15 Ben Foden 14 Chris Ashton 13 Manu Tuilagi 12 Mike Tindall 11 Mark Cueto 10 Jonny Wilkinson 9 Ben Youngs 1 Alex Corbisiero 2 Steve Thompson 3 Dan Cole 4 Louis Deacon 5 Tom Palmer 6 Tom Croft 7 Lewis Moody 8 James Haskell
Very encouraging win from a much more fluent England team. Reckon on todays performances we would just shade it over France. The French made far too many basic errors against the Kiwis who were in auto cruise mode from 20 mins on. They will win this tournament.
Tomorrow will see a fantastic game. Argentina to win against the Scots buy 10 points.
All available on 4play for those sleepy heads amongst us!
Scotland to beat Argentina in a penalty shoot out, neither side looks capable of scoring many tries. Send the Gauchos back to the pampas of Buenos Aries (or the boulevards and avenues anyway) and/or the French Riviera with a 'will get better' report.
Then next week, England to do Scotland by 10-15 points. Team selection?: Even if fit, Nick Easter should lose his place to an ever more impressive Haskell James. Lawes may not get back either, Deacon the trundler has shown great improvement, Stevens is probably doubtful thru a dodgy ankle and his scrummaging especially on the loose head looks weaker than before his long ban, so, Nat King Cole will keep his place as will Corbisiero, Thompson and Palmer, along with Croft and Moody. The backs look ever more impressive and now just need the courage and confidence to do 'it' against the stronger teams. Still have my doubts re Toby Tobias and if it comes to a last minute penalty to win J Wilko would get my vote every time. We will see.
All in all not a particularly spectacular tournament so far. The fun will start when (at last) the KO rounds come along
Argentina shade it over the Scots in one of the most gripping encounters I can recall in many years of playing and watching. So good to see an 'emerging' nation doing well - their players and referees have always helped other, lesser S American teams improve by running training workshops, donating kit etc. Poor conditions and two missed drop goals and a get-able penalty would have made my morning but it now sets up a do or die encounter Scotland vs England next weekend.
S Africa vs Wales, Ireland vs Australia, Fiji Namibia, Argentina vs England, USA vs Ireland are (in order) my other top 5 games so far this RWC - all of them outstanding efforts, exciting results and awesome spectacles.
At the last gasp why did the Scottish forwards take it back in the last time heading away from the posts and those Argie defenders must have been off side when charging down Parks attempted drop goal.
At the last gasp why did the Scottish forwards take it back in the last time heading away from the posts and those Argie defenders must have been off side when charging down Parks attempted drop goal.
It's called dreadful refereeing. R Union has become too complex for one referee and 2 flag wavers to officiate with any degree of required accuracy. It's now a professional game with very low amateur standards of refereeing. The touch judges can only interfere in cases of foul play and line decisions and not on offsides. American football has 7 match officials and has done away with the decision replay system. Rugby Union needs a similar regime. Scotland were refereed out of the game. Having said that, drop goals are a pest and an unsatisfactory way to score and especially to settle a game. Drop goals should only count if done from a minimum of 40 yards. And why is a 22/25 drop out awarded after a missed drop at goal and not a scrum back where the kick took place?. This gives the side responsible for the stoppage almost certain re-possession. If it were a punt that went wide and dead, a scrum back would be the decision. Rugby Union needs tidying up if it is to grow in mass appeal.
At the last gasp why did the Scottish forwards take it back in the last time heading away from the posts and those Argie defenders must have been off side when charging down Parks attempted drop goal.
Agreed - or ask why the Pumas didnt make touch on 80 mins from their kick. Rugby doesnt need American style ridiculous refereeing. All teams always play to the referee - ALL teams. you do what you think you can get away with. If the referee is facing the other way you may be tempted to step up offside - of course you risk giving away the penalty, so you need to impose a degree of intelligence. Which is one of the subtle joys of rugby. As a coach you always study the referee you have for a match, certainly at National team level, in my experience. Either way, the best team won. Both these teams' next games will be well worth watching.
