England 3 Lions:

Anonymous:

I am very talented with my tongue

Translation: Your forked tongue is quite adept at telling lies.

Haaahahaha!... and probably put to good use too, with the ‘lads’ at the local gay-bar, servicing the boys, while dancing to YMCA!

SELUMAN-2:

England 3 Lions:

Anonymous:

I am very talented with my tongue

Translation: Your forked tongue is quite adept at telling lies.

Haaahahaha!... and probably put to good use too, with the ‘lads’ at the local gay-bar, servicing the boys, while dancing to YMCA!

Ha!  He probably dreams about using it on his favourite soccer players.

England 3 Lions:

SELUMAN-2:

England 3 Lions:

Anonymous:

I am very talented with my tongue

Translation: Your forked tongue is quite adept at telling lies.

Haaahahaha!... and probably put to good use too, with the ‘lads’ at the local gay-bar, servicing the boys, while dancing to YMCA!

Ha!  He probably dreams about using it on his favourite soccer players.

Lol!!!!

Yeah, while they’re lying in the foetal position, after taking another dive for penalties!

 

SELUMAN-2:

England 3 Lions:

SELUMAN-2:

England 3 Lions:

Anonymous:

I am very talented with my tongue

Translation: Your forked tongue is quite adept at telling lies.

Haaahahaha!... and probably put to good use too, with the ‘lads’ at the local gay-bar, servicing the boys, while dancing to YMCA!

Ha!  He probably dreams about using it on his favourite soccer players.

Lol!!!!

Yeah, while they’re lying in the foetal position, after taking another dive for penalties!

 

They probably assume the foetal position whenever they think about his forked tongue coming after them.  No wonder there are so many sports psychologists and therapists contracted to soccer clubs.

OR708 - I see you're still whinging like a little baby.

Yet the scoreline remains. 34 – 20. Eat on that for dinner. Every night for the next 5 years!!! Mwahahhaa

Face the facts – your team lost, and you’re acting like an insecure little boy who can’t handle losing. Once again, let me reiterate that a good team is able to overcome bad refereeing decisions and play on with the game. This has been a hallmark of any Australian team in the past and unfortunately for them they lost the game because they were unable to do this on the night. You play to the whistle and get on with the game. Across the whole park, they were outplayed, outmanned and outgunned by the New Zealanders.

The Kangaroos have a team of superstars in every position and like I said, on paper they should absolutely thrash any team in the world. But it just shows that the Australians can have a bay day and they played like a bunch of rudderless individuals with no direction and no team spirit in the final. Where as the New Zealanders played like a complete team in the face of adversity. They had better tactics - Fien’s kicking was sublime as he turned around the Aussie back three time and time again, Marshall’s ball movements were fantastic and the forwards muscled up on offense and defense, chewing up metres and smashing the Australians into oblivion. Even little ol Thomas Leuluai put Glenn Stewart on his backside with a mighty shoulder barge. Oh the shame.

You are a pathetic person for blaming the referee for the loss when the Kangaroos fired blanks like you do when you can be bothered shagging your ugly sheila once a month. Just man up and accept that the Kangaroos lost because they played like crap. They couldn’t stop the Kiwis onslaught on defense, and only managed one try in the 2nd half because of the superior Kiwis defensive wall. Your opinion is worthless and you’re acting like a child, trying to blame others for your “mighty” Kangaroos team when you and them should be blaming themselves for sucking so much on Saturday night. Oh and maybe instead of getting cancer, you could go and catch a brick with your face.

Aussie aussie aussie, CHOKE CHOKE CHOKE!

You sound like you are having a tough time accepting the facts.All that *** you typed sounded like a sore loser to me.

Your opinion is crap and you must be blind.Are you sure you watched the game?

Is that you Ricky cry baby Stewart?.....Go the Kiwi's.Hahahahahahaha.

