Printable View
That was probably the most obvious bias towards home country ever, be it the TMO or refereeing decisions.
England out up a heroic performance, being down to 14 women from the twentieth minute, for a dodgy sending off.
The rest of the match was watched with a sour taste in the mouth. Other dubious calls followed, and credit to England for keeping their composure.
What an unsatisfactory way to lose World Cup Final.
Unlucky Red Roses.
Hmmmm. Just forcing it over from a maul hardly makes a spectacle does it? Was it three times or four times?
Had to watch the game with an NZ wife and two NZ born kids so was under a bit of pressure but if all England has is the maul then NZ deserved it. Obviously I won't say that out loud over here.
Hopefully tomorrow night will be better.
When you’ve only got 14, you’re not going to create too many gaps against 15 by playing throwing it around. You have to keep the ball narrow. I’m not saying England throw the ball around as much as NZ, but there was a significant need to play narrow after the sending off. I’m not saying NZ didn’t deserve it btw just that England might have shown more if it was an even match up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Another one
I wasn't aware there were rules about how to win rugby union matches or that you have to make the game a spectacle. If New Zealand's strength was to score tries using the maul, they would do it. As was mentioned in an earlier post, you cannot play expansive rugby when a woman down.
The game was won by the TMO and referee, end of, so blatant to see. This is not sour grapes either.
Oh yes it is.
(I had to, it's Panto season)