“Whilst you are emphasizing every mistake of the kiwi's you are forgetting everything the kangaroos got away with.”
I did not emphasise any mistake at all made the New Zealand team. I am also not talking about “everything the Kangaroos got away with”, not that you are able to specify any instances in particular. I am instead talking about rules (that the referees had to be aware of) being ignored and inconsistently applied throughout the entirety of the match.
“It also doesn't help that the ref was an australian. before he resided to the uk.”
This makes absolutely no difference to my point. Even the commentators who were Australian, anyone with a vested interest in the outcome of that match, wanted New Zealand to win to promote the code as a world game and inspire a global audience that international rugby league is not a one-sided affair.
“The kangaroos surely deserved what they got, especially seeing how overconfident they were.”
What overconfidence? The fact that they were correctly given superior odds of beating New Zealand in the final? The fact that they chose to walk towards the haka, rather than just stand there like normal and pretend they actually care? I think neither of these facts led them to be deserved of being screwed in order to contribute to the promotion of the code.
“It was also a disgrace to see that Joel Monaghan had taken out Lance Hohaia knowing that he never had the ball. That just goes to show the dirty tactics of the australian team.”
Maybe it was the efforts of a man who had been driven to doing anything physically possible in attempt to stop the screw job that was so clearly taking place on the Australian team.
“im not gonna read it...
Dear Kangaroos...you belong to us now!!!!!!! NZ owned since Saturday 22 November 2008 at 8:50pm EST 2008......ITS A GOOD DAY FOR NZ RL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
I’m glad that the outcome of the world cup pleased you and you are not even interested to digest how that outcome was made possible. You are exactly the kind of person this outcome was tailored for.
“Australia should have had the talent to overcome this.”
As good as Australia are, I don’t think any team could have overcome the odds that wereset against them in that Grand Final, nor were they meant to be able to.
“the Aussies hadn't been under pressure for the whole tournament, and when the heat was on, they didn't know what to do.”
The problem is that the heat wasn’t coming from the opposition team, rather the creation of a double-standard set of rules that could only lead to one possible outcome.
“So rather than looking for some far reaching conspiracy at the highest level of the game, you should probably look to the aussie's perforance... I'm sure that's what they'll be doing”
Well it appears that they don’t seem to be doing that. Instead Ricky Stuart realised exactly the same reason New Zealand were gifted victory. He just decided to speak about it two days after I did.
“IF U THINK UR SO SMART WHY DONT U GO AND BE A REFEREE LOSER”
A law career will offer me much more enjoyment and financial reward than becoming a referee.
“UR THE FIRST PESRON IVE HEARD CRY ABOUT VATUVEI BEIN OFFSIDE..LIKE SERIOUSLY..WHO PICKS THOSE THINGS OUT..LIKE..EVERYONES WATCHIN THE ACTION ON FIELD WHILE UR BUSY POINTIN OUT PEOPLE RUNNIN ON THE SIDELINE! GOOD ONE SORE LOSER...”
Wasn’t that hard to see and it did happen on the field, I’m not suggesting he tackled him after sitting on the bench. It was plain and simple that Marshall kicked the ball with the New Zealander’s in front of him (Vatuvei was only 10 meters in front of him, still in the scope of the camera) and they illegally became involved in the play and pushed Williams out. Given the touch judge is paid to see it and was a lot closer to it than me, maybe he was more interested in “watchin the action on field” and seeing the New Zealander’s give to Australia what everyone wanted, rather than concentrating on the simple rule of offside.
“HOW SAD ARE THE OZI'S! THEY DIDNT EVEN DO A LAP OF HONOUR! CAUZ THERE WAS STILL LIKE OZI' FANS WAITIN IN THE STANDS WHERE I WAS FOR THE OZI TEAM TO DO A LAP OF HONOUR BUT THEY WENT TO THE DRESSING ROOM AND CRIED INSTEAD!”
Seriously dude, do you think they were in any mood to be doing a lap of honour after just losing a world cup final. I have a strange feeling that you would have ridiculed them regardless, had they in fact done a lap of honour after losing the match.
“AND INGLIS GOT LIEK STAGE FRIGHT!”
Yes, he does appear to be the kind of player prone to stage fright. It’s not like he won a grand final for his team and won origin for his state last year. But I’m sure he was scared by a second-rate New Zealand side… must have been that haka ay?
“and who did aus have?
ohhh how bowt they had the whole of queensland with the exception of dalas johnson and crocker and scatterd nsw joel, stewart, wolfman, kite and gallen”
You are ridiculing the Australian side because it was full of Queensland players? Geez, I never considered that as the reason we lost. It’s a shame that the Queensland side would destroy New Zealand in a series, and that’s coming from a loyal supporter of NSW.