OR708:

I have been busy defending the value of the Rugby League World Cup over the past few weeks. Many of my friends have stated their beliefs that it was a pointless competition which Australia would dominate and few people would even care about. My position on the Cup was that it would offer the rugby league supporters a chance to see the greatest players of Australia put together some magical performances, regardless of the lack of true competitiveness offered by the opposition. I failed to understand how the majority of people I discussed the cup with could begrudge the idea of witnessing the swift and sensational Queensland backline, combining with the predominantly NSW forward line, who offered a large amount of strength and determination.

                I remained unyielding in my position that the Cup was a fantastic display of a mixture of some of the greatest talents in the world, even when my friend raised the point that an out-of-form Sydney FC drew a larger crowd attendance at the SFS than the Rugby League World Cup Semi-final. I was satisfied that whilst each nation got to play on a grand stage and compete with this great Australian team there would surely the positives would outweigh any negatives. What I was not counting on, was for the World Cup to be exploited in order to shamelessly advertise the fact that rugby league is not simply a one nation sport.  

                I guess it became a question of whether this cup was really promoting the value in the code of Rugby League when Australia was going into the Grand Final of the cup with a for/against aggregate of 164 points after four games against the ‘best the world has to offer’. No, in order for this cup to be a success the world had to be shown some incentive that this was not a code with a dying interest in the for-gone conclusions that were the product of its international fixtures. Instead, the promotion of Rugby League as an “evolving” game would be used to set a precedent that rugby league internationals hold appeal and opportunity for other nations besides Australia.

                Enter New Zealand.

It is human nature to hope that the underdogs will prosper and provide a form of incentive that anything is possible. Schadenfreude refers to the research that has been carried out, proving that chemicals in our brain make it our natural instinct to hope that the high and mighty will fall. However, I question the inspiration that a victory offers when it is manufactured through the manipulation and ignorance of fundamental rules.

                Whilst I understand that referees will make mistakes on certain judgement calls, they are ofcourse only human and susceptible to error, what was unacceptable last night was that certain rules were deemed unenforceable at particular times in the game simply to secure New Zealand the unbelievable victory that would draw a large amount of interest towards the code and abolish the stigma that only one nation can truly prosper in the game of rugby league.   

                From my previous viewings of rugby league I was stunned to see that the try scored by Ropati was awarded by the video referee. The precedent has been set that when the tackler is not playing at the ball and accidentally knocks it out of the attacker’s possession, it is ruled to be a knock-on. In order to protect the feasibility of the game this has to remain the rule, otherwise tackles that dislodge the ball can be ruled to be play on. The video referee instead decided to rule that the responsibility of Marshall controlling the ball actually resided with the tackler, Laffranchi, and awarded the try.

 Whilst I struggled to understand how the try could be awarded, it was only made worse by the fact that this newly established precedent did not even last the for the entirety of the match. After this ruling had been made to award the try, Williams carried the ball forward in a tackle and was clearly raked of possession by Eastwood. I was expecting the previous ruling to be upheld, but instead it was ruled to be a knock-on by Williams and the authority I get for this is the commentators saying that it was a poor carry and it is up to the ball-carrier to retain possession of the ball in a tackle. The only circumstance that was different here from the Marshall incident was an aggravating one on the behalf of New Zealand, the fact that Eastwood was intentionally trying to pull the ball out of William’s grasp. Instead the ruling completely contradicts the ruling that it was not Marshalls fault for the ball coming out. New Zealand are rewarded possession for this inconsistent ruling and go onto score in that set.

Another incident involving William’s resulted in the prejudicial treatment of the Australian team. After putting up a bomb kick the ball rebounded to Marshall, who instinctively chipped the ball which was caught by Williams. Vatuvei had chased through the earlier kick and had run out of the field of play at least ten meters in front of Marshall when the kick was put through. Vatuvei comes from behind Williams, and he and two other New Zealand players in offside positions push Williams over the touchline. The touch judge was roughly two meters away from where Williams was bundled into touch and would have clearly noticed that Vatuvei come from well in front of the kicker to make the tackle, given that he had to run backwards to catch Williams. My only reasoning here is that the touch judge chose to ignore the offside rule and once again gift New Zealand possession close to their own line.