At the last gasp why did the Scottish forwards take it back in the last time heading away from the posts and those Argie defenders must have been off side when charging down Parks attempted drop goal.
It's called dreadful refereeing. R Union has become too complex for one referee and 2 flag wavers to officiate with any degree of required accuracy. It's now a professional game with very low amateur standards of refereeing. The touch judges can only interfere in cases of foul play and line decisions and not on offsides. American football has 7 match officials and has done away with the decision replay system. Rugby Union needs a similar regime. Scotland were refereed out of the game. Having said that, drop goals are a pest and an unsatisfactory way to score and especially to settle a game. Drop goals should only count if done from a minimum of 40 yards. And why is a 22/25 drop out awarded after a missed drop goal and not a scrum back where the kick took place?. This gives the side responsible for the stoppage almost certain re-possession. If it were a punt that went wide and dead, a scrum back would be the decision. Rugby Union needs tidying up if it is to grow in mass appeal.
At the last gasp why did the Scottish forwards take it back in the last time heading away from the posts and those Argie defenders must have been off side when charging down Parks attempted drop goal.
It's called dreadful refereeing. R Union has become too complex for one referee and 2 flag wavers to officiate with any degree of required accuracy. It's now a professional game with very low amateur standards of refereeing. The touch judges can only interfere in cases of foul play and line decisions and not on offsides. American football has 7 match officials and has done away with the decision replay system. Rugby Union needs a similar regime. Scotland were refereed out of the game. Having said that, drop goals are a pest and an unsatisfactory way to score and especially to settle a game. Drop goals should only count if done from a minimum of 40 yards. And why is a 22/25 drop out awarded after a missed drop at goal and not a scrum back where the kick took place?. This gives the side responsible for the stoppage almost certain re-possession. If it were a punt that went wide and dead, a scrum back would be the decision. Rugby Union needs tidying up if it is to grow in mass appeal.
1. How were Scotland refereed out of the game? 2. Both teams missed 2 drop goals. 3. Argentina missed twice as many penalites, scored the only try, achieved more turnovers despite losing twice as many lineouts and conceded fewer penalites than the Scots who lacked imagination. 4. Drop goals are fine - its the same for both teams, adds an extra dimension for the defence to consider and make it a better game. As I am sure you know, a 22 is awarded as it is the attacking team that have decided to take the ball over the line. Nobody I know has a problem with this law.
Always thought one of the main reasons rugby will not be truly global is the fact refs are far too important to the game,they all ref differently with the breakdown being the most baffling,especially the definition of being off your feet.If the All Blacks are reffed properly they are far less effective. A lot of refs are on ego trips because they get such a mention in the media Wayne Barnes,who in my opinion is over rated , Alain Rolland who is just not fit for purpose and don't start me on Nigel effing Owens.All of them at times baffle everyone.It does though make me wonder why it takes pro players so long to work out the refs,maybe they should turn out for someones third team where the wily old buggers have the ref worked out in the first five minutes and play him like a piano for the next 75 minutes.
Always thought one of the main reasons rugby will not be truly global is the fact refs are far too important to the game,they all ref differently with the breakdown being the most baffling,especially the definition of being off your feet.If the All Blacks are reffed properly they are far less effective. A lot of refs are on ego trips because they get such a mention in the media Wayne Barnes,who in my opinion is over rated , Alain Rolland who is just not fit for purpose and don't start me on Nigel effing Owens.All of them at times baffle everyone.It does though make me wonder why it takes pro players so long to work out the refs,maybe they should turn out for someones third team where the wily old buggers have the ref worked out in the first five minutes and play him like a piano for the next 75 minutes.
You may be right, but Referee's (I was one) are vital for safety. When I became a coach, part of every match preparation was an analysis of the foibles of our particular referee. There is so much going on that there is no better system than that of ''Law interpretation by an individual''. Two, three or twenty other referees would call the same breakdown in a different way. No point in arguing or complaining, just get on with it and match your play accordingly. Most players recognise this and play to the whistle, or quickly suffer the consequences of not doing so.
