blogging it real

Clive Woodward is about to be named the new Iraqi Information Minister I understand. He'd have to be after this bollocks...

"Julian White had stood on the player, and Simon couldn't get his leg away and he put his knee between the player's shoulder blades. He is not a dirty player, and it was a huge call from the touch judge, who was so far away.

"If you look at the facts, we had been given a penalty and it looked as though we were going to go 9-0 up, but it just ruined the game for the spectators.

Lets quickly dissect this shall we?

a) Julian White stood on a player which is a sinbinning offence on many occasions. He got off scott free *(see below for the law).

b) Simon Shaw had his leg nowhere near Robinson. In fact he was standing about a metre and a half away looking at Robinson before climbing in with his knee.

c) Yes, he is a dirty player. Or at least he committed a dirty act. He kneed a defenceless player.

d) If you look at the facts an English player kneed a New Zealand player on the ground and was sent off. NZ then put a 14 man English team to the sword.

e) Simon Shaw 'ruined' the game.

f) Judging by the spectators chanting "off, off, off" I'd say they weren't that upset.

g) Judging by Umaga's reaction when the red card came out I'd say he wasn't about to ask the ref to reconsider.

* Law 16.3 Rucking
(f) A player rucking for the ball must not ruck players on the ground. A player rucking for the ball tries to step over players on the ground and must not intentionally step on them. A player rucking must do so near the ball.

Penalty: Penalty kick for dangerous play.

I know Robinson was lying over the ruck but if it was ok to knee players slowing the ball down in a ruck or maul Dallaglio would probably end up in hospital every saturday. Rugby needs lines that you can't cross and kneeing players with serious intent must surely be over that line. If he stayed for that then does that mean it's ok to knee people in the future so long as they are sitting somewhere you don't want them to be. Hell my fiance is sitting on the left end of the couch right now which is where I want to sit to watch the K-League soon. Think I might go knee her in the back.

I've played rugby since I was a little whipper snapper and there have always been a few things that are a complete no-no. Firstly there are the things like, eye gouging, spitting on opponents, biting, calling the ref a naughty word and also grapping the testicles (or the 'christmas hold' as my father calls it) and I better not forget sticking your fingers up your opponents anus (thanks John Hopoate). Then there are the others such as kicking, kneeing and headbutting. Any of those things is a straight sending off offence, no questions asked (unless you wish to rewrite rugby etiquette like a certain person is trying to get away with).

The next tier down on the bad arse mutha f**ka scale has traditionally been (and still is for that matter) things like stomping on hands or over aggressive rucking (standing on players might be a decent example), punching, stiff arm tackles and several other similar offences.

I have seen dozens of players (as everybody else has also) sent off for committing those acts on tv and at club games which I have been watching or playing in. There is a reason why Dickinson and Williams went for the red card. They basically had no choice.

I thought NZ played a damn good game once again. Sure having a man sent off is going to be a pretty big handicap but the advantage of rugby is that you still have 14 guys running around tackling. It shouldn't have the affect of say... 5 tries to nil. England chose to stroll up to NZ and play two tests with no warm up games. They played better in the second test because they had had a game under their belts, and I would expect them to perhaps play a little better next week as well. But that ain't our problem. NZ has done the same thing in Europe plenty of times and done the business. Our players start training seriously in mid January and tour Europe in November quite regularly. Count the weeks.

Facing a few more FACTS...
- England put on a whole lot of fresh legs before the last quarter began.
- England won the penalty count 10-0 in the second half (17-5 overall).
- England never once seriously threatened the NZ line in the game.
- New Zealand played the last ten minutes with 14 players and still managed to score a try.
- If Lawrence Dallaglio shook his head anymore during a rugby game, it would fall off.

Basically Dallaglio runs around accusing the opposition of doing something, one second before he does it. The lineout 'discussions' were hilarious. They talked in the week about NZ closing the gap. Take a look at a replay and check out which team was closing the gap. The guy is fast becoming an average player and long ago became a whingeing cheat. He needs to learn from Martin Johnson (who was also a whingeing cheat, but an awesome player and a much better leader).

Clive Woodward on the other hand completely lacks any class. Nothing is ever his fault. NOTHING. He somehow believes that everything they do is correct, whether it is or not. If the AB's strolled up to England without a couple of our better players at the end of a long season (like we usually do) and lost by 33 and 24 points in the two tests, scoring no tries and conceding EIGHT, and had a player sent off for an unprovoked knee we would be crucified by all and sundry and our coach would be lucky to keep his job. Note our biggest loss in 383 tests is 21 against Australia in 1999. So how does it feel to lose by 24 and 33 points England? We haven't experienced it in over 100 years so you will have to share your experience with us. Our biggest loss to England was 0-13 in 1936.

Strange that you can suffer defeats that heavy though and still have Dallaglio and Woodward believing they are better than the All Blacks. What should they have beaten you by? 50 points? 60 points? 10, 12, 20 tries to none?

Here's hoping Aussie win by 10 plus. But then again maybe Woodward already has an excuse worked out which the English media and fans will lap up. There's a poll at planet rugby that has had over 12000 votes to date.

The question is Who was the villain of that encounter in Auckland?

33% of them have chosen Shaw to date while 15% trump for the ref, Nigel Williams of Wales (amazing since he went on a touch judge call which referees are entitled to do) But the man taking a beating is Stuart Dickinson with 40%. A further 3% pick Robinson (he deserved to get stood on and kneed. It's quite acceptable apparently), 5% for Dallaglio, 2% for Woodward, while they belatedly added Danny Grewcock who has picked up 2% and a 6 week suspension. How the hell can Robinson have had more votes than Grewcock?!

I see that Simon Shaw won't be punished any further but Danny Grewcock (who tends to spend most his time on the pitch looking for a chance to start a fight) has been suspended for six weeks for stomping on Daniel Carters head in the 59th minute. If it had been spotted by the officials he would have been sent off as well you would have to think. But as we all know, England play clean, fair and don't try to provoke reactions out of the opposition at all. Except for each time there was a breakdown. Graham Henry has mentioned how they were intimidated a bit and shouldn't have reacted as much as they did. Strangely these comments seem to have had sod all attention in the media.

Shaw told Woodward that the send off was "absolute bullshit" but then what would you tell a delusional boss who wants to hear nonsense like that? He could have said "I didn't do it, they got the wrong guy and the referee touched my balls at the kickoff" and Woodward would have stated it as fact to the media.