rugby

More from planet-rugby's faq: What are the differences between Rugby Union and Rugby League? Rugby union and rugby league are two separate games that evolved from a common rugby origin, and although they share many common features, the differences are marked. Despite their origins, union and league are now best regarded as different sports - though the styles of player and play have become increasingly similar in recent years. The main differences in laws, is that league teams have only 13 players whereas rugby union has 15. In Union line-outs are used to re-start play when the ball goes out of play. The scoring is different too. A League try is worth four points while Union's is valued a five; a drop goal in League counts for just one point while in Union it is worth three; a League penalty clocks up two points and the Union version three but a conversion kick following a try is worth two points in both codes. In League an attacking team can only be tackled six times each attack before the ball is turned over, where as in Union there is unlimited tackles. Rugby League has always been professional, where as payment for players in Union was only legalised in 1995.

And yet more from the same faq: Why did they split? The original split in 1895 was over the issue of paying players. Rugby Union held out as a strictly amateur sport, ie playing for no financial benefit, whereas rugby league allowed professionalism in the game. The split was very acrimonious and the issue was one of the most divisive issues in the sport. For a 100 years, at least on the surface, the Union code stuck to their principles and steadfastly refused to permit player payments of any kind, including things such as boot sponsorship and book deals. It was also against the union rules on amateurism for union players to be involved in any way with league. Anyone who turned to league to earn a living was banned from playing the Union game ever again. However, as the 20th century progressed the amateur status of the game was under increasing pressure. In August 1995, in the face of widespread abuses (in the form of under the table payments, player trust funds, etc) and pressure from the top players who were being expected to put in many hours of training in an era of increasing media interest in the game, the game's governing body the IRB finally relinquished and rugby union became fully professional at all levels.

And yet even more from that faq: Where is the game of Rugby Union played? Rugby Union is the more popular code of rugby on a global scale and is played in over 100 countries worldwide. As of 2000, there were 92 official Unions making up the iRB. The traditional powerhouses of rugby union in terms of popularity, numbers of people playing the game and international sucess remain the 'Home Unions' of England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales as well as France, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. What are the major international competitions? International rugby currently revolves around a cycle building towards the Rugby World Cup, which has been staged in a different host country every four years since the inaugural tournament in 1987. For a full history, and list of winners, click here. Along the way there are three major annual international competitions; the Six Nations, the Tri-Nations and the Epson Cup Pacific Rim. The Six Nations tournament was borne out of the Five Nations which is the oldest, and probably most famous, competitive rugby union tournament in the world. It is contested by England, France, Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Italy. For more information, and a full history, click here. The Tri-Nations, first contested in 1996, sees New Zealand, South Africa and Australia compete every June/July/August. For more information, and a full history, click here. The Epson Cup, also first contested back in 1996, currently sees Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, USA, Canada and Japan clash each year.

more, more. LAWS & REFS Your FAQ's on rugby What are the origins of rugby? There is not definitive history of where rugby came from or when or how. The game is likely to be a amalagamation of soccer and other games including the Eton Wall Game and Winchester football. The most famous and widespread legend on the founding of the game says the game originated at Rugby school in England, when one of the pupils, one William Webb Ellis, picked up the ball during a game of soccer in 1823 and ran with it. Of course the story is most likely apocryphal, since games involving running with ball in hand had existed for centuries before that. Despite the historical unreliablilty of the Webb Ellis story, it has become an enduring part of the game and the Rugby World Cup trophy is named the Webb Ellis Cup. What are the differences between Rugby Union and Rugby League? Rugby union and rugby league are two separate games that evolved from a common rugby origin, and although they share many common features, the differences are marked. Despite their origins, union and league are now best regarded as different sports - though the styles of player and play have become increasingly similar in recent years. The main differences in laws, is that league teams have only 13 players whereas rugby union has 15. In Union line-outs are used to re-start play when the ball goes out of play. The scoring is different too. A League try is worth four points while Union's is valued a five; a drop goal in League counts for just one point while in Union it is worth three; a League penalty clocks up two points and the Union version three but a conversion kick following a try is worth two points in both codes. In League an attacking team can only be tackled six times each attack before the ball is turned over, where as in Union there is unlimited tackles. Rugby League has always been professional, where as payment for players in Union was only legalised in 1995. Why did they split? The original split in 1895 was over the issue of paying players. Rugby Union held out as a strictly amateur sport, ie playing for no financial benefit, whereas rugby league allowed professionalism in the game. The split was very acrimonious and the issue was one of the most divisive issues in the sport. For a 100 years, at least on the surface, the Union code stuck to their principles and steadfastly refused to permit player payments of any kind, including things such as boot sponsorship and book deals. It was also against the union rules on amateurism for union players to be involved in any way with league. Anyone who turned to league to earn a living was banned from playing the Union game ever again. However, as the 20th century progressed the amateur status of the game was under increasing pressure. In August 1995, in the face of widespread abuses (in the form of under the table payments, player trust funds, etc) and pressure from the top players who were being expected to put in many hours of training in an era of increasing media interest in the game, the game's governing body the IRB finally relinquished and rugby union became fully professional at all levels. Where is the game of Rugby Union played? Rugby Union is the more popular code of rugby on a global scale and is played in over 100 countries worldwide. As of 2000, there were 92 official Unions making up the iRB. The traditional powerhouses of rugby union in terms of popularity, numbers of people playing the game and international sucess remain the 'Home Unions' of England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales as well as France, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. What are the major international competitions? International rugby currently revolves around a cycle building towards the Rugby World Cup, which has been staged in a different host country every four years since the inaugural tournament in 1987. For a full history, and list of winners, click here. Along the way there are three major annual international competitions; the Six Nations, the Tri-Nations and the Epson Cup Pacific Rim. The Six Nations tournament was borne out of the Five Nations which is the oldest, and probably most famous, competitive rugby union tournament in the world. It is contested by England, France, Wales, Ireland, Scotland and Italy. For more information, and a full history, click here. The Tri-Nations, first contested in 1996, sees New Zealand, South Africa and Australia compete every June/July/August. For more information, and a full history, click here. The Epson Cup, also first contested back in 1996, currently sees Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, USA, Canada and Japan clash each year. Who are what is the governing body for rugby, what do they do and where are they based? The governing body for international rugby is the International Rugby board (IRB), who are based in Dublin, Ireland. There website is www.irb.org. The IRB are responsible for deciding and implementing the laws of the game, which can be found here. The IRB are the umbrella organisation of the international game, with the individual national rugby unions governing rugby - under the IRB laws - in their own countries, for example the South African Rugby Football Association (SARFU) who run the game in South Africa. What are the positions and numbering in rugby? 1. Loosehead prop 2. Hooker 3. Tighthead prop 4. Second-row or Lock 5. Second-row or Lock 6. Blindside flanker 7. Openside flanker 8. No.8 9. Scrum-half (also known as half-back) 10. fly-half (also known as stand-off or out-half or first five-eighth) 11. Left wing 12. Inside centre 13. Outside centre 14. Right wing 15. Fullback

What is the difference between a tightead and a loosehead prop?

Hey Neat, Terry!!! Thanks! If you are on cable (yes, you are) and get CNNSI you will see entire rugby games. I got to watch Rob's home town Canterbury team win. Yippee!!!

