The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I avoided this thread (and any reports of the game) until I could see it played.

From my very limited viewing experience, it seemed like England really dominated the first half but couldn't transfer that onto the scoreboard. They had a couple of magnificent defensive stands that kept them in the game, though.

South Africa simply seemed to make less mistakes and capitalize on what they could. Once they had a big enough cushion, (Percy?) Montgomery seemed to play well in clearing the ball out, time after time.

Anyway, it was fun to have that game come on an hour after I finished biting my nails over the Redskins game. It's too bad the World Cup is over, because I'm not sure when I'll get regular coverage of any games next.

UK Skins Fan wrote:Oh, and wasn't it wonderful that Princes William and Harry were able to make time in their packed schedules to get to the game? And that they were able to get tickets? I'm so pleased for them.

Shame on you. That is a comment that only could come from someone somewhere in "all the small and bitter nations around the world" who root for our opponents. You sound almost ... envious of the pomp and circumstance in the "only large and happy nation around the world".

Redskin in Canada wrote:I have the suspicion though that if the game is exciting, South Africa will win by a good difference. If the game is boring, England will keep it close.

This is the best post in this thread so far. What an accurate prediction, the only good one from this poster but a good one nevertheless.

Congratulations on your second place. Well earned, boringly I might add, but well earned with tons of character. No need to try to put other opponents or countries down. It only takes away from your own achievement.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:

Oh, and wasn't it wonderful that Princes William and Harry were able to make time in their packed schedules to get to the game? And that they were able to get tickets? I'm so pleased for them.

Shame on you. That is a comment that only could come from someone somewhere in "all the small and bitter nations around the world" who root for our opponents. You sound almost ... envious of the pomp and circumstance in the "only large and happy nation around the world".

Congratulations on your second place. Well earned, boringly I might add

Well, of course you might add. In fact, you just couldn't help yourself. Never mind, you'll get over it.

Irn-Bru wrote:I avoided this thread (and any reports of the game) until I could see it played.

From my very limited viewing experience, it seemed like England really dominated the first half but couldn't transfer that onto the scoreboard. They had a couple of magnificent defensive stands that kept them in the game, though.

South Africa simply seemed to make less mistakes and capitalize on what they could. Once they had a big enough cushion, (Percy?) Montgomery seemed to play well in clearing the ball out, time after time.

Anyway, it was fun to have that game come on an hour after I finished biting my nails over the Redskins game. It's too bad the World Cup is over, because I'm not sure when I'll get regular coverage of any games next.

Just to annoy RiC, I'd like to say that this is the best post in the whole thread. Not that it isn't a good post anyway, of course.

I don't think I'd claim that England dominated the first half, but they certainly played as much of a part in the game as the South Africans did. The fact is that England's gameplan relied on South Africa making mistakes under pressure, and to their credit, they just didn't make those mistakes. And very often, it's the team that makes the least mistakes that wins the prize. Engalnd gifted away at least 9 points through indiscipline or poor decision making, and that was the difference on the scoreboard.

Oh, and let me apologise at this point to the relatives of the video replay official, and to the wider rugby watching public, for the appalling coverage of the game in yesterday's UK tabloid newspapers. Whingeing at it's very worst, these nutters idiotically argued that the official made a clear mistake in denying England the "try". They even went so far as to make capital out of the fact that the guy is Australian. Morons, the lot of them.

For those still lamenting the lack of flowing rugby in the latter stages of the World Cup, this link highlights the currently proposed changes to the rules.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6165032.stm

I have no problem with any of them, except the proposed change to allow mauls to be collapsed by the defending team. Everything I've ever heard says that allowing this to happen is dangerous. Otherwise, I say let's get these changes in place.

UK Skins Fan wrote:For those still lamenting the lack of flowing rugby in the latter stages of the World Cup, this link highlights the currently proposed changes to the rules.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6165032.stm

I have no problem with any of them, except the proposed change to allow mauls to be collapsed by the defending team. Everything I've ever heard says that allowing this to happen is dangerous. Otherwise, I say let's get these changes in place.

I agree also - these adaptions have apparently already been tried in Australia and they all seem keen to see these rules used in the big games as well.