In that incident Williams was picked up and driven by the New Zealanders a fair distance in order to force him into touch. Yet, later on when Australian players do the same driving tackle to Perrett they are instead penalised. There was no indication that the momentum of the player with the ball ever halted, and rather than being punished, the Australian’s should instead have been rewarded with a line drop-out. If the referee did indeed call held, it begs the question as to why he did not apply the same judgement of a completed tackle when four New Zealander’s were driving William’s out of touch. Whilst referees are afforded mistakes, we at least request they remain consistent to conceal their bias.

However all of this put together was only tantamount to my disbelief at what occurred during the judgement of what was deemed to be a penalty try. Back in September a penalty try was awarded to the Roosters Minichello when he was obstructed going for a putdown by Hohaia. This decision was ridiculed by the commentary team because there was no certainty that Minichello would have scored the try. So imagine my disbelief when that same panel of commentators start petitioning for a penalty try to be awarded last night, when it was not even probable that Hohaia would have scored. To say that there was no reasonable doubt that Hohaia would have scored that try, when Billy Slater was in fact closer to the ball, is to summarise that situation with a large amount of unquestionable bias. One only had to listen to the commentators, those with a vested interest in the success of the code, contradicting themselves from only two months earlier to see which team had to win the match.

The final try being awarded was the icing on the cake, and symbolic of the chosen winners being gifted the World Cup. This time even the commentators admit that the try cannot be awarded due to the fact that several New Zealand players are in front of the kicker, within a ten meter radius of the ball. Whether they are involved in the scoring of the try is irrelevant according to the laws of the game, as they can still play an influence in preventing a player from getting to the ball. Even though the commentators state this try cannot be awarded, they still have an inclination to believe that it will. I thought surely they would not further manipulate the rules in a way that would make the bias so ridiculously visible to all who watch the game. Up comes that green light one more time (after all, who gives a *** about the rules).  

Darren Lockyer is awarded man of the match, an indication that realistically the winning side were undeserved winners. Honestly, who would you give man of the match to for New Zealand? Two of their tries were absolute rubbish, made possible from match officials willing to ignore fundamental rules of the game, and the rest came off several piggy-back offside penalties awarded when New Zealand were struggling to make territory.

Well New Zealander’s, the commentators, the match officials, the rest of the world, and even certain Australians, can now rejoice that international rugby league is not a predictable affair and there is more than one truly competitive nation. However, to believe that, is to believe that last night’s game was in keeping with the principles of equity and that neither side winning presented a greater amount of publicity and appraisal for the game of rugby league.

Keep in mind that these are the opinions of a fan of rugby league who greatly anticipated the world cup. However, my belief was that world cups are used as a form of recognition for the best team in the world, not to shamelessly promote the game of something that it isn’t (an even contest). So no longer will I defend the importance of world cups to the vast majority of those around me who claim it to be a pointless affair. Though I guess it would only be fair to give England a go with the cup again in 2012. I’m sure that a New Zealander referee would be more than happy to reciprocate after last night’s performance by Ashley Klein and Steve Ganson.  

 

OR708. WTF?!? Are you that obsessed with your conspiracy theory that you need to refute any opinions others have? I just watched the game again and it was great. Your over-analysis is rediculous. I don't watch league to look for flaws in the reffing, I watch the game. After a second viewing I still can't see the conspiracy. You can't give credit where credit is due. The Kiwis played an awesome game.

The penalty try. Watch it again. Hohaia would have got the ball on the full. Slater had to wait for the bounce.

KIWIS!!!!

OR708 -  as a person who understands schadenfreude you should be capable of understanding averages and precedents . Of the last three major Rugby league finals played since 2005( 2 x tri nations and 1 World cup final) involving Australia and New Zealand, the Kiwis have won two and and the third was a very close fought encounter which went to golden point. The 2005 final was won 24 nil by New Zealand , was that also an unfair encounter ? New Zealand Rugby League has a lot to be grateful to Australia for , particularly for inviting a New Zealand side into the best and toughest football competition in the world. Even with some doubt over decisions on Saturday the Kiwis were the better side on the night, perhaps not 14 points better but still winners. A great side deals with adversity and overcomes it. As witnessed by the 24 nil victory  in 2005 the kiwis beating Australia is not unprecedented.Why are you so shocked? Perhaps the psychology of DENIAL should concern you more than shadenfreude. Do you honestly think top officials could be bribed or coerst into cheating, even for the good of the game  or stupid enough to let themselves interpret decisions less then objectively for the greater good? Shame on you for thinking such a thing but then DENIAL does strange things to people.         