Sheesh.....will go look or ask Rob! (re What is the difference between a tightead and a loosehead prop?)

Gadzooks! They have Hookers on their teams!!! (Rob doesn't know and I'll have to hunt it up.... good stuff you have posted!!! Source?)

Hi Paul I have read your coments on Rugby which is simler to American football A simple question for anyone? why do the Americans call Football Football when the ball is rarely kicked by the foot? Now soccer as it is known in America is kicked most of the time by the foot and known round the world as football not soccer? So is Soccer football and not American Football?

This isn't the answer but it's interesting: Most modern versions of football, however, originated in England, where a form of the game was known in the 12th century. In subsequent centuries football became so popular that various English monarchs, including Edward II and Henry VI, forbade the game because it took interest away from the military sport of archery. By the middle of the 19th century football had split into two distinct entities. Still popular today, these two sports included the football association game, or soccer (the word being a slang adaptation of the three letters, s-o-c, in Association), and rugby, in which players ran with the ball and tackled. Modern football evolved out of these two sports. http://wwwwbs.cs.tu-berlin.de/user/tiny/fhistory.html

American football is often referred to as gridiron football. It is "kicked off" so we called it football. The Aussies call their roganized mayhem "footie" so there you go. Rugby is amazing. Soccer I would call "headball" if I had to pick a name. It is not kicked all that much, either.

More of interest, but, again, not the answer. Marci has the answer! American football history HISTORY OF AMERICAN FOOTBALL Football historians, those who have studied the game and its origins, place the game�s beginnings in rugby, an English game played with many similarities to football. Rugby began in eighteen twenty-three at the famous Rugby Boys� School in England. Another cousin of the game of football is soccer, sometimes called association football; its beginnings can also be traced to English origin, being played as early as the eighteen twenties. COLLEGE FOOTBALL: ITS BEGINNINGS At the same time, a group of students at Princeton began playing what was then known as �ballown�. First using their fists to advance the ball, and then their feet, this game consisted mainly of one goal: to advance the ball past the opposing team. There were no hard and fast rules applied to this earliest attempt at the game we now call football. At Harvard, the freshman and sophomore classes competed in a football-type game, played on the first Monday of each school year; this event came to be known as �Bloody Monday� because of the roughness of the game. Pick up games, similar in style to that played on �Bloody Monday�, soon became popular on the Boston Common, catching on in popularity around eighteen sixty. Soon after the end of the American Civil War, around eighteen sixty five, colleges began organizing football games. In eighteen sixty seven, Princeton led the way in establishing some rudimentary rules of the game. Also in that year, the football itself was patented for the very first time. Rutgers College also established a set of rules in eighteen sixty seven, and with the relatively short distance between it and Princeton, a game was decided upon by both universities. A date was chosen, November sixth, eighteen sixty nine; Rutgers won by a score of six goals to four, and thus was played what has become known as the very first intercollegiate football game. In eighteen seventy three, representatives from Columbia, Rutgers, Princeton, and Yale met in New York City to formulate the first intercollegiate football rules for the increasingly popular game, still being played with many of the rules of soccer. These four teams established the Intercollegiate Football Association, and set as fifteen the number of players allowed on each team. Walter Camp, the coach at Yale and a dissenter from the IFA over his desire for an eleven man team, helped begin the final step in the evolution from rugby-style play to the modern game of American football. The IFA�s rules committee, led by Camp, soon cut the number of players from fifteen to eleven, and also instituted the size of the playing field, at one hundred ten yards. In eighteen eighty-two Camp also introduced the system of downs. After first allowing three attempts to advance the ball five yards, in nineteen six it was changed to ten yards. The fourth down was added in nineteen twelve. Tackling below the waist had been legalized in eighteen eighty-eight. Within a decade, concern over the increasing brutality of the game led to its ban by some colleges. Nearly one hundred eighty players had suffered serious injuries, and eighteen deaths had been reported from the brutal mass plays that had become common in practice. In nineteen hundred five, President Theodore Roosevelt called upon Harvard, Princeton, and Yale to help save the sport from demise. At a meeting between the schools, reform was agreed upon, and at a second meeting, attended by more than sixty other schools, the group appointed a seven member Rules Committee and set up what would later become known as the National Collegiate Athletic Association, or the NCAA. From this committee came the legalization of the forward pass, which resulted in a more open style of play on the field. The rough mass plays, which once caused so many serious injuries, and even deaths, were prohibited by the committee. Also prohibited was the locking of arms by teammates in an effort to clear the way for their ball carriers. The length of the game was shortened, from seventy to sixty minutes, and the neutral zone, which separates the teams by the length of the ball before each play begins, was also established. Today, almost one hundred years since the inception of the NCAA, the sport of college football flourishes as one of the most popular of collegiate games. Colleges and universities are placed into three divisions under NCAA guidelines and each division has many conferences. Seasonal and conference play leads to post-season bowl games, where the champions of conferences meet to play in front of a world-wide television audience. Some of these bowls include the Rose Bowl, played on New Year�s Day in Pasadena, California, between the Big Ten and Pacific Ten conference champions. Other bowls include the Orange Bowl in Miami, Florida, the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans, Louisiana, the Cotton Bowl in Dallas, Texas, and the Peach Bowl in Atlanta, Georgia. PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL: ITS BEGINNINGS Professional football was first played soon after the demise of the Intercollegiate Football Association, around eighteen ninety-five. In nineteen twenty, the American Professional Football Association was formed; one year later it was reorganized and in nineteen twenty-two was renamed the National Football League. Unlike the APFA, which handed out franchises far and wide with little discretion, the NFL, from nineteen forty-six to forty-nine, was limited to ten teams. The APFA, on the other hand, consisted of twenty three teams in the year between its inception and the change-over in becoming the NFL. A merger in nineteen seventy, fifty years after the inception of the first pro football association, combined sixteen NFL teams with ten AFL teams to comprise one league with two conferences. In the nineteen eighties, further expansion was proposed and by the ninety three-ninety four NFL season, approval was given for a thirty-team league. The next step towards growth of the league would be to realign the NFL into eight different divisions, each with four teams. Pro football, like its college counterpart, was not without its failures. Among the number of competitive leagues that have folded in failure are the All-American Football conference, nineteen forty-six to forty-nine, the American Football League, nineteen sixty to sixty-nine, and the World Football League, nineteen seventy-four to seventy-five. Arena Football, an indoor league played in the spring with eight man teams, debuted in nineteen eighty-seven. It is still played, but does not enjoy the popularity or success that is found in the National Football League. PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL TODAY: A BUSINESS From its humble beginnings in eighteen sixty-nine, when the first intercollegiate game was played between Rutgers and Princeton, football has become a multi-billion dollar business in its professional form. Once watched by no more than a handful of loyal sideline enthusiasts, football is now available for worldwide viewing. With the advent of cable television, dozens of high school and college games can be watched over Friday and Saturday afternoons. Pro games are televised on Sunday and Monday nights, with at least half a dozen games televised each weekend during the season. At the end of each NFL season, champs from both the National and American conferences meet in the Super Bowl to determine a national champion. This game, always played in January, has been called the most watched sporting event of all time, with a viewing audience from around the entire globe, watching and listening to the televise in dozens of languages. Although television commercials foot a very large part of the bill, the competition between networks for the coverage rights highly inflates the value of NFL franchises. In nineteen twenty, a franchise cost one hundred dollars. By nineteen sixty, each was worth approximately two million dollars. In nineteen ninety three, when the league decided to expand, selling teams to Charlotte, North Carolina and Jacksonville, Florida, the cost rose to one hundred forty millions dollars per franchise. In the same year, the NFL signed a five-network, four year television contract, totaling almost four and a half billion dollars. Author's name omitted by request

