I just wanted to say thanks for posting all these. I live in America and I am tired of all the cray baby players we have here. I found Rugby, watched and learned, and fell in love. I watch all I can . Again, thank you.
“Vampiric”? I don’t understand what that means. I quite like the combination of Stuart Barnes and Miles Harrison. They are fair and informative. Just compare their, and his, commentary in the series payed in Australia in 2016 to that by Australian commentators in the same series. I thought the English commentators, including Barnes, were far more balanced and intelligent.
@@sockington1 "sensationalist bollocks"? Seriously be quiet. Showing both anthems and teams walking out adds to the atmosphere and it parto f the match build up. Take your own advice and go watch your "Soccer= Footballing bollocks.
Cleans the specs of the grumpygramps….. I get the grumpygramps part, I don’t get your lacking ability to give a fair minded opinion regarding this match…. Jeez man quit playing the hard done by victim, truth be told, far more others are victims of the aussies sense of fair play, honestly and sportsmanship.
How was gold 7 offside for his try? 7 was offside at 13s kick also 14 was onside for this kick, then the next player to touch the ball was 14 it looks like he kicked the ball to the right. At this point in time 7 was behind 14 and onside for this kick. I am still new to rugby and am trying to learn the game by watching games and reading World Rugby Law pdf. Lol or is he in violation of the 10 meter law? But the law book also say that an offside player is put onside as soon as an offside player retires behind a onside player.
I know I’m coming to this late so you might not get my comment. At the point 13 kicks 7 is in front and therefore,offside If 7 does not interfere with play he is not liable to sanction. An extreme example would be left winger kicks the ball and right winger 40 metres away is in front. Technically right winger is offside but it would be ruinous to the game to penalise him. Referees refer to this as ‘material’ to the game. BUT as soon as 7 takes a step forward he is compounding his offside position and makes himself liable to sanction. Had 7 stopped and waited to be put onside by either 13 or 14 he would have complied and been able to then continue. The law requires him to retire but a reasonable referee would be satisfied if he stood still and wait to be put onside as long as by standing still he does not affect the game. Unless he is within 10 metres of where the ball lands then his only option is to retire, immediately. 7 made no attempt to place himself onside and therefore was liable to sanction. A penalty against him for offside. Of course if 7 waited to be put onside he would not have been in a position to ground the ball. Your assumption that a player who is onside can run in front of an offside player and put them onside is correct. The offside player cannot, however, move forward until he is put onside.
As a wallabies fan rewatching 6 years later, this match still makes me want to kill myself. A year in the life of a wallabies fan involves one massive clutch win that's really satisfying, and then we just proceed to lose 5 matches in a row afterwards. I mean come on, we lost to Italy last year, that's how bad its gotten. Hopefully eddie will rough up the players into a decent team this year.
how was they bias? Most of the time they disagreed with the decisions made against australia lol? example: the steven moore obstruction situation - hoopers yellow card - hoopers potential try.. and more.
@@matin1122 That is what I call tokenism. The overall temper is however heavily pro England. That you are able to single out these comments is proof of my contention.
England was lucky with the decisions. Two Wallabies' tries questionably disallowed and one English try questionably given That's a potential 21 point swing in England's favour. That was bound to sap the Wallabies' confidence which is crucial. P.S. Not unsurprisingly there are many English supporters who disagree with me. However that is true of every match. The referees always make questionable decisions that tend to favour one side or another. it is part of the modern game and one has to accept it. Over the years the number of rules has increased so that today it is difficult to see the wood for the trees. Now we find teams playing to draw penalties when they are within kicking distance, instead of trying to score tries. The game has become more like American football every year, highly structured. If you disagree try watching games from the 1970's and compare them with games today, even from the beginning of the century. It is debatable which game is more entertaining but that they are very different is self evident.
To me the 2nd try for the aussies is pretty clear as offside as well, as there was a man in front of the ball carrier blocking the tackle. It's irrelevant if the tackle would've been effective or not, it's the fact that he never got the chance to make a clean tackle.
@@matthias2756 I get it Matt, you support England and see the game from that point of view. Personally I am not involved in that way, so I believe I am more objective, naturally.
Ya gotta love Mr Underhill. Typical British Bulldog..leave all the aussies to run their mouths about just how good they all think themselves to be… Mr Underhill quietly goes about proving just how good he truly is. Same too regarding Mr Launchberry (sp), Mr Lawes and a few other of our English players. These guys replicate all those brave airman who stood so defiantly against overwhelming odds. Britain, never, ever will be afraid of those who run their big mouths.
Here we are in 2024….anyone remember the wannabee who never willbee , the aussie 1 minute wonder foley .? … Marler, Itoge, Underhill, Cole, Launchberry and a host of other great rugby players for England will always come before fluffy foley.