bray:

OR708. WTF?!? Are you that obsessed with your conspiracy theory that you need to refute any opinions others have? I just watched the game again and it was great. Your over-analysis is rediculous. I don't watch league to look for flaws in the reffing, I watch the game. After a second viewing I still can't see the conspiracy. You can't give credit where credit is due. The Kiwis played an awesome game.

The penalty try. Watch it again. Hohaia would have got the ball on the full. Slater had to wait for the bounce.

KIWIS!!!!

Well said Bray

I just watched the replay/high lights, and hell yeah Hohaia would have caught the ball over the line and on the full! Slater was coming in from the opposite side and was there too, but Hohaia was in the motion of diving to catch the ball on the full!

What is more staggering is the question… Wht the hell wasn’t Monaghan sin binned, that tackle without the ball, in the act of diving for the ball, was blatant & cinical!

But then again, why should we have to explain our case…. We’re the reigning World Champs for petes sake… so F all you whingers!

To all the noble humble Aussie supporters, ya’ll still have a bad ass team, and unlucky for you’s, the final was that very game when we seem to knock you over in every 5-6 games so…

To our Kiwi’s… hell yeah! Whatever the results are for the next 5 long ass bloody years, that stunning title remains:

WORLD CHAMPIONS!

 

i couldnt see the game coz it wasnt on in the part of the world im in so had 2 listen 2 my wife describe the game and she was saying how much support the english supporters were giving the kiwis and even breaking into the Haka with the kiwi supports at the end ,big ups to you guys for the support during the game .

kiwis:

i couldnt see the game coz it wasnt on in the part of the world im in so had 2 listen 2 my wife describe the game and she was saying how much support the english supporters were giving the kiwis and even breaking into the Haka with the kiwi supports at the end ,big ups to you guys for the support during the game .

I was about 10 metres away from the group of Kiwi supporters who performed the Haka.  There were quite a few of them there.

WOOOOO HOOOO KIWIS BABY!!! THATS RIGHT OZZIE ITS THE RIGHT GAMES THAT MATTER!

I can see you've put an enormous amount of thought into expressing your opinion of the game and the World Cup for your Team. However you should accept that when people read your notes not only do you read like your abit of a sore loser you also come across a teensie bit holier than thou. The critical point in reading your opinion is that you do not balance your discussion with any positives due to the Kiwis at all (its called credit when credits due) . I think you've over analysed the game and tried to explain away all of its little foibles (the bounce of the ball/the rub of the green) as being a conspiracy against your team. You sound more than a little smug in the way that you backed the RLWC as being the vehicle to showcase your teams 'superior skills' in the begining  and voiced your support to all who would listen, now that was almost admirable until you get to the end where because of your disappointment that your team weren't good enough (sorry that they were unfairly robbed) with the result you decide not to continue to fight the good fight for the the game you claim to be a fan of, a true pity. Read the attached article if you get a chance  http://msn.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=79&objectid=10545038 it decries the attitude of Ricky Stuart and discusses disects all of the points you discuss..thought you might find it an interesting read. I've got to say this with regards to your 'several piggy back offside penalties awarded' mate your team was offside and is frequently offside. There is a 10 metre rule in place not a 9 metre rule. The 10 metre rule allows play to be made rather than shut down (you'd probably term this as good defense well Im afraid that it just isn't) I think your team are so used to having these minor (not) infringements let go in the NRL and with NRL referees that they were shellshocked and didn't know how to respond when the offside rule was actually enforced. Australian fans also piss me off no end with their constant diatribe on how fantastic and dominant their team is. There is a simple reason for it, they all play together week in week out as combinations in their respective NRL teams. It should then come as no surprise that Australia will dominate any other team in a ONE off match. NZ have to pick individuals in key positions and make them gel as a team in the week just proceeding the game. Thats why you'll find that Australia are not as dominant during a Test series because their opposition have had the opportunity to establish their combinations and their own style of play to the fore etc. I personally hope that we do not persist with one off Tests at all as they stack the odds heavily in Aussies favour.. BRING BACK THREE TEST SERIES AND YOU WILL SEE REAL INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS EVERY SINGLE TIME!!!  WELL DONE KIWIS. I hope for your own sake  OR708 that you eventually find the humility to accept defeat when it comes or accept that sometimes your calls on a subject might not quite be on the money....PS the RLWC was a great stepping stone for Rugby League on the international stage. It will be bigger and even better in 2013.!!