Football By default, "football" is always taken to mean American football in the USA. European-style football is called soccer to distinguish it from American football. from the American English to British English Dictionary

It is not soccer, it is FOOTBALL!!! In England: F.C. Liverpool. What does the "F" stand for? Football of course!!! In Germany: F.C. Bayern. What does the "F" stand for? Fussball(=Football) of course! In Spain: F.C. Barcelona. What does th "F' stand for? Futbol(=Football) again!!! I assume you already know that there are hundreds of thousands of such examples around Europe (and also South America). There are very few countries which use the word soccer in order to distinguish the sport from some other national sport that is given the same name. This is ok, they can live in their own world if they want, but it is not fair to establish it as an international term through the Internet! The World Wide Web is GLOBAL and all people (except three countries USA,Canada & Australia) around the world call this sport with its right name. Experience has taught me that people who use the term 'soccer' usually (99%) have absolutely no idea about football (or should I call it real football?). I hope that this will be better understood in the future. Pantazis C. Houlis PS -- Yes I have read the article about the origin of the word "soccer". It is not actually a matter of origin, it is a matter of understanding the reason of calling it like that. Even the people who invented the word "soccer" call it football! I need to add that some people who read this article suddenly become "experts" and think that they know everything which is quite disturbing... PS2 -- They should call the barbarian (go for the man-not the ball) immitations of football as "THROWBALL", "HOLDBALL", "CHASEBALL", "TACKLEBALL", "EATBALL", "SQUEEZEBALL", "TIME-OUT-BALL", "ANIMAL-INSTICT-BALL" or "WHACKBALL". PS3 -- By the way, these immitations don't even use a round ball, they use an OVOID! Back to Europe's best clubs from http://www.maths.uwa.edu.au/~pandahou/realfoot.html

Gidday...I've been referred to this board to maybe help out in some explanations and to spread the word on what a great game Rugby is. Answers to some of the above questions... The props...The key part of the game for props is the scrum. The tighhead prop is the cornerstone of the scrum. The hooker binds on him and as the scrum forms and "hits" the tighthead has his head wedged in betwen the oppositions loosehead prop and hooker. As such the tighthead needs to keep his back straight, his hea

his head up and looking forward and have enough strenght to hold his hooker as the hooker strikes for the ball. The loose head is on the the otherside (left) of the scrum and he pushes against the oppositions tighthead prop. His head isn't wedged and the position requires more technique as well as strength. Its his job to push and slighty raise the opposition prop so the hooker has a clearer strike at the ball. Props are big, usually around the 110kg to 125kg size. Normally just under six foot though they are tending to be taller in most international teams these days. A great position and the grinders of the team that give the glory boys in the backs the platform to do their stuff.

Thanks for the elucidation on the fine art of getting the bejabbers kicked out of your shins. I still say it looks like a mobile spider. Quite a show and fun to watch, it is far more complex and exciting than one might think. And, they play it without pads!! Aloha to the Aussie expert. Do you play?

Thanks for the Canadian welcome...no I'm not Australian, I'm a Kiwi, I did play but restrict it to the odd appearance or social rugby now. My position was hooker. Rugby is actually a simple game made too complex by some of the people that play it.

P.S...most of the smart ones wear soccer shin pads.

Oooh, another Kiwi! If you go to Geo conference one of my most eager posters goes to Canterbury and lives in Christchurch. Where are you? He actually listened to a cricket game with me.... me on short wave radio and he on the local radio. Aloha!

Hi all Hehehehehe!!!!! Tis a bad time to be an Australian sportsperson - beaten by their oldest rival in the Netball World Cup final, steamrolled by the All Blacks last night.... hmmmmmmm this is looking good. It has been a fantastic week for New Zealand sport, but none more so than on the netball courts and the rugby fields. To beat the Australians in any of their traditional sports is one thing, but to win a World Cup Final against them and then steamroll them again 5 days later is something completely different again. Rugby enthusiasts will tell you that the All Blacks must be on to something when they cream the Springboks one week, and then take the mickey out of the World Champions the following. You know you done something significant in the rugby world when the Sydney Morning swarms over the Australians like angry hornets. http://rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/27/1059084280542.html Rob

Hi all With the World Cup in October you should be watching this space. I will try to post stuff in a respectable time frame or alternatively watch the Sydney Morning Heralds Rugby Heaven: http://rugbyheaven.smh.com.au Rob

Hi all Terry can you please create a Netball conference, so I can introduce what I currently think is one of the most exciting sports on Earth to the Spring folk. Thanks Rob

Will you write the intro in the next post and I'll create it. Of course, you can create it yourself if you like. But I'll be more than happy to do it once I get your intro to copy and paste in to the introduction.

Hi all I asked Marcia last time we talked, and I thought you had to set the Sports subjects. Anyway here is the title and blurb: "Netball - Basketball's little sis" - A predominantly women's sport similar to basketball in more ways than one. Thanks Rob

Hi Glad to see that the All Blacks beat Australia. As a Springbok supporter, any team that beats them is okay to me. (Never minde the 16-52 beating we took from the All Blacks!). Leigh

Kia Ora Leigh, good to hear from you. I hear one of your batsmen has amassed 277 during the South African innings against England while Herschelle Gibbs added another 178 or something like that? Impressive. How does RSA rate it's chances at the World Cup based on current play? I pick on current play NZ, England and France in the semi's with either Australia or South Africa taking the fourth position. England have come of age and have two very fast backs Dad tells me. Last thing. Did the South African press cover much of the Netball? I have been trying to gauge reaction to New Zealand doing what no one has done against Australia for 16 years - win a Netball World Cup final. Cheers Rob

one of your batsmen has amassed 277 Yes, our new captain - Graham Smith. He took over the captaincy from Shaun Pollock in a way which upset the country, but he has proven that he's got what it takes. RSA rate ... World Cup based on current play Don't even ask. Before NZ beat us, Australia beat us, and the week before that Scotland gave us a good scare - we won, but only because the ref made some questionable descisions. The coaches etc, think that we're already in the final and don't see any problems!! South African press cover much of the Netball? Not at all. Netball (local and international) is given about 1 hour a week on TV. The sponsorship isn't good, and so no coverage.