“maybe nexttime aus will think about koopa cronk and matty orford next time . . sam thaiday and mark o'meley next time”
I’m sure if we had played Cronk and Orford instead of the two best halves in the world that the result still would have been the same. New Zealand would still have remained the better team to promote the advancement of the international form of rugby league.
“and seriously greg inglis is a wonderfull winger and better fullback and one of the best left centers the game has ever seen
but to be called to international five eighth of the year??”
I believe that the international five-eight of the year would be the man that actually played five-eight for his international team. Given that was Darren Lockyer, I don’t quite understand what you are complaining about.
“darren lockyer man of the match in the RLW08 final was seen comming a mile away
1) his last world cup
2) hes the captain
3) they wern'e sposed to loose. .however in the event of a loss he was always gana get the dam thing
4)he got 2 pissy tries”
Who else would you have given it to? The referee?
“2013 Cup Final. I was at the game and the better side won. The Aussies pannicked under pressure! All in all, it was a great game!”
That’s pretty awesome that you can see into the future. Did we lose that game legitimately, or was that a screw-job as well?
“that penalty try could have gone either way, and we still would have won without it. we played really well, but the aussie media are more interested in blaming the loss on either the ref”
I have no doubt you would have won without the penalty try. It is simply used as an example of how the referees were instructed to decide the result of the match. Had the penalty try been disallowed, along with the ridiculous play-on when Marshall clearly lost the ball, as well as the last try not being awarded for the four New Zealand players offside, as well as Eastwood visibly taking the ball off Williams actually being penalised, as well as Williams being pushed into touch from offside players, as well as Perrett having the same thing done to him and New Zealand getting a penalty…. I’m sure there was plenty of other rules that the referees could have chosen to manipulate to New Zealand’s benefit in order to get them a win had the penalty try been disallowed (not that it was ever going to be).
“i think its reallly sad that stuart is trying to take the glory away from our win by saying that it was a set up. surely an australian coach should be more gracious in defeat then that?”
I’m glad to hear that you would graciously accept getting screwed over. Maybe Stuart just doesn’t have the tolerance that you have…. or maybe he’s human and prone to anger at a lack of equality.
“if you want to look at rigged how does a player from the losing team who was out played alnight get man of the match.”
I agree it is pretty sad that a player from the losing team still manages to out-perform every player on the other team despite the game being rigged in their favour. Makes you question just how superior Australia actually are, or maybe the man of the match selectors didn’t get the same pre-game pep-talk that the referees were given, about how everything had to go New Zealand’s way for the greater outcome in the longevity of the code.
“ I feel it is pertinent to clarify the Penalty Try rule for you ... In both rugby league and in rugby union, if the referee believes that a try has been prevented by the defending team's misconduct, he may award the attacking team a penalty try. Penalty tries are always awarded under the posts regardless of where the offence took place. In rugby union, the standard applied by the referee is that a try "probably" would have been scored. The referee does not have to be certain a try would have been scored. In rugby league, the referee "may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team."”
Thanks for that, but how does it change my claim? How can anybody’s opinion (besides an unbiased one) be that Hohaia would have scored that try given that Slater, who was closest to the ball, simply had to knock it out of play before Hohaia got there and grounded it?
“It is important to remember that the " Obstrution " in this case was an illegal head high tackle quite different to the Hohia vs Minichello incident.”
Whilst this may affect whether the decision should have been a penalty, it in no way changes the degree of certainty that Hohaia would have indeed scored the try, and therefore has no bearing on whether the penalty try should have been awarded. Under the ruling that you just quoted the severity of the obstruction has no bearing on the decision of a penalty try.
“I didn't see anything that seemed that extreme.”
Were you taking a toilet break when the last try was awarded when four New Zealand players where in front of the New Zealand player that kicked the ball? The commentators even said that there was no way the try could be awarded under the rules of the game. You don’t find that fact that it was an extreme breach of the offside rule?
“but I thought there were valid reasons for the calls that were made”
Ok, tell me what the reason was for that last try being awarded.
“Our play was inventive and we didn't give up hope when we were behind early in the first half, this threw the Aussies off their game”
Your argument is well-argued, and supported by lots of detailed examples, that Australia was thrown off their game because New Zealand did not simply give up and submit. I am, however, not dissuaded from my belief that the referees had a far greater impact on the pressure exerted on Australia than the lack of a forfeit from the New Zealander’s.
“As far as I can see, there is no evidence to show that Australia were denied all scoring opportunites due to the officials. Australia, playing at there best, should have posted close to 20 points in the second half. They only posted 4.”
