The Rugby Union World Cup 2007

**Orda Khan** · 10-23-2007, 20:22

So you didn't hear Roland say he "won't warn you again", not too long before the last penalty in the first half ? The infringements were spotted and awarding penalties is one thing but one has to consider what to do when these infringements are a cynical means of preventing scores.
Hearing a referee constantly shouting "leave it number 6 (or whatever number) or "no hands!", when there are hands on the ball or when number 6 (or whatever number) has already committed the offence is a pain in the derriere. It does nothing but drag the game further down.

.....Rant Warning.....

Now South Africa has to suffer the political backlash yet again. Pathetic talk of 2/3 black players and other such multi racial nonsense. It seems the Boks are just the team that everyone loves to hate, all is well if they are being beaten regularly but things soon change when they are back on a winning streak. I remember watching the Springboks in awe, before they were banished. The most successful rugby union team (including the All Blacks, who they led in test series) I was certainly pleased when they returned to the rugby fold, now they have to constantly endure this treatment. Does that mean that New Zealand will field a team comprising 2/3 Maori's? That Australia will have a 66% Aboriginal presence? Will Ireland be a 50/50 split of Catholic and Protestant? Will playing for Wales depend on whether you can speak Welsh?
Sport is a recreation.....It should stay that way

......Orda

**Papewaio** · 10-24-2007, 05:34

The Kiwis are All Black already.

**Louis VI the Fat** · 10-24-2007, 18:03

Some thoughts:

- I think the strongest, most consistent team has won the tournament in the end. Congrats to South Africa, a worthy winner.

- I would've sworn that was a correct try on Saterday. From the camera angle from behind, you can clearly see Cueto lift up his foot, not touching the line while the ball contacts the ground.
Later on, I've learned, and saw, that his foot touched the line an instant before that. I have little doubt anymore that the video ref made the right decision.

- What to do with Argentina? Seven Nations? Four Nations Southern Hemi?

Or...a Latin Cup? Maybe bi-annual? France, Italy, Spain / Catalunia, Rumania, Portugal, Uruguay...
Maybe combined with an Anglo-cup. Tri-nations and the British Isles.
The winners of both can face each for a clash of civilisation.

- Calls for a racial quota for the Boks are outrageous. 75% of the indigenous population of France is white - yet take a look at the France football team, nicknamed by some, unfortunately, the All-Blacks. There's no call for a white quota either, is there? And rightly so. And who ever complaines about the US Basketball team?

- This was a great World Cup!:

The Saturday when France and England spanked the Southern Hemisphere is already a classic.

The smaller nations were great - especially the Pacific island teams.

Argentina was fantastic. Great attacking stuff too.

No World Cup yet for France. Alas, this was the best chance ever. But the team was good and did us proud. The games against Ireland and NZ were great, tense stuff.

It was a blast!

**Soulforged** · 10-24-2007, 21:58

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

- What to do with Argentina? Seven Nations? Four Nations Southern Hemi?

Or...a Latin Cup? Maybe bi-annual? France, Italy, Spain / Catalunia, Rumania, Portugal, Uruguay...
Maybe combined with an Anglo-cup. Tri-nations and the British Isles.
The winners of both can face each for a clash of civilisation.

That would be great, though Uruguay isn't really at par, we're isolated in this here southwestern part of the Earth regarding Rugby. Our team truly needs an international anual competition to be able to strenghten itself. I think that the appropiate one is the Tri-Nations, since they're all on the southern hemispher. Too bad and too good that they're also the strongest rugby teams ever. I hope our team gets an opportunity, they've shown that they deserve at least that.

Calls for a racial quota for the Boks are outrageous. 75% of the indigenous population of France is white - yet take a look at the France football team, nicknamed by some, unfortunately, the All-Blacks. There's no call for a white quota either, is there? And rightly so. And who ever complaines about the US Basketball team?

Well when I first saw the Southafrican team, I was really surprised to see so few black man in it. But I agree with you. The hypocrates are the first to talk about the mandatory black quota in everything.

**Furious Mental** · 10-25-2007, 11:29

"Calls for a racial quota for the Boks are outrageous. 75% of the indigenous population of France is white - yet take a look at the France football team, nicknamed by some, unfortunately, the All-Blacks. There's no call for a white quota either, is there? And rightly so. And who ever complaines about the US Basketball team?"

Although I don't believe in racial quotas in sports teams in any case, unlike Anglo-saxon-celtic people in France and America, black South Africans were dispossessed and oppressed by a minority of foreign settlers for hundreds of years. "Apartheid" was founded on a legal fiction that blacks weren't actually part of the Republic of South Africa, but only their respective tribal homelands. Considering the historical context I can perfectly understand why some people would want the national sports teams to reflect to real ethnic composition of their country. It's all well and good to say "sport is recreation" but the reality of it is that anything which represents a country abroad is potentially political.

"That Australia will have a 66% Aboriginal presence"

FYI the population is not 66% Aboriginal.

**Orda Khan** · 10-25-2007, 15:50

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

FYI the population is not 66% Aboriginal.

Did I say it was?
Really Furious Mental, are you going to use that as a basis for an argument when above that, you state that black South Africans were dispossessed? I would argue that Aboriginal Australians were dispossessed. The same applies to other indigenous peoples. Forget history, sport is not about history it's about recreation and a National team should be a team selected not by one's colour but by one's ability.
Any political implications are only the creations of those who lose sight of the fact that it is a game

........Orda

**Furious Mental** · 10-25-2007, 18:58

Of course Aboriginal Australians were dispossessed. Did I say they weren't? But that's not the point. The point is that the ideological justification for refusing civil, social, and political rights to black South Africans was the fiction that they were citizens of other "countries", the tribal homelands. In this context I can absolutely understand that black South Africans would wish institutions that represent the country overseas to reflect the real ethnic composition of the country, as a countermand to the facade presented in the apartheid era that essentially the only South Africans were white South Africans. It's all well and good to complain that this is politicising a game but the reality of it is that rugby in South Africa is already polticised and has been since apartheid was founded; for the longest time teams were segregated and foreign tours had to drop non-Europeans from their squads. I am bemused at demands for racial quotas in the Springboks, but I am hardly surprised or outraged that there has been a reaction against the apparent dominance of whites in this area as in every aspect of society.

**Big King Sanctaphrax** · 10-25-2007, 20:20

Careful guys, we're skirting dangerously close to backroom material here. Start a new thread there if you want to talk about ethinc makeup of teams please.

**Banquo's Ghost** · 10-25-2007, 21:47

Maybe you should close the thread now that the tournament is over?

We can do recriminations/congratulations/postulations in a new thread here or the Backroom.

It's been a wonderful championship and an excellent thread too - thanks to all participants.