So, what part of South Africa do you hail from? I hail from Christchurch in the South Island of New Zealand (Canterbury Crusaders country if you follow the Super 12 competition). New Zealand and South Africa have had good sporting contact since Apartheid ended, and the South Africans have always impressed, be it in cricket or rugby. What sports do you follow? Rob

I live in Centurion, Pretoria - as in the Cricket Stadium, Centurion Park (1.2km or 10 minutes walk away). Cricket, Rugby, Hockey and Grandprix are the sports our family follows almost religiously. We have followed the Super 12 for a few years now, but need I mention how the SA teams fare??? Cricket is a family favourite and my brother played for Northens (mid 80's) where he became good friends with Eric Simons - now the SA Coach, so we eagerly watch to see how the team is doing. They are more consistant winners than the rugby team, so easier to support. Australia is our greatest rival, they beat us everytime (cricket, rugby, hockey - whatever!) NZ, well, can I take you back to the 1996 rugby World Cup which SA won over NZ with a drop goal in the last minute? Ever since then, we can only beat you at Cricket. By the way the 16-52 loss to NZ was a joke, Seriously, 1652 was the year South Africa was founded by Van Riebeek, and that's when our rugby problems for the above game started.

Last comment before I hit the sack (1.AM here). I do not follow Grandprix, so you will have to enlighten us. I usually do not follow rugby much but my family hosted a friend from Canada in the summer and early autumn, so I am starting to get used to it a bit more and am more accepting it's place in New Zealand. That said, I favour cricket and netball. Cricket because I grew up playing it and my Dad went to school with former Kiwi pace bowler Sir Richard Hadlee. I have been to several internationals at Jade Stadium (hosts cricket in the summer and rugby in the winter) against Australia (2x), Pakistan, India, and the West Indies. I started following netball when Christchurch hosted the 1999 World Championships, whose final New Zealand lost by one point with about 3 seconds on the clock against Australia. 2000 was a rebuilding year but we won a tri-nations series against Australia and South Africa in the latter part of that year. 2001 saw the shock dumping of the coach, and several Silver Ferns retire. In 2002 we played Australia and lost against them in double extra time 57-55. I think the tide in international netball changed with that game. Australia started making mistakes and (shock, horror)got beaten by the Jamaicans, barely survived a tight series against England, and did not dare play New Zealand. New Zealand ran in the opposite direction. We got beaten by the Jamaicans only because of biased umpiring, put away the English comfortably and drowned one of the South Pacific nations by about 80 points. I will tell the rest of the story later. Cheers Rob

Kia Ora If you get the time here is what I would like you to say for the Netball topic: "Netball" - A 7-aside game similar to basketball Thanks Rob

South Africa and Australia meet on Saturday for a Tri-Nations game. Both teams have been thrashed by New Zealand in the last two games of the series. South Africa is going in with a whole 'new look' team in the hopes of trying to win a match against Australia.

Are you in one of these countries Leah?

Yes, South Africa

Wow, we used to have a regular here from SA (Riette), what's life like for you there?

Okay. (Usually). I live in a suburb of the capital, which is your average westernised city. Last night our power was cut for 3 hours because someone (takes more than one person) stole an underground electricity cable, but other than that life is normal. Electricity is a luxury, and most of the black townships don't have - therefore theft of cables to make illegal link-ups to the main grid, results in deaths - as the cables are then 'live' and lie in the open.

That's pretty scary that folks are stealing live electric cables. Do you have backup power? How frequent are these man caused outages?

Do you have backup power? Not power, but we resort to a gas bottle if need be. How frequent are these man caused outages? This year there has been 6, just in our city. Around the country it happens at least once a week. It hits the news when someone dies, as then the authorities try to send an educational advert out saying please don't do it. I think many people here underestimate the power of electricity.

What size city are you in? Is it more prevalent (wire theft) in the larger cities?

What size city are you in? Pretoria is about the equivalent of Dallas (of what I can remember from the TV program) , with a population of 1.5 million Is it more prevalent (wire theft) in the larger cities? Mostly in the smaller regions or outlying areas. In the main cities, the cables are usually protected in secured areas.

So are you a rugby player yourself? Do you hang around with rugby players?

No, I definately do not play rugby!! Very rough macho sport, but I'm married to a dedicated fan, who played on a provincial level in the 80's, for the Blue Bulls.

So you do hang around with a rugby fan who's not a player? What is the appeal of the sport for you?

We're a sports mad country! Saturday afternoons are traditionally spent watching TV or attending a game. In order to spend time with my husband, I've had to adapt to supporting sporting events.

Rugby is popular as a local team sport here in Austin. But you rarely see it on tv. So there it has the status of football in the US?

Kia Ora from another sports mad country.... I hear Makhaya Ntini and Graeme Smith made a mess of the English batting in the cricket test? 2 double centuries is something I think even Sir Donald Bradman from Oz had trouble getting. The media made it sound like SA merely went for a stroll in the park and hit some big scores along the way... :o) From Terry in the previous message: "So there it has the status of football in the US?" Rugby is to NZ, Australia, England, France and South Africa what NFL is to you. Difference is rugby (or at least the Southern Hemisphere style)is a more free flowing game rather than the set piece plays of the NFL. I am not a rugby fan, though I will watch occasionally, but my Dad watches most games along with Mum (my brother usually watches it with his mates). Rob

South Africa has had a mixed weekend with the cricket and rugby. We have excelled on the cricket pitch!. We are very proud of our team and are just sorry that they have only managed this level of excelence AFTER the world cup, but that was anyway a different game - 1 day matches. But on the other end of the scale is the fiasco of a rugby game we tried to play. Not only did we lose, but dirty play was involved. The Tri-Nations has turned into Cry-Nations tournament for us. We still have to face New Zealand again on Saturday and many SA supporters just wish it was behind us - how much worse can it get. Of course, the management etc say that they don't want to 'peak' before the World Cup - what a joke!!

Kia Ora The Aussies as I understand the state of affairs with the dirty claims, have yet to show evidence. Was there evidence of eye gouging and the like? I cannot say because I was at my brother Craig's 21st birthday and was not near a TV screen all night. 682/6 is a HUGE score. Be warned England can hit big responses when under pressure, but the likelihood of them matching the deficit is low I would imagine given how test pitches invariably deterioate over the course of the game. Now, anyway. I was wondering about how much of this following assessment you would agree with 2 months out from the World Cup? It is a ranked list of where I think the teams are likely to end up in the finals: For the Quarter Finals: New Zealand, England, France, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Fiji, Italy For the Semi Finals: New Zealand, Australia, England, South Africa For the Final: England, New Zealand For the World Cup: Not willing to call a shot. It is not that I do not have confidence, or am taking the easy way out, but it is too soon to tell what might happen. Rob

Don't know so much if SA will reach the Semi's,(this based on current performance). I'd like to see Scotland and or Wales in the Quarters. I haven't seen much of Fiji lately.

Kia Ora What do South Africans do in the stadium when the All Blacks perform the Haka? Aussies start singing Waltzing Matilda, and the English I think sing God save the Queen. In New Zealand for obvious reasons we do not do anything: we want you to hear it LOUD AND CLEAR. Rob

What do South Africans do in the stadium when the All Blacks perform the Haka? I know that once the players started walking towards the All Blacks - I think it was in the rugby world cup final which we won. In the stadium we sing 'Shosho losa' which is an African miners working song. We also have a Zulu Warrior (in full traditional dress) that stands on the field to protect our players, but he seems very ineffectual...