NOBODY:

I can see you've put an enormous amount of thought into expressing your opinion of the game and the World Cup for your Team. However you should accept that when people read your notes not only do you read like your abit of a sore loser you also come across a teensie bit holier than thou. The critical point in reading your opinion is that you do not balance your discussion with any positives due to the Kiwis at all (its called credit when credits due) . I think you've over analysed the game and tried to explain away all of its little foibles (the bounce of the ball/the rub of the green) as being a conspiracy against your team. You sound more than a little smug in the way that you backed the RLWC as being the vehicle to showcase your teams 'superior skills' in the begining  and voiced your support to all who would listen, now that was almost admirable until you get to the end where because of your disappointment that your team weren't good enough (sorry that they were unfairly robbed) with the result you decide not to continue to fight the good fight for the the game you claim to be a fan of, a true pity. Read the attached article if you get a chance  http://msn.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=79&objectid=10545038 it decries the attitude of Ricky Stuart and discusses disects all of the points you discuss..thought you might find it an interesting read. I've got to say this with regards to your 'several piggy back offside penalties awarded' mate your team was offside and is frequently offside. There is a 10 metre rule in place not a 9 metre rule. The 10 metre rule allows play to be made rather than shut down (you'd probably term this as good defense well Im afraid that it just isn't) I think your team are so used to having these minor (not) infringements let go in the NRL and with NRL referees that they were shellshocked and didn't know how to respond when the offside rule was actually enforced. Australian fans also piss me off no end with their constant diatribe on how fantastic and dominant their team is. There is a simple reason for it, they all play together week in week out as combinations in their respective NRL teams. It should then come as no surprise that Australia will dominate any other team in a ONE off match. NZ have to pick individuals in key positions and make them gel as a team in the week just proceeding the game. Thats why you'll find that Australia are not as dominant during a Test series because their opposition have had the opportunity to establish their combinations and their own style of play to the fore etc. I personally hope that we do not persist with one off Tests at all as they stack the odds heavily in Aussies favour.. BRING BACK THREE TEST SERIES AND YOU WILL SEE REAL INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS EVERY SINGLE TIME!!!  WELL DONE KIWIS. I hope for your own sake  OR708 that you eventually find the humility to accept defeat when it comes or accept that sometimes your calls on a subject might not quite be on the money....PS the RLWC was a great stepping stone for Rugby League on the international stage. It will be bigger and even better in 2013.!!

Referee in regards to the awarding of the " Hohaia " Penalty Try ... Personally I believe there are circumstances similar to this that are often overlooked nd should at least be looked at as possible Penalty Tries but generally they are not awarded or even considered ...

Why is this ??? I really Do Not Know ... ... ...

You don't have to look too far in the past to see an example of this either ... In the Opening Ceremony match between The Kangaroos and The Kiwis Jerome Ropati was robbed of a try when Billy Slater " Stripped " the ball albeit with his foot in a dangerous boot first sliding manoeuvre which he was cautioned for post match and lucky not to have made contact with Ropati's face/head which could have caused serious injury ... I was very surprised to see no action taken on field ( as I was when Billy Slater pulled a similar manoeuvre in the NRL Grand Final ) and still adamantly believe a Penalty Try should have been awarded ... To say Ropati simply lost control of the ball is laughable ... ...

The only problem with Penalty Tries in Rugby League is that they are not always given or considered when they should be ...