UK Skins Fan wrote:For those still lamenting the lack of flowing rugby in the latter stages of the World Cup, this link highlights the currently proposed changes to the rules.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6165032.stm

Those of us are happy with -any- effort to preserve what is great about Rugby but they also make the game more attractive and appealing beyond the boundaries of a few traditional Rugby-playing nations.

Just as long as they don't turn the game into rugby league, version 2. Remember, there are 8 forwards on each team, and they should remain a big part of the game.

So much of this thread confuses me, like I have no idea what a maul is and why one would not want a defense collapsing it

Fios wrote:So much of this thread confuses me, like I have no idea what a maul is and why one would not want a defense collapsing it

In my opinion, to explain this to an American would require approximately the same length of time as it would take to drink 3.4 pints of good beer. I think it's my round next...

UK Skins Fan wrote:

Fios wrote:So much of this thread confuses me, like I have no idea what a maul is and why one would not want a defense collapsing it

In my opinion, to explain this to an American would require approximately the same length of time as it would take to drink 3.4 pints of good beer. I think it's my round next...

So what, you can't spare 2 minutes of your time?

UK Skins Fan wrote:

Fios wrote:So much of this thread confuses me, like I have no idea what a maul is and why one would not want a defense collapsing it

In my opinion, to explain this to an American would require approximately the same length of time as it would take to drink 3.4 pints of good beer. I think it's my round next...

Aye, that it is amigo

UK Skins Fan wrote:Just as long as they don't turn the game into rugby league, version 2. Remember, there are 8 forwards on each team, and they should remain a big part of the game.

You and I may enjoy the game like it is now. Let me be honest, if New Zealand had won the Tournament, I probably would have been as unconcerned as you are about the type of game played. Let me say with equal honesty that I suspect that you also appreciated the Tournament not necessarily because how it was played but because England arrived to the final.

You and I would enjoy a victory by the Redskins whether it is spectacular or not. Considering the ball-control, smash-mouth approach by Joe Gibbs, we are in the same wavelength. But would we watch Baltimore play against Tampa? You would have to give me a free ticket and tons of food and beer to follow the entire game. While, on the other hand, everybody is already talking about Colts v. Patriots and Peyton v. Brady showdown next week.

Changes in the rules are needed to make it more attractive and appealing to the non-Rugby nations around the world. If Rugby is to really stand a chance in North America, it must change.

However, I am as cautious (and even zealous) as you are about any unneeded changes though. Do not mess up too much with that great sport. By the way, what is Rugby League?

Redskin in Canada wrote:By the way, what is Rugby League?

Actually, I have no desire to rubbish rugby league - it's a great game in its own right, but I just think that it lacks the essential balance that a great sport needs. There is a balance to be struck between the sort of free flowing expansive rugby that we all enjoy, and the power and control game that is a large part of the way England played this month. Lose that balance in either direction, and I believe that the game is up.

And as for making rugby a success in the US, who cares? It's their loss. I know you referred to North America, but we all know that the US is THE prize for global sports businesses.

JSPB22 wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:

Fios wrote:So much of this thread confuses me, like I have no idea what a maul is and why one would not want a defense collapsing it

In my opinion, to explain this to an American would require approximately the same length of time as it would take to drink 3.4 pints of good beer. I think it's my round next...

So what, you can't spare 2 minutes of your time?

To some of us, two minutes can seem like a lifetime in, ahem, certain circumstances.

Fios wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:

Fios wrote:So much of this thread confuses me, like I have no idea what a maul is and why one would not want a defense collapsing it

In my opinion, to explain this to an American would require approximately the same length of time as it would take to drink 3.4 pints of good beer. I think it's my round next...

Aye, that it is amigo

Not long ago the Rugby League game was only played by professionals and Union was only played by amateurs - all rugby players now are professional players.

There is a really simple difference - in the Rugby League game when a player is tackled the opposing team must allow him to then get off the ground and put the ball on the ground and roll it back to another player on his team who can then run or pass the ball - in the Rugby Union game, when a player is tackled the game does not pause for anything and the ball is very much "alive" and the action continues - there are only 13 players on a Rugby League team and 15 on a Rugby Union team - the scrum and forward play is a lot more important to Union fans!

hail