Kia Ora So, Leigh. If you make time to spend with your husband watching sport, does he reward you in return for faithfully sitting next to him while the footy or other sports are on? Mum and Dad both watch the rugby, and we have been to see a couple of the Crusaders games. Saw the Crusaders play the Bulls in 2000 who got beaten by something like 40 points, and the New South Wales Waratahs. Dad and I sometimes go to see the Black Caps play during the NZ cricket season (last time I think was when Australia came over and had a run-fest at Jade Stadium - scored 340 or something like that in an ODI, and we scored about 310 in response). Rob

does he reward you in return for faithfully sitting next to him while the footy or other sports are on? Yes, he knows as much about Colin Firth (see Drool) as I do!

I see that the All Black team for Saturday's game at Duneden against the Springboks has 5 or 6 changes. Is this good or bad for New Zealand to change a team that has won it's last few matches as a walkover?

Wow, there a team named Springboks? That sounds good! Tell me more about that team, ok?

Kia Ora With due respect Drool is not my cup of tea - hence my deafening silence there. If you were to go to Geo, you would find that I am very active there because earth sciences and in particular earthquakes and volcanoes have interested me since I was little. Rob

Me again I think some of the changes may be for the better. Our kicking department is lacking a person who can play the tactical game, and while Andrew Mehrtens would be preferred to Carlos Spencer I think because Mehrtens is an old hand, Mitchell wants to find someone to replace him when he retires. He has not announced it yet, but what is there to say he will not? Rob

Wow, there a team named Springboks? That sounds good! Tell me more about that team, ok? Springboks = South African national team, named after a buck (bokkie) found in abundance in all our National parks. When apartheid ended, attempts were made by the new government to change the name from Springboks to Proteas, but this has failed, as in international rugby, the Springboks are recognised as South Africa. (Same as New Zealand is known as All Blacks)

Kia Ora Leah, the media here are saying that the Boks are headed for oblivion and silly things like that all because they are in a bad patch. They seem to have forgotten all teams have a bad period from time to time - the All Blacks were ridiculed in the late 1990s for their Bledisloe Cup and Tri-nations form yet now they are one of the hot favourites for this years World Cup. If you want my take: I do not buy the garbage for one second. South Africa is a formidable outfit to take on even on the best of days, and he who writes them off this early is dead wrong on all accounts. All teams have their bad days - South Africa will be back. Rob

All teams have their bad days - South Africa will be back. Have to agree with you, but Saturday is another 'test' for us. The headlines today are still reporting on the 16-52 loss. Remember, this loss was a home game for us, this weekend we are playing in Dunedin. It is going to be a tough game for us. We will be watching on Saturday morning (I think our time 09:30) and hoping that the team can at least play a proper game of rugby!

Hi all Starts about 1930 hours here, and it is clear and cold in Dunedin I understand from listening to the weather report. At the time of typing this it was 1904 hours. Good luck Rob

Good game Leah? I thought SA played well. Dad, who is more into the game than I, was impressed with the try scored by SA in the first half. I think (and hope)that this game silenced a few critics of the SA team, who Justin Marshall recognised as having made significant inroads since the 52-16 scoreline. Have a good weekend. Rob

We did play well, but we still lost! (at least 11-19 is better than 16-52)

Kia Ora It was a good reality check for the "experts" who like to think that they know about the game and all the technical aspects. Why? Because I am a self confessed novice in rugby gameplay, teams, positions and everything else and I was correct in my prediction that SA would play better. Rob

That makes me a subnovice!

Hi all Rugby has not always been popular in New Zealand, especially in 1981 when the Springbok Tour as it is known here caused massive civil disorder. Many people including current MPs led campaigns of peaceful civil disobedience like blocking roads and bridges. There were violent demonstrations in every city that the South Africans toured, and as the tournament moved up the country protests got progressively bigger with thousands marching by the time it reached Wellington. Why? South Africa's Apartheid meant the SA team was only of white people whereas New Zealand included players of many heritages from around the South Pacific. Basically like other nations peoples New Zealanders resented Apartheid, and especially the decision of Prime Minister Robert Muldoon to permit the tour. Let me give you a run down, city by city of what was happening during that fateful tour in a country normally known to be peaceful and friendly. The tour started in Dunedin at Carisbrook (known also as the "House of Pain")where hundreds marched in protest. The game went ahead I think, but there was widespread anger voiced in all centres. Dunedin has a population of 110,000 people and with the exception of Hamilton was the smallest of the cities where games were played. In Christchurch at what was then known as Lancaster Park (now Jade Stadium), thousands marched. Police set up barricades around the park and shuttled people in and out to prevent disruption of the game. Protests turned violent when marchers met supporters of the game outside the stadium and police had to intervene. I am not sure of what coverage this received overseas (Leah? what coverage was available in SA?). With a population of 310,000 people then, Christchurch was an ominous indicator of things to come - if barricades were being needed after only two games what would happen when the tour reached Auckland? Trouble escalated further in Wellington. By now protests were an almost daily event, and in Wellington the protest became running battles with objects being thrown at the police who were unlucky in that they were merely charged with keeping the peace. Thousands descended on Parliament and hundreds more went to try to disrupt the game at Athletic Park. With a population of 450,000 there was plenty of potential trouble. But now things really really heated up. Police in Hamilton were told to take a no holds barred approach and the protesters began wearing motor cycle helmets and carrying cricket bats. In the inevitable clashes that followed letter boxes were ripped out, scores were injured. The game started, stopped when the crowd became hostile, started again and then stopped for good when riot police entered the grounds because word had leaked of a pitch invasion impending. Finally the tour reached Auckland, and most agree albeit for different reasons that the tour should have been called off by now. If Hamilton was a shambles, Auckland was an utter nightmare. The civil disobedience was peaking and a no go zone around Eden Park had to be constructed to keep the riots that everyone knew were going to come from reaching the stadium. Even before the game started, it was in trouble. A light aircraft had been circling the stadium dropping leaflets into the crowd, and when it flew off, the crowd became noisy and angry. The game started for reasons as no one quite knew why because trouble was just around the corner... The light aircraft that had been circling the stadium dropping leaflets, now came back with something more troublesome - flour bombs. The aircraft circled the stadium once before several bombs were dropped out of the aircraft onto the field. At that stage the crowd roared their approval and people from both the pro and anti factions began entering the field enmasse. Riot police had been deployed but they struggled to contain the seething mass that was entering the field. The tour was off. There was no point in playing the remaining games when the host country had virtually gone to war with itself. For 20 years few spoke about the Springbok tour, though now we are finally coming to terms with those few crazy weeks in 1981 when for a time NZ was almost at war. Rob

Yeah, I remember the 1981 tour the Springboks took to NZ. It was news headlines on TV and newspapers. Politics vs sport and politics IN sport - a debate South Africa hasn't managed to get over yet.