It’s pretty hard to mount scoring opportunities when you are already being penalized for playing within the laws of the game.
“NZ has always had talented league players and our current pool has real stars in it. Those Australians that can't handle that fact need to get over it.”
Well said, in fact it could have been the tag-line for the entire World Cup. Rugby league is still internationally an interesting game because New Zealand is developing a few ‘star players’. So next time Australia play someone, don’t churn out the crowd of 15, 000 that attended the world cup semi final, instead keep your hopes high that these ‘star’ players will pull off a result like the great 2008 New Zealand team. Any Australians that can’t handle that need to conform their views to the perfectly timed victory of New Zealand in that bull *** grand final.
Sorry mate, for some reason I just don’t buy into that.
“ I am gutted that Australia lost but have a big fat smile that the Kiwis won and that we have a new world champion. There seem to be some positive moves coming out for the international scene now...”
Yes, appears to be the general consensus from even those that go for Australia. Rugby league will be better served by having new World Cup winners, rather than continual Australian victories. Exactly the reason that New Zealand had to win this match.
“I think NZ would have beaten any Aus side that night, they were a team posessed.”
I also think that any team that has a game manipulated to their benefit would be able to contest a game of rugby league against the Australians.
“they kept the mistaked down, played high percentage pootball”
I guess it’s pretty easy to keep the mistakes down when players can tackle from offside positions like Vatuvei, tries can be scored with four players offside, an error from Perrett to run at the Australian defence (rather than submit) will be rewarded with a penalty, and players like Eastwood clearly raking a ball out will be rewarded with his team gaining possession.
“Now if you look at the last 3 series Australia and Nz have played its 2-1 to NZ and the 2006 final was only won in extra time. Australia also on average loses 1 match in each international series. If those stats were to be true than Aus had to lose this match.... a fellow poster on another site pointed this out... and he tipped the Kiwis to win.”
Are you serious? People are labeling my theory ludicrous, well what must this be by comparison? You are suggesting that Australia lost this match because historically they have lost one match a series. Well Queensland have won the last three state of origin series’, so does that mean we should just not play the series next year and give them the trophy based on your argument that results are defined by recent historical statistics?
“Beautiful... it was an amazing comp and the Final was exactly what the WC and IRL needed. Lets hope we can contimue on from here with this.”
I wonder if there was any incentive to get New Zealand over the line, knowing that another win to Australia would mean “just another league cup win” to the population of Australia, or an opening of new financial possibilities if New Zealand were to come away with the win.
“Firstly the Marshall "knock on". Question: would Benji have lost the ball if there had not been an Aussie hand reefing the ball out that the replay clearly showed? Some talk about ball security but what is the difference between this and the incident where Leuleui was penalised in the second half which also looked like poor ball security. So, play on, legitimate try.”
Lafranchi unintentionally knocked the ball out of Marshall’s hands. Whether the ball would have come out if Laffranchi’s hand had not touched the ball is irrelevant. Where there was no intent from the defender to play at the ball, the impotence of ball security is judged the attacker’s fault. How often have you watched a game where a tackler has knocked the ball out of an attacker’s possession with a shoulder barge and the referee has ruled play on?
This is different to the penalty involving Leuleui, because it was clearly shown that the ball was intentionally flicked out of Watmough’s hands.
“I think the most unlucky call was the penalty for the force back over the goal line but I've seen similar calls in the NRL.”
My point was that we didn’t see a similar call 5 minutes earlier when the exact same thing happened to Williams.
“In that shot it clearly looked like Hohaia had momentum and angle and would have beaten Slater to the ball.”
Are you serious? Slater was right next to the ball at the time the ‘obstruction’ occurred.
“The ball was clearly stripped from Marshalls grip in a two man tackle and the Ref choosing to allow play to continue rather than just blowing a penalty was an excellent decision considering the free flow allowed the try to come ...”
There was no intent from Lafranchi to knock the ball out of Marshall’s hands, therefore it is not deemed to be a strip. You cannot tell me that Lafranchi on Marshall was a strip, but Eastwood tugging the ball off Williams with both hands wasn’t.
“The Williams call may have been 50/50 but there was momentum and the Ref had not called held so in my view fair call ...”
Yes, and Perrett was standing perfectly still when the Australians barged him. Oh no….. that’s right, he was being continually driven back.
“The only person whose opinion matters about the Penalty Try is the Man who made it on the night”
Yes, the rules state that. The rules also state that a penalty try should not have been ruled in that situation due to reasons aforementioned. But with keeping in the spirit of that game I guess we should only enforce the rules that favour New Zealand ay?
“Williams was still making forward progress hence no held call unlike the kiwi's one where the forward progress had stopped.”
You have a strange understanding of forward progress.