At the last gasp why did the Scottish forwards take it back in the last time heading away from the posts and those Argie defenders must have been off side when charging down Parks attempted drop goal.
It's called dreadful refereeing. R Union has become too complex for one referee and 2 flag wavers to officiate with any degree of required accuracy. It's now a professional game with very low amateur standards of refereeing. The touch judges can only interfere in cases of foul play and line decisions and not on offsides. American football has 7 match officials and has done away with the decision replay system. Rugby Union needs a similar regime. Scotland were refereed out of the game. Having said that, drop goals are a pest and an unsatisfactory way to score and especially to settle a game. Drop goals should only count if done from a minimum of 40 yards. And why is a 22/25 drop out awarded after a missed drop goal and not a scrum back where the kick took place?. This gives the side responsible for the stoppage almost certain re-possession. If it were a punt that went wide and dead, a scrum back would be the decision. Rugby Union needs tidying up if it is to grow in mass appeal.
At the last gasp why did the Scottish forwards take it back in the last time heading away from the posts and those Argie defenders must have been off side when charging down Parks attempted drop goal.
It's called dreadful refereeing. R Union has become too complex for one referee and 2 flag wavers to officiate with any degree of required accuracy. It's now a professional game with very low amateur standards of refereeing. The touch judges can only interfere in cases of foul play and line decisions and not on offsides. American football has 7 match officials and has done away with the decision replay system. Rugby Union needs a similar regime. Scotland were refereed out of the game. Having said that, drop goals are a pest and an unsatisfactory way to score and especially to settle a game. Drop goals should only count if done from a minimum of 40 yards. And why is a 22/25 drop out awarded after a missed drop at goal and not a scrum back where the kick took place?. This gives the side responsible for the stoppage almost certain re-possession. If it were a punt that went wide and dead, a scrum back would be the decision. Rugby Union needs tidying up if it is to grow in mass appeal.
1. How were Scotland refereed out of the game? 2. Both teams missed 2 drop goals. 3. Argentina missed twice as many penalites, scored the only try, achieved more turnovers despite losing twice as many lineouts and conceded fewer penalites than the Scots who lacked imagination. 4. Drop goals are fine - its the same for both teams, adds an extra dimension for the defence to consider and make it a better game. As I am sure you know, a 22 is awarded as it is the attacking team that have decided to take the ball over the line. Nobody I know has a problem with this law.
Scotland were refereed out of the game because when it came to the crunch in the last vital seconds of the game, the officials were not on the ball enough to spot that the Argentine defenders were offside as Parks prepared to drop for goal. As I have stated, I would not allow dropped goals to count from that close, BUT under the present laws, Scotland should have been awarded a penalty in front of the posts. In this case the cheats you so admire won by breaking the laws of the game. Are you so sanguine as to suggest that if a shopkeeper's eyes are averted then it's ok to pinch his stock?. How about breaking the leg of the opposition star player whilst the referee's attention is elsewhere?
I'm sure that during the game this was not the only law transgression that went unnoticed. That's why I advocate stricter officiating. Bad decisions can cost managers and players their careers whereas referees never seem to be penalised for a bad performance. I'm sure that you will recall that Barnes was the referee in RWC 2007 when France beat NZ in the 1/4 final as the result of a blatant forward pass that went unnoticed, My contention is that in a professional sport (I gather the impression that in your nostalgic tinted eyes, RU is still a jolly jape for chaps who like a run about after a pint or 2) the best possible result should be obtained, especially to prevent cheats and rogues prospering.
Dropped goals? For a long time Argentina has used the tactic of 'dropping for goal' as a way to gain ground by way of (as I outline above) relying on the missed attempt going dead with the usual result that the opposition will drop from the 22 and (in this example) Argentina will regain the ball much closer to the opposition line . A legitimate but negative tactic which, in my opinion, needs resolving. You may not know anyone who has a problem with this tactic, I know a lot of Rugby fans who do find it irksome and would also like to see negativity and blatant cheating/playing to the referee eliminated. It's OK for amateurs to get away with dodgy tricks but not professionals in a sport which generates a lot of income as well as interest.
