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.  

 

well whether you like it or not NZ are world champions

While I agree with some of your comments in the first part of the 'novel' you wtote, isn't it typical that Australians never want to shoulder the responsibility of their loss and instead have to blame others?

Why don't you concentrate of Billy Slaters error which gifted NZ a try, Darren Lockyer not scoring off the Cameron Smith kick and Joel Monaghan tackling a player without the ball which also resulted in a try. I'm sure if the kiwis had done the same to the australians you would have been wanting a pentaly try awarded.

 The australians have no one to blame but themselves.

Rugby league does not need 'supporters' like you and your crap comments.

 

say all you want cmon mate look at the stats nz won fair and square

sounds like sour grapes to me u r a sore loser.nz world cup champs,aussie world cup chumps...

well after reading the essay on the technicalities of the game last night..i still have come to the same conclusion: aussies are sore losers ..and thought the odds on paper were gonna become reality. For a tournament that's suppose to be the world game..all it showed that australian rugby league is really full of egotistical people .. especially the coach. I dare say, the words 'show no mercy' came directly from the horse's mouth ( ricky stuart ) came back and bit his arrogant ass..cheers to that, we as fan will show the aussies the same courtesy they have shown us...and excatly that.. No mercy..

 rebuilt the habour bridge and get over it..

sour balls..

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLA BLAH!!!!  What about the Monahagn strip late in the game when Bronson Harrioson ran the ball!!!! The linesman was right in front of them surely he saw it and should of pulled that up if he wanted us to win like the ref as you suggest! As for the penalty try, the ref and video ref had no choice because of the infringement by Monahagn!!! Wake up you guys got out passioned and were out played!

To suggest that the ref tried to advance the International Game by helping the Kiwis win is beyond belief and smacks of ARROGANCE!!!!

 

The same arrogance that your players had in advancing on the Haka!!!!  At the end of the Day we were a better team on the night ans Idiots like you make it even a sweeter victory!!!!!!!!

 

New Zealand Kiwis!!!! Rugby League World Champions!!!!!!!!!  In the immortal words of one George Gregan, "Four more years boys, four more years!!!!"

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.  

 

Muaaahahahahahhahaha!

Cheers, mate.... you just made my day hehe!

It's tosser's like you that always make me chuckle!

repeat after me:

New Zealand Kiwi's (or as you numb-nuts say Keewui's), Undisputed Champions of the World!!

Dayum! that feels good...

to the OR708 looser...

 GO GET A DUMMY AND SUCK ON IT.

KKKKKIIIIIIIIIWWWWWWWWWWWIIIIIII'''''SSSSSSSS.RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD CUP CHAMPIONS 2008 BAAABBBYYYYYYY....HAHAHA

WHEN YOU WAKE UP TOMORROW MORNING YOU WILL REALISE THAT YOU WERENT HAVING A BAD DREAM. YOU CANT ESCAPE REALITY NEW ZEALAND KIWI'S LEAGUE WORLD CHAMPS 2008..GO THE MIGHTY KIWIS....THEN YOU WILL HANG YOUR HEAD AND DROP YOUR LIPS EVEN MORE. IT MUST SUK TO BE YOU.

AS FOR US FAITHFULL DIEHARD KIWI'S AND WARRIORS FANS FROM NEW ZEALAND WE CAN HOLD OUR HEADS UP HIGH. WHEN EVERYBODY WROTE OFF THE KIWI'S WE STAYED TIGHT WITH BELIEF.

YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT THE ROPATI TRY.HAAH TAKE IT AWAY AND WE WILL STILL BE 8 POINTS IN FRONT. THEN YOU CRY ABOUT LANCES TRY, TAKE THAT AWAY AND WE WILL STILL BE TWO POINTS IN FRONT. THEN YOU SOB OVER THE REFEREES. YOUR A JOKE. ASHELY KLEIN IS AAAAAHHH AUSTRALIAN BORN..DUUHHHHH..MAYBE AUSTRALIA LOST ALL THEIR ENERGY WHEN THEY THOUGHT THE WOULD WALK UP TO OUR BOYS AND UM STARE THEM IN THE EYES DURING THE HAKA..HAAHAA SHAME ON THEM. THRUSTON WAS BROUGHT TO NOTHING A HALF BACK SHOULD NOT BE CAUGHT WITH THE BALL 6 TIMES IN 1 GAME. I GIVE PROPS TO TATE AND PRICE BECAUSE THEY  WERENT THE LOOSERS THE REST OF THE 17 WERE..OOPS MY BAD..