Kia Ora I think we found Apartheid repulsive because we were conscious of the history behind the colonisation of New Zealand by the British and the potentially destructive effects, opening old wounds from that time would have on NZ. There is rigorous debate today and which will possibly always go on forever about Maori indigenous rights and ownership of natural resources. The Government needs to legislate to avoid alienating the European population, but to avoid falling out with Maori they have to be seen to be supporting their claims to ownership. Sport is a bit different. I think we have grown up since the crazy days of 1981 or at least I HOPE we have grown up from that sort of lunacy. Given our tolerance of other cultures I think it would be a damning indictment if we have not learnt the lessons. Nelson Mandela was immensely popular when NZ hosted the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, and most see him as a symbol. New Zealanders are not well known for turning out en masse to see politicians and figureheads, but a lot of people went to Auckland to see Mandela. Just wondering. Does having Mugabe's Zimbabwe on your border cause any concern given his utter contempt for all things democratic and/or Western? Rob

Kia Ora Been a great weekend for New Zealand rugby. We have now taken the Bledisloe Cup off the Australians as well, and next stop is Australian Rugby Union in November to get the Holy Grail of Rugby: THE WORLD CUP. Ka rita (rising voice)... KA RITA (rising voice) .... Rob

Congrats on winning the Rugby. You're right that your next stop will be the trip to pick up the World cup. No team is going to beat NZ in their current form. Good luck from a Bok supporter

Kia Ora I would not write off the other teams yet. They might be struggling to match the All Blacks at the moment but I have haunting memories of when we let France off the hook in 1999 - it cost us the Semi-final. I mean we played like madmen said one Australian, and then for reasons as god only knows we just slacked off big time in the second half. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid... Rob

Kia Ora Leah, did you get my response to that e-mail you sent? Rob

Hi Rob Yes, I got your last email, and have just replied. - Sorry for the delay.

Kia Ora All Blacks have announced their 30 man "Win the World Cup or else" squad. Big names are missing like Andrew Mehrtens, Jonah Lomu, Taine Randell, Anton Oliver, among others. Captain is Reuben Thorne, and the Vice Captain is Tana Umaga. Justin Marshall, Ben Blair, Corey Flynn, Joe Rokocoko, Doug Howlett, Daniel Carter, Carlos Spencer are all in. Spencer is someone I would have left in on the condition that Andrew Mehrtens went as a stand in because his kicking is second grade, and my fear is that if crucial games in the semifinals and (I assume)the final came down to kicking goals then we would lose. Rob

Me again When will SA name it's squad for the World Cup? Rob

The SA team is on a training camp this week, and on Saturday the squad will be announced. Already there is speculation as to who will be picked, as the government has laid down a few criteria for the team, and it seems performance is not top on their list. (performance is not on the players list either, but that is an issue our current SA team and management doesn't seem to bother about!)

Kia Ora No matter Leigh. New Zealand will if we have any sense go into the RWC assuming South Africa is saving it's best for the World Cup competition. The World Cup is make or break for NZ, Australia and South Africa because our countrymen will accept nothing less than a world cup victory. Bit like walking a tight rope over an alligator pit or a den of hungry lions... Rob

Hi all The Aussies have named their squad to defend the trophy that they won in 1999 against France. Interesting to note a few people missing, but that other big names are in there are still some relative unknowns in the team. Leigh, if the Kiwis do the Haka, the Aussies "Waltzing Matilda" (which some rugby kill-joy tried to get banned from the 2003 cup), what do South African supporters do? For those in the States and elsewhere who are not familiar with patriotism at rugby, the mood or atmosphere of big rugby matches is often defined culturally. For example the Australians LOVE singing "Waltzing Matilda", and to hear 50,000 voices in the stands all singing the same tune at once is a very powerful sound. To hear the All Black captain winding up the team before they perform the Haka and the ferocious chant that follows is spine tingling for any opposition, and it is what makes rugby so immensely popular. A variant of the Haka that former captain Taine Randell introduced in 1998 is particularly powerful. Just before they start, he turned towards the players and gave them the following call in Maori: "Ka rita.... KA RITA...." Rob

The South African team was announced on Saturday, but what drama ! Two players had a "disagreement", and the press picked up on it. Unfortunately one player was black and one white, so the government, rugby officials, press etc all assumed it was a racial 'disagreement' and both players were excluded from the team. Now there are enquiries and allegations by lawyers from both sides, as to be labeled a 'racist' in South Africa will end your career in sport (and anywhere else) immediately. Oh what joy we have when sport has to endure political pressure. Our team has enough to worry about without outside influences. The only player who will make 2003 his 3rd world cup is Joost van der Westhuizen.

Kia Ora You are right. The media swooped on it like a vulture, and it made the sports news here for two nights running. Question. I assume South Africa has a rigorous punishment system for lunatics like the moron who attacked the referee in that All Black-SA game last year? In New Zealand I think morons like him would be photographed, and mugshots distributed to security at all international venues. Alcohol cannot be bought onto the grounds and on site food and drink vendors are told to turn away drunks. ---- Have you heard, aside from by me, that a kill joy official tried to ban Waltzing Matilda from being sung at the World Cup. How is that for lunacy? Believe me Leigh, I would sooner join the Aussies singing Waltzing Matilda at an international rugby match against New Zealand than I would let someone ban the song. Rob

Only now seen the above post. The moron became a 'national hero'. Seriously, he has paid the fine that was set against the crime, and has stated that he has bought tickets for the World cup, and is on his way to Australia. I just hope that he behaves himself, as the world will once again be watching. However, I do hope that the referees are going to be fair and consistant in their games - South Africa needs all the help they can get. After all the political/racial problems facing the Boks in the past few weeks, they have been rated No 4 by one of the sponsors - so there is hope for us still.

Is there some kind of rugby world cup going on in Australia?

Not yet - starts on 10 October, and the final will be on 22 November, with LOTS of games inbetween. South Africa is rated No 4, but who knows what happens in these tournaments.

Hi all England has the Lion as it's symbol, the Aussies have the Kangaroo, the South Africans the Springbok, the Kiwi have as the name suggests... so what do France have? Terry, msg #83 "Is there some kind of rugby world cup going on in Australia?" It has not started yet as Leah mentioned, and it is THE Rugby World Cup - the ONLY Rugby World Cup. This is a truly international competition as my next post will make very clear. October 10 is the day. Rob

Kia Ora It has started. The Rugby World Cup 2003 is underway. I think Fox is showing coverage of the competition on their sports channel. 20 nations, one trophy. http://www.foxsportsworld.com/rugby Who will win the 2003 Rugby World Cup competition: Will the dark horse of France emerge? Will the English Lion roar? Will the Wallabies give their opponents an over dose of "Waltzing Matlida"? Will the Springboks run wild? OR Will the night go All Black? Rob

Hi The All Blacks have a tough game (which they should win) tomorrow against Italy, and later in the day... The Boks are going to tackle Uruguay - which should be a win for South Africa ! We will watch and wait to see what happens, because weaker teams than this have beaten us.

Hi all That was a fairly straight forward match. NZ won 70-7 to Italy. John Kirwan is coaching the Italian team - you might recall his name from the early 1990s and late 1980s when he was holding the No. 14 jersey for the All Blacks. When are the Boks going for Uruguay? I know a couple from Uruguay who did their post graduate degrees at Canterbury University where I am doing a degree in Geography. I did not know that Uruguay played rugby (though with Argentina just across the River Plate from them I suppose that that is not so surprising), just I was unaware that Romania played it until I arrived at Grandma's place where she and a cousin of mine that I was visiting were watching the opening moments of Romania-Ireland. Ireland won if you did not see it and France plays Fiji shortly. THAT will be interesting. Rob

South Africa played Uruguay just after the New Zealand game, and we WON ! also by a huge margin, but it was expected. (if we had lost this game, our team would have flown home already) What happened to Carlos Spencer? He missed so many kicks. But apart from this NZ had a good game.