Always thought one of the main reasons rugby will not be truly global is the fact refs are far too important to the game,they all ref differently with the breakdown being the most baffling,especially the definition of being off your feet.If the All Blacks are reffed properly they are far less effective. A lot of refs are on ego trips because they get such a mention in the media Wayne Barnes,who in my opinion is over rated , Alain Rolland who is just not fit for purpose and don't start me on Nigel effing Owens.All of them at times baffle everyone.It does though make me wonder why it takes pro players so long to work out the refs,maybe they should turn out for someones third team where the wily old buggers have the ref worked out in the first five minutes and play him like a piano for the next 75 minutes.
Great post, Lions refereed by Donkeys is all too common
I simply cant work out if you set out to wind everyone up on many threads for your own bizarre pleasure, or if you like getting personal (''sanguine'', wildly accusing me of advocating theft or GBH, ''nostalgic tinted eyes'', whatever they are?!), or cause confrontation for some other reason.
I just have to nibble at one bizarre statement you made though. You wrote Dropped goals? For a long time Argentina has used the tactic of 'dropping for goal' as a way to gain ground by way of (as I outline above) relying on the missed attempt going dead with the usual result that the opposition will drop from the 22 and (in this example) Argentina will regain the ball much closer to the opposition line . A legitimate but negative tactic which, in my opinion, needs resolving.
So what would they gain by going for a drop goal as opposed say to a kick for touch or a kick into space? How is it negative? Drop goals are often caught and a counter attack is launched. As an avid reader of blogs and a subsciber to Rugby World magazine, I cannot ever remember an article even discussing the need for a change. So, this ''lot of rugby fans'' you know seem only to voice their opinion to you.
England have scored 19 drop goals so far, as, like Argentina they have two eminently capable kickers. South Africa have 12 Argentina have scored 9, suggesting it may be slightly more productive tactic than you suggest. In this game Scotland took twice as many drop goals and missed the same number, which again disproves your contentious view.
Missing one offside is hardly refereeing a team out of a game, is it? Not a word from Andy Robinson, Scotland's coach, about the offside, rather he said this "To score a try the way they did, it was Argentina that wanted to win. They took their chance well and won the game. They had to find some answers and they did."
Andy Robinson believes his Scotland side have themselves to blame for the defeat by Argentina that could cost them a World Cup quarter-final place.The Scots appeared to slacken off after going 12-6 ahead with 10 minutes to play in their Pool B encounter as Lucas Gonzalez Amorosino scored a try."We had complete control of the game, but one slip of concentration cost us," said the coach after the 13-12 loss."First, to lose the restart, then secondly a poor defensive lapse."
How I would love to see you say what you unpleasantly wrote to me, In this case the cheats you so admire won by breaking the laws of the game, to Andy Robinson
Always thought one of the main reasons rugby will not be truly global is the fact refs are far too important to the game,they all ref differently with the breakdown being the most baffling,especially the definition of being off your feet.If the All Blacks are reffed properly they are far less effective. A lot of refs are on ego trips because they get such a mention in the media Wayne Barnes,who in my opinion is over rated , Alain Rolland who is just not fit for purpose and don't start me on Nigel effing Owens.All of them at times baffle everyone.It does though make me wonder why it takes pro players so long to work out the refs,maybe they should turn out for someones third team where the wily old buggers have the ref worked out in the first five minutes and play him like a piano for the next 75 minutes.
Great post, Lions refereed by Donkeys is all too common
Shock horror - headline news - referees in Rugby sometimes miss offences! Nice try Lincs
Oh, and this statement you made is simply mad! The touch judges can only interfere in cases of foul play and line decisions and not on offsides. Who flags up the 10 metre line at scrums penalties and line-outs?