THANKS KIWI BOYS. .NZRL FOR EVER..FROM ALL YOUR DEDICATED LEAGUE FANS..GO THE MIGHTY KIWI'S :) :) :) :) :) :)

You OZZIES were raving about this team as the best ever put on the field, but how can a backline that doesnt include Wally Lewis (the king) or Mal Meninga be called the best?????? 

You have some valid points, but, read the newspaper headlines

suck it in WE WON , YOU LOST

Before you bleat you should look at the last 20years of footage between Kiwis v Oz and all the bad calls against us.

Australias new rule about not having neutral refs only makes it more bias towards Roos 

 

Dude get over yourself. i'm an australia supporter to but we lost fair and square stop trying to give reasons why we lost. the fact is we got to cocky and over confident.

 Your just being a complete tool about it we lost except it.

 Its fans like you that give other fans like me that go for australia a bad repuatation cause your a sore loser.

 Cry me a river and get over it Wanker!

OR708:

WHINGE WHINGE *** MOAN

User OR708 - you are a punk little whiney b*tch who can't handle that a minnow team from a country the size of only 4 million beat your team of arrogant superstars. You are the biggest sore loser I have ever come across (worse than any All Blacks fan) and your opinion is absolute crap.

You should be ashamed to call yourself an Australian and a rugby league fan after that piece of crap text you have posted. I have many Australian friends, heck I lived there for 17 years, but you are a shambles of a person and don't deserve to be called an Australian.

 I suggest you do the following:  Swallow your pride, grow some balls, quit acting like a b*tch and man up.  Your team and country lost.  NZ WON.

I hope you burn this fact into your mind for the next 5 years.  5 MORE YEARS.  That's a long wait.  NZ are world champions and any matches within the next 5 years between NZ and anyone else cannot take that fact away from them.

We beat you at your own national game.  I bet you have no grasp at how rugby league has been struggling here in NZ and it's amazing for the little guys to win for once. David vs Goliath.

On paper the Australian team could waste any team that dares to play them.  But they were too cocky and disrespectful for the whole tournament and it bit them in the *** in the match where it all counts.

Just admit that the best team is the one that plays on the day and last night it was New Zealand.  34 -20.

 New Zealand have had terrible refereeing decisions go against them many times in the past and it's about time that the Kangaroos got a taste of their own medicine. A good team gets over bad ref decisions and gets on with the game.  Fair enough there were a couple of bad decisions but that happened on both sides.

Monaghan should have been sin binned for his terrible tackle on Hohaia and it's wrong that he stayed on the field.

The Kiwis played like a team instead of a bunch of individuals and combined well between the forwards and backs. Australia couldn't handle the pressure and buckled.  NZ kept on playing, smashing your forwards and backs and keeping their foot on the throat of the Kangaroos for most of the 2nd half.  Your team was crap in the 2nd half, had no composure and did not deserve to win.  You can't blame the ref for your team's poor performance.  Slater threw the game away, Monaghan is a cheating scumbag who got away with murder, Thurston choked and sputtered, your defence was all over the shop and your forwards didn't make the metres they're used to.

Darren Lockyer only got man of the match because of the sponsors.  Jeremy Smith or Lance Hohaia deserved it way more.

Really....just grow up.  You are a pathetic person and I hope you get cancer.

NZ ARE THE WORLD CHAMPIONS.  Australia are not.  34 -20.  Remember that.

For goodness sake stop whinging. Hell the better team won on the night. Australia had a bad day and we had a good day. Every game has a couple 50-50 calls in it, thats just sport. To suggest the refferees awarded them to nz on purpose as to help promote the game internationally is the stupidist thing i have ever heard. grow some balls and get over it. idiot

Man you cured my insomnia with that chapter and verse,

how could you compose so much while crying those tears.

Did you notice Jeremy smith at the end, probably not, to busy sookin.

He could hardly run or stand, his heart and passion for his jumper was way obvious to all my brothers

from NZ.

We believed we could win.

Australia didn't believe they could lose.

While i live and breathe Australia will always be the worst winners and the sorest of losers.

I had a kick *** smile on my face all day today.

5 years as "world Champions".

Will get some yardage out of this cuz.

 

“well whether you like it or not NZ are world champions”

Geez, thanks for that mate. Here I was thinking that they reversed the decision because I used capital letters at the start of a new sentence.

“isn't it typical that Australians never want to shoulder the responsibility of their loss and instead have to blame others?”

I guess it’s about as typical as a New Zealander generalising the entire population of Australia.

“Why don't you concentrate of Billy Slaters error which gifted NZ a try, Darren Lockyer not scoring off the Cameron Smith kick and Joel Monaghan tackling a player without the ball which also resulted in a try. I'm sure if the kiwis had done the same to the australians you would have been wanting a pentaly try awarded.”