Kia Ora That is Carlos living up to the doubt many including myself cast on him when Mitchell picked the team several weeks ago. I think Mitchell should have gone with Andrew Mehrtens who has a consistently good record kicking the ball for penalties and goals. I am more interested in Tana Umaga, skipper of the Wellington Hurricanes and All Black Vice Captain - he has a bad knee injury and may miss the rest of the tourney. This would be troublesome because Umaga is a consistently good player and has values that all sportsmen and women should uphold - great sportsmanship and fair play. To be fair we have a powerful squad for the World Cup, something about which few have any doubts. But, I would have preferred to give Christian Cullen, Anton Oliver and Mehrts spots in place of some of the people that have currently gone. The most powerful team is the team that wins when all the players are on song. This is something the Silver Ferns demonstrated to the world at the Netball World Championships. Rob

Kia Ora Terry. I was wondering if you would be so good as to create the following topic for the Sport conference. TITLE: "Rugby World Cup 2003" BLURB: "20 Nations, 48 games in 44 days. There can be only ONE WINNER..." I would appreciate it if you could do that, thanks. Rob

Kia Ora Leah, good luck in the Lion's den!!! Rob ---- World Sports - AFP Springboks and England ready to light World Cup touchpaper 2 hours, 21 minutes ago PERTH, Australia (AFP) - The first-phase phoney war of the Rugby World Cup is set for a bone-jarring interruption here Saturday when England and South Africa collide in a crucial heavyweight contest. After a week dominated by mis-matches and record scorelines, a sell-out crowd of 43,000 will pack into the Subiaco Oval for a long-awaited Pool C game where the World Cup aspirations of both sides are on the line. The stakes are high. The victors can start making hotel arrangements for a semi-final in Sydney on November 16. For the losers, a daunting quarter-final against the All Blacks awaits. England, who are seeking to become the first northern hemisphere team to lift the Webb Ellis Cup, will start as favourites against a Springbok side who they crushed by a record 53-3 margin at Twickenham last year. That game exploded into violence when South African lock Jannes Labuschagne was sent off for a dangerous late tackle on England fly-half Jonny Wilkinson. Both camps have been at pains this week to play down the chances of a similarly spiteful encounter this time around -- but are nevertheless preparing for a ferocious physical battle. "Rugby is a physical game -- and we're going to play a physical game," said South Africa scrum-half Joost van der Westhuizen, who wins his 86th cap. Springboks lock Victor Matfield, a 6ft 7in (2.01m) former chorister who is the workhorse of the South African engine room, knows what is needed for victory. "We have to dominate them physically," the 26-year-old said. "In any game against a big team, you have to beat their forwards. Against England its especially important because they have such a big pack." England's experienced pack -- which averages more than 40 caps per head -- will be ready to fight fire with fire. "They pride themselves on being big-hitters," said England's captain Martin Johnson. "We pride ourselves on being a physical side too," added Johnson, who will lead a full-strength XV after several players injured in the 84-6 opening win over Georgia recovered. No.8 Lawrence Dallaglio cast doubt on whether South Africa would resort to the tactics used at Twickenham last year. "There's been a lot of talk about the Twickenham game but that was a complete one-off in my opinion," said Dallaglio. "We know they're hard and physical but there's nothing wrong with that -- it's one of the reasons we all play the game." Dallaglio said neither team could afford to transgress, with each side possessing accurate goalkickers in Wilkinson and South Africa's Louis Koen who could be relied upon to convert penalties into points. "Self-discipline is something we speak about a lot," he said. "We like to play physical, we like to play tough -- but it's got to be within the law. "You cannot win matches at international level if you don't have discipline throughout your team. Teams that don't adhere to that run the risk of losing." South Africa captain Corne Krige echoed Dallaglio's warning. "Discipline is very high on our list and has been for a year," Krige said. "Our penalty count has come down this year. Team manager Gideon Sam defused talk of another bad-tempered match in more colourful language. "It will not be a Korean war, nor a Boer war, nor any other war," Sam said. The build-up has seen England's tactics questioned, with a furore over the legality of the favourites' successful rolling maul ploy and perceived tendency to slow down play at the tackle area. Springbok coach Rudolf Straeuli would not confirm if he planned to discuss the maul with referee Peter Marshall but said he planned to hold a wide-ranging pre-match meeting with the Australian official. "I will be raising a lot of issues with the referee, but I'm not going into details," said Straueli. Straueli has named a side containing just two players -- skipper Krige and flanker Joe van Niekerk -- who played in the trouncing at Twickenham. Krige returns to the team after missing the opening 72-6 win against Uruguay and Straeuli said he was encouraged that both his captain and van der Westhuizen looked sharp. "To topple the top team in the world they've got to be at their best and they need a bit of luck as well," Straeuli said. "But experienced players like Corne and Joost are starting to hit form which is a good sign." Van der Westhuizen, the sole survivor of South Africa's 1995 World Cup-winning team, meanwhile said the squad wanted to use the game to silence their critics. "We've said all along that we want to do our talking on the pitch," the 32-year-old van der Westhuizen said. "Saturday gives us the opportunity to be heard."

Thanks Rob, we're going to need all the luck we can get - an Aussie ref doesn't really help our cause! The game is going to be played at 13:30 (lunch time on Saturday) and a lunch time braai (traditional boere kos) has been arranged by friends - so we'll be about 20 adults acting like 2 year olds for the duration. For the losers, a daunting quarter-final against the All Blacks awaits. of course if the 'boks lose, we still would need to win our other matches (against Samoa and Georgia) for the quarter-final to become a reality ;-)

Hi all We won against Canada, but still cannot answer the critics when it come to reducing their error rate. http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2697047a1823,00.html I hope that the game does not flare up like the last one between the Lion and the Bok did at Twickenham into open violence. That is not what the Rugby World Cup is all about or supposed to be about. I also hope that Pieter van Zyl (pot-bellied crank who attacked the ref last year)is not in any of the crowds, because he sullies South Africa's sporting name. ---- Dad was wondering if maybe this will be the year of the Kiwi in sport. After watching the Kiwi league players bet the Aussies in the annual match, and knowing that although they are most likely to get a draw the 630/6 we scored against India is possibly unbeatable things are looking up. This comes on top of Scott Dixon doing well in the Indy, the almighty goddesses of double scull rowing defending their crown, and the demolition of South Africa and Australia for the Trinations and Bledisloe Cups. Of course I cannot go past without mentioning the demise of Australian netball supremacy at the hands of the "Magnificent 7" Silver Ferns. Rob

Hi The Boks entered the Rose Garden, and got stuck in the thorns - we could have won the game, but... South Africa lost ! (against England) Surprise, surprise. Not only that, but Samoa is top of our table. They are the surprise of the group and have put up a brave fight. We still have to play them and hope for a good win.