I don't see the drop goal tactic working that well.If you attempt a drop goal from say 35 yards you will be under pressure from the defenders trying to close you down.If you miss and the ball goes dead the defending side then get the 22m drop out,this drop out is taken under no pressure and a decent kicker will smack the ball about 60 yards back down the pitch,with a decent chase you are going to finish up roughly where you started.If you were playing Argentina who have a very useful pack it would be madness to try chipping the ball 10 yards over the 22 on the wing and let your forwards try to win the ball, as team of forwards like Argentina possess would be odds on favourites to gain possession every time. The drop goal used to be worth 4 points when a try was worth 3.I think if teams really started to rely on drop goals you could go down the route the rugby league boys went reducing the drop goal to one point so it only gets used to win a tight game.Though I don't see a huge problem with the current set up regarding dropped goals.
The 10m at lineouts is spot on but what seems to happen here with the touch judges as with the assistant referees in football for whatever reason- bottling the decision or being told not to interfere by the ref,so they tend to stick more to the "traditional" role of the the flag waver.How many times in both sports do you see something happen practically under the flag wavers nose and they dont see anything and the ref really guesses what has happened?
The 10m at lineouts is spot on but what seems to happen here with the touch judges as with the assistant referees in football for whatever reason- bottling the decision or being told not to interfere by the ref,so they tend to stick more to the "traditional" role of the the flag waver.How many times in both sports do you see something happen practically under the flag wavers nose and they dont see anything and the ref really guesses what has happened?
I think you are right, though it has been noticeable that the IRB have asked for games to 'flow' more, and it seems to be working. In this world cup referees have not been shy to use the technology available for try decisions, which adds to the game. Since the last RWC they have dedicated TMO's and touch judge panels with specific training for these specific posts. The advent of communications between line judges and the referees means that more information reaches the referee (without the need for face to face consultation, which nevertheless still goes on) who can add it to the equation.
To be honest in answering your question though, I cant recall registering this World Cup a touch judge who failed to communicate an incident to the ref. Whereas at Charlton it saeems to be every few minutes!
Sorry in the World Cup I didn't mean so much for dangerous play more for foul play, I ve not seen much dangerous play with out the touch judge getting involved this World Cup but going back to Scotlands attempted drop goal to beat Argentina springs straight to mind.Barnes was,if he was going to listen to his touch judges,in a not bad position about 5 yards from the ruck where he could see what was happening.This meant that most of the Argies defending in the midfield were behind him so this should have alerted the touch judges who in rugby both cover the whole length of the park.The call isn't difficult the off side line is behind the back foot in the ruck so no need to judge 10 metres just need daylight between the back foot and the defenders.So why did neither of them alert Barnes that they had moved to an off side position? In both sports they are wired up so why not work as a team? I love to watch flowing rugby but I do worry about the refs egos,no way should they be in rugby "household"names.I follow both sports and can name 4 times as many rugby refs than football refs.You are spot on about Charlton!
It is odd that the touch judge didnt call that one offside, but I just reviewed it here http://www.itv.com/rugbyworldcup/2011/matches/argentina-v-scotland/?cmpid=nl_110925rugby 1 min 11 in to this. The touch judge is on the near side and obscured, the referee is facing the wrong way, Contapone is standing onside this continues until 1 min 15 when he then sprinted out offside by 1.16 as the ball came out - a high risk but understandable drive to charge down the drop kick. A closer call than the studio guests suggest. Literally a split second decision. Probably why none of the post match comments from the Scots focussed on this incident.
As they say, two Argentinian penalties that hit the post should have closed the game down anyway!
Comments
Haha!
No, we're fans of Peppa Pig, but she's not on 'til later!
Well not to his face anyway!
Currently USA giving it large to the cocky Aussies, 5-10. Think the canary yellows may turn it on and win by 40+ though.
England first team will show their true colours tomorrow at 7am or 8am on +1
NZ vs France should be an epic at 9.30. NZ to take it by 20 points.
Team vs Romania:
15 Ben Foden
14 Chris Ashton
13 Manu Tuilagi
12 Mike Tindall
11 Mark Cueto
10 Jonny Wilkinson
9 Ben Youngs
1 Alex Corbisiero
2 Steve Thompson
3 Dan Cole
4 Louis Deacon
5 Tom Palmer
6 Tom Croft
7 Lewis Moody
8 James Haskell
There's always ITV +1 and a lie in until nearly 8AM.
