack of knowledge is something you may wish to revisit.

Or maybe you haven't made that specsavers appointment yet - I hear its cheaper if you only need to get one eye done.

The picture doesn't clearly show that at all.

This one does show how he was onside though.


https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby ... ffside-try

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:All it needs is some part of grass to it be "not out" which the picture clearly shows. So perhaps lack of knowledge is something you may wish to revisit.

Or maybe you haven't made that specsavers appointment yet - I hear its cheaper if you only need to get one eye done.

The picture doesn't clearly show that at all.

This one does show how he was onside though.


https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby ... ffside-try

Lol, that's pretty inconclusive - He hasn't released the ball yet! Not strange that it wasn't checked anyway, but several other incidents were?

Root, grassed 100% - you do know that even if finger/s are thought to be under the ball, it can still hit turf first - ball is round - once any part of it touches ground within this action, it's simple - not defined as caught so not out. Oh, but if that happened to an Aussie...……

Funny how pics are ok for some things, not for others.

Bomber wrote:

God is an Englishman wrote:

Bomber wrote:All it needs is some part of grass to it be "not out" which the picture clearly shows. So perhaps lack of knowledge is something you may wish to revisit.

Or maybe you haven't made that specsavers appointment yet - I hear its cheaper if you only need to get one eye done.

The picture doesn't clearly show that at all.

This one does show how he was onside though.


https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby ... ffside-try

Lol, that's pretty inconclusive - He hasn't released the ball yet! Not strange that it wasn't checked anyway, but several other incidents were?

Root, grassed 100% - you do know that even if finger/s are thought to be under the ball, it can still hit turf first - ball is round - once any part of it touches ground within this action, it's simple - not defined as caught so not out. Oh, but if that happened to an Aussie...……

Funny how pics are ok for some things, not for others.

so, you are now saying that it MAY have hit the ground first.

That ball has just been released. Perfect moment. Keep whingeing aussies.

I thought for a moment I was watching south africa and not australia. Maybe someone is colour blind and they thought yellow clashed with white.

What will Cheika whinge about this week?

God is an Englishman wrote:What will GIAE whinge about this week?

Fixed for accuracy