Kia Ora Johnny Wilkinson is dangerous - if we meet England, and it becomes a kicking contest then I fear that the first phone-call after the game will be for 30 airline tickets back to NZ. Send the men on ahead while the Coach and his crew figure what went so horribly wrong. Either that or whoever kicks for New Zealand puts in 110% effort. Carlos Spencer cannot kick with the consistency needed to win a kicking competition, and why I rue the fact that Andrew Mehrtens is not playing. Who kicks for SA? Rob

Hi Louis Koen kicked for us against England - he kicked 6 times but only 2 went over. Of the 4 he missed , 2 were RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE POSTS. (The commentators were saying that he could do it with his eyes closed, and lo and behold, his eyes were closed and he MISSED)... If we had gotten the points from his missed kickes, we would have/could have won the game - even England admitted this, so yes, kickers are of vital importance!

Kia Ora I am not taking much notice of the rugby at the moment because we are in India for a cricket triseries with them and Oz, and the test series that ended a few days ago was promising. Although we did not win either test, the batsmen did something I cannot EVER remember them doing: the openers plus first and third drop ALL scored centuries in the second test. We declared 630/6 against India after this effort, though I think personally we should have gambled and declared at say 530-550 and got started on the Indians earlier. Rob

Pool A Team P W D L F A Pts Australia 3 3 0 0 256 16 14 Ireland 3 3 0 0 125 39 14 Argentina 4 2 0 2 140 57 10 Romania 3 0 0 3 28 185 0 Namibia 3 0 0 3 21 273 0 Pool B Team P W D L F A Pts France 3 3 0 0 163 56 15 Scotland 3 2 0 1 80 77 10 Fiji 3 2 0 1 78 92 9 USA 3 1 0 2 72 84 6 Japan 4 0 0 4 79 163 0 Pool C Team P W D L F A Pts England 3 3 0 0 144 34 14 South Africa 3 2 0 1 124 50 10 Samoa 3 2 0 1 128 57 10 Uruguay 3 1 0 2 43 144 4 Georgia 4 0 0 4 46 200 0 Pool D Team P W D L F A Pts New Zealand 3 3 0 0 229 20 15 Wales 3 3 0 0 95 45 13 Italy 4 2 0 2 77 123 8 Canada 3 0 0 3 30 128 1 Tonga 3 0 0 3 39 154 1 Teams are awarded: Four points for a win. Two points for a draw. A bonus point for scoring four or more tries in a game. A bonus point for losing by seven points or fewer. The top two teams from each Pool qualify for the quarter-finals. If at the completion of the Pool phase two or more teams are level on points, the following criteria shall be used IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER until one of the teams can be determined as the higher ranked: 1. The winner of the match in which the two tied teams have played each other shall be the higher ranked. 2. The team which has the best points difference in all matches shall be the higher ranked. 3. The team which has the best difference between tries scored and tries conceded in all matches shall be the higher ranked. 4. The team which has scored most points in all its matches shall be the higher ranked. 5. The team which has scored most tries in all its matches shall be the higher ranked; 6. Should the tie still be unresolved, it shall be settled by the toss of a coin. England for the Cup Joe

(Joe) England for the Cup You may very well say this, but at least South Africa seems to have made it through to the quarter-finals, which is further than I had originally hoped for.

I am pleased that South Africa have made it to quarter-finals I have always enjoyed watching them play also the South African Cricket Team, it would be nice to see them play England in the Final but I think not? England for the cup Joe

Kia Ora Welcome - and beware. Leah is from South Africa as she indicated. I am from New Zealand. Tana Umaga is recovering well according to the media, and the All Blacks are hoping to put him in the starting XV for the quarters. He tore a cruciate in the first pool match the All Blacks played which was against Italy. There were fears that his World Cup campaign might be over, but it looks like starting to get back on track. Beware of Samoa, and be thankful that they did not field the most powerful assemblage of players that they can muster. Several players contracted by overseas clubs could not get to represent their country, and so what you so of Samoa was actually a compromise I think between their A-team (the team you should be thankful you never saw), and the B team which is what I think you got). Samoa played out of their tree against England and deserve due respect. Rob

Do you play rugby yourself, Rob?

South Africa still have to play and win against Samoa to get through to the quarter-finals. A daunting prospect if ever there was one.

Kia Ora No. I find rugby gets too much hype as a sport, and some of the games are pretty rough. I think the physical game is good but not the stomping, the eye gouging and so on that sometimes occurs. That is why I have shown more interest in the Silver Ferns, and the Black Caps. Those teams are well represented too, but not to the same at times numbing degree the All Blacks are. They are only human, but you would have thought some days that all of them and NZ rugby players are supermen. I support my country just like Leah does, but somedays a loss can restore the human aspect to the game and remind New Zealanders that that is precisely what it is: A GAME. You win some, you lose some. Losers deserve respect too, and sometimes some teams do not deserve to win, while other times they deserved the win. Rob

Kia Ora How was the RSA/Samoa game Leah? I saw the scoreline, which was impressive. Samoa have played really well at this world cup and I am sorry to see them go. They are a good team and the game that they played against England was a stunner. South Africa, and Scotland have made the quarters after winning their last pool games today against Samoa and Fiji respectively (anyone who is not a Quarter Final prospect is already out of the tournament although they may still have games to play - Japan, USA, Canada, Namibia, Romania, Uraguay). At the time of writing this Australia was playing Ireland - a game Australia will almost certainly win. New Zealand will play (and probably thrash)Wales tomorrow to join Oz, SA, and Scotland. France is already in (I think), and England is likely to follow suit. So, Terry. The battle lines are being drawn as I speak - by the time this weekend ends the final 8 to challenge for the 4 semi-final spots will be known. There are 5 big rugby playing nations in the world, and 4 semi final spots. Who will get them? Australia barring a shocker is guaranteed one, England will likely get another one. A third will go to NZ. Who will get the fourth? South Africa or France? Rob

Kia Ora I would say that Ireland has come of age... http://rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/02/1067597218375.html Rob

South Africa beat Samoa, because they played their best game a week before against England. Did you see the guy who tried to tackle one of South Africa's players, but got kicked by him instead? I didn't watch the game, but heard most of it. (it was played at 9:30am on a Saturday morning SA time)

Kia Ora If we lose this weekend, I would guess that John Mitchell's head will be on the block by Monday morning. The media and the rugby public will be circling like vultures overhead waiting to dive on him, the assistant coach Robbie Deans and the 30 men that they took to Oz with them. A loss against South Africa in the quarters would probably result in the next 3-4 weeks of media coverage being "Mitchell, NZ rugby, Mitchell, NZ rugby, Mitchell, NZ rugby..." (get a hint?). I wonder when the day will come when we as Kiwis can accept that they are just human and that all humans have screw ups every now and again. I certainly do not expect them to win all the time and sometimes when we did not deserve to win I find it quite refreshing that our expectations were brought back to Earth. With the Silver Ferns now holding the international netball bragging rights, I just hope we do not lose our heads over them. I hope that we continue to do well, but as I said we all screw up from time to time - tis a fact of life. If we win, then what are the prospects of Straueli's head rolling? Is he a popular coach in South Africa, and a man who can communicate with the people and the media? I wonder also what is going to happen in the media if we win. Will the mob go wild and pester the heck out of the All Blacks for the rest of the year demanding interviews and trying to everything out of proportion? There are still three games to go and our chances of losing any one of them is as good as 50-50%. Leah, I rate SA as highly as I rate NZ. Rob

Rob, Thanks that you even think South Africa has a chance against the All Blacks. The general opinion here is