Its a win win scenario.
Reckon on todays performances we would just shade it over France.
The French made far too many basic errors against the Kiwis who were in auto cruise mode from 20 mins on. They will win this tournament.
Tomorrow will see a fantastic game. Argentina to win against the Scots buy 10 points.
All available on 4play for those sleepy heads amongst us!
Scotland to beat Argentina in a penalty shoot out, neither side looks capable of scoring many tries. Send the Gauchos back to the pampas of Buenos Aries (or the boulevards and avenues anyway) and/or the French Riviera with a 'will get better' report.
Then next week, England to do Scotland by 10-15 points. Team selection?: Even if fit, Nick Easter should lose his place to an ever more impressive Haskell James. Lawes may not get back either, Deacon the trundler has shown great improvement, Stevens is probably doubtful thru a dodgy ankle and his scrummaging especially on the loose head looks weaker than before his long ban, so, Nat King Cole will keep his place as will Corbisiero, Thompson and Palmer, along with Croft and Moody. The backs look ever more impressive and now just need the courage and confidence to do 'it' against the stronger teams. Still have my doubts re Toby Tobias and if it comes to a last minute penalty to win J Wilko would get my vote every time. We will see.
All in all not a particularly spectacular tournament so far. The fun will start when (at last) the KO rounds come along
So good to see an 'emerging' nation doing well - their players and referees have always helped other, lesser S American teams improve by running training workshops, donating kit etc.
Poor conditions and two missed drop goals and a get-able penalty would have made my morning but it now sets up a do or die encounter Scotland vs England next weekend.
S Africa vs Wales, Ireland vs Australia, Fiji Namibia, Argentina vs England, USA vs Ireland are (in order) my other top 5 games so far this RWC - all of them outstanding efforts, exciting results and awesome spectacles.
At the last gasp why did the Scottish forwards take it back in the last time heading away from the posts and those Argie defenders must have been off side when charging down Parks attempted drop goal.
Rugby doesnt need American style ridiculous refereeing. All teams always play to the referee - ALL teams. you do what you think you can get away with. If the referee is facing the other way you may be tempted to step up offside - of course you risk giving away the penalty, so you need to impose a degree of intelligence. Which is one of the subtle joys of rugby.
As a coach you always study the referee you have for a match, certainly at National team level, in my experience.
Either way, the best team won.
Both these teams' next games will be well worth watching.
2. Both teams missed 2 drop goals.
3. Argentina missed twice as many penalites, scored the only try, achieved more turnovers despite losing twice as many lineouts and conceded fewer penalites than the Scots who lacked imagination.
4. Drop goals are fine - its the same for both teams, adds an extra dimension for the defence to consider and make it a better game. As I am sure you know, a 22 is awarded as it is the attacking team that have decided to take the ball over the line. Nobody I know has a problem with this law.
When I became a coach, part of every match preparation was an analysis of the foibles of our particular referee.
There is so much going on that there is no better system than that of ''Law interpretation by an individual''. Two, three or twenty other referees would call the same breakdown in a different way. No point in arguing or complaining, just get on with it and match your play accordingly.
Most players recognise this and play to the whistle, or quickly suffer the consequences of not doing so.
Scotland were refereed out of the game because when it came to the crunch in the last vital seconds of the game, the officials were not on the ball enough to spot that the Argentine defenders were offside as Parks prepared to drop for goal. As I have stated, I would not allow dropped goals to count from that close, BUT under the present laws, Scotland should have been awarded a penalty in front of the posts. In this case the cheats you so admire won by breaking the laws of the game. Are you so sanguine as to suggest that if a shopkeeper's eyes are averted then it's ok to pinch his stock?. How about breaking the leg of the opposition star player whilst the referee's attention is elsewhere?