Yes, it was a bad mistake by Billy Slater, but he does not deserve to singled out as the sole-cause of this loss . Why would I concentrate on Darren Lockyer not scoring when it was the exact same mistake made by Marshall ? I did address Monaghan tackling the player without the ball. Should have been a penalty, but there’s no way it should have been a penalty try as I have already stated my argument for.

“What about the Monahagn strip late in the game when Bronson Harrioson ran the ball!!!!”

Yes the referees gave Australian’s the benefit of a decision at such a crucial point in time, the 78^th minute. Game was done and dusted.

As I clearly stated, my problem was not with the referees making mistakes in regard to penalties, it was the changing of the rules dependant on different situations.

“To suggest that the ref tried to advance the International Game by helping the Kiwis win is beyond belief and smacks of ARROGANCE!!!!”

I thought that a try being awarded when three players were clearly offside was also beyond belief, but alas.

“As for the penalty try, the ref and video ref had no choice because of the infringement by Monahagn!!!”

Under the rules, the referee had no choice but to put up no try. Watch the replay and tell me if there was the possibility that Slater would have got to that ball first. Just a tiny possibility, because that is all it takes for a no try in that situation, hence why they are extremely rarely awarded, and never when the player taken out is not even closest to the ball.

“but how can a backline that doesnt include Wally Lewis (the king) or Mal Meninga be called the best?????? “

The team is more than two players. The combination of the great players in each position is why it is labeled as the best team to take the field.

“Before you bleat you should look at the last 20years of footage between Kiwis v Oz and all the bad calls against us.”

Did they change the rules mid-game in those instances?

“Australias new rule about not having neutral refs only makes it more bias towards Roos”

There is no rule about not having neutral referees.  

 “Dude get over yourself. i'm an australia supporter to but we lost fair and square stop trying to give reasons why we lost. the fact is we got to cocky and over confident.”

Yes, that seems to be the accepted reason for us losing. I guess you are assuming that we weren’t full of confidence when we smashed the New Zealander’s in the group stage and you are making the allowance that arrogance was the result of a more than 40 point turnaround. For some reason I don’t buy the fact that we lost because we went into the game as favourites.

“User OR708 - you are a punk little whiney b*tch who can't handle that a minnow team from a country the size of only 4 million beat your team of arrogant superstars.”

Haha, actually the opposite. I pinpointed why the decision was made that the ‘minnow team’ had to win.

“We beat you at your own national game.  I bet you have no grasp at how rugby league has been struggling here in NZ and it's amazing for the little guys to win for once. David vs Goliath.”

Geez, so what you’re saying is that New Zealand winning the Cup tonight will ultimately benefit the code of rugby league. Funny how we are kind of making the same point.

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.

“New Zealand have had terrible refereeing decisions go against them many times in the past and it's about time that the Kangaroos got a taste of their own medicine. A good team gets over bad ref decisions and gets on with the game.  Fair enough there were a couple of bad decisions but that happened on both sides.”

Once again I reiterate there is a very big difference in bad decisions going against you, compared to the manipulation of the games fundamental rules in order to benefit teams in certain instances of a match. Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to understand it.

“Monaghan should have been sin binned for his terrible tackle on Hohaia and it's wrong that he stayed on the field.”

You mean that the referee actually lived up to the precedent of when Hohaia got to stay on the field for doing the exact same thing to Minichello a few months ago. Good for them, for once they were consistent. Shame but, the New Zealander’s would have looked a bit more convincing if they were playing against a team with down a man.

“The Kiwis played like a team instead of a bunch of individuals and combined well between the forwards and backs.”

You are the arrogant *** if you cannot concede that Australia’s combinations (mainly Thurston, Lockyer and Slater) far surpassed anything that New Zealand is even capable of performing.

“Your team was crap in the 2nd half, had no composure and did not deserve to win.”

Could that be because whenever they tried to do something, even as simple as driving Perrett back for a dropout, they were penalized. I guess New Zealand were pretty composed, given that they didn’t even have to worry about even being offside.

“Darren Lockyer only got man of the match because of the sponsors.  Jeremy Smith or Lance Hohaia deserved it way more.”

Haha. I’m not positive, but I’m pretty sure the Bundaberg Bear wasn’t on the panel of selectors for man of the match. Or was your point simply that he would look better in the Jet Star cap than Smith?

“You are a pathetic person and I hope you get cancer.”

Let me get this straight…. I’m a pathetic person for offering my opinion on a sporting match. Where’s a person rank in who wishes death on someone they haven’t even met before? I think you are a bit lower in the pecking order, even if you do come from a nation with superior rugby league talent….HAHAHAHA.