I'm sure that during the game this was not the only law transgression that went unnoticed. That's why I advocate stricter officiating. Bad decisions can cost managers and players their careers whereas referees never seem to be penalised for a bad performance. I'm sure that you will recall that Barnes was the referee in RWC 2007 when France beat NZ in the 1/4 final as the result of a blatant forward pass that went unnoticed, My contention is that in a professional sport (I gather the impression that in your nostalgic tinted eyes, RU is still a jolly jape for chaps who like a run about after a pint or 2) the best possible result should be obtained, especially to prevent cheats and rogues prospering.
Dropped goals? For a long time Argentina has used the tactic of 'dropping for goal' as a way to gain ground by way of (as I outline above) relying on the missed attempt going dead with the usual result that the opposition will drop from the 22 and (in this example) Argentina will regain the ball much closer to the opposition line . A legitimate but negative tactic which, in my opinion, needs resolving. You may not know anyone who has a problem with this tactic, I know a lot of Rugby fans who do find it irksome and would also like to see negativity and blatant cheating/playing to the referee eliminated. It's OK for amateurs to get away with dodgy tricks but not professionals in a sport which generates a lot of income as well as interest.
Enjoy the rest of the tournament.
I just have to nibble at one bizarre statement you made though.
You wrote
Dropped goals? For a long time Argentina has used the tactic of
'dropping for goal' as a way to gain ground by way of (as I outline
above) relying on the missed attempt going dead with the usual result
that the opposition will drop from the 22 and (in this example)
Argentina will regain the ball much closer to the opposition line . A
legitimate but negative tactic which, in my opinion, needs resolving.
So what would they gain by going for a drop goal as opposed say to a kick for touch or a kick into space? How is it negative?
Drop goals are often caught and a counter attack is launched. As an avid reader of blogs and a subsciber to Rugby World magazine, I cannot ever remember an article even discussing the need for a change. So, this ''lot of rugby fans'' you know seem only to voice their opinion to you.
England have scored 19 drop goals so far, as, like Argentina they have two eminently capable kickers.
South Africa have 12
Argentina have scored 9, suggesting it may be slightly more productive tactic than you suggest.
In this game Scotland took twice as many drop goals and missed the same number, which again disproves your contentious view.
Missing one offside is hardly refereeing a team out of a game, is it?
Not a word from Andy Robinson, Scotland's coach, about the offside, rather he said this
"To score a try the way they did, it was Argentina that wanted to win.
They took their chance well and won the game. They had to find some
answers and they did."
Andy Robinson believes his Scotland side have
themselves to blame for the defeat by Argentina that could cost them a
World Cup quarter-final place.The Scots appeared to slacken off after going 12-6 ahead with
10 minutes to play in their Pool B encounter as Lucas Gonzalez
Amorosino scored a try."We had complete control of the game, but one slip of concentration cost us," said the coach after the 13-12 loss."First, to lose the restart, then secondly a poor defensive lapse."
How I would love to see you say what you unpleasantly wrote to me, In this case the cheats you so admire won by breaking the laws of the game, to Andy Robinson
Nice try Lincs
The touch judges can only interfere in cases of foul play and line decisions and not on offsides.
Who flags up the 10 metre line at scrums penalties and line-outs?
In this world cup referees have not been shy to use the technology available for try decisions, which adds to the game.
Since the last RWC they have dedicated TMO's and touch judge panels with specific training for these specific posts.
The advent of communications between line judges and the referees means that more information reaches the referee (without the need for face to face consultation, which nevertheless still goes on) who can add it to the equation.
To be honest in answering your question though, I cant recall registering this World Cup a touch judge who failed to communicate an incident to the ref. Whereas at Charlton it saeems to be every few minutes!
http://www.itv.com/rugbyworldcup/2011/matches/argentina-v-scotland/?cmpid=nl_110925rugby
1 min 11 in to this. The touch judge is on the near side and obscured, the referee is facing the wrong way, Contapone is standing onside this continues until 1 min 15 when he then sprinted out offside by 1.16 as the ball came out - a high risk but understandable drive to charge down the drop kick. A closer call than the studio guests suggest. Literally a split second decision. Probably why none of the post match comments from the Scots focussed on this incident.
As they say, two Argentinian penalties that hit the post should have closed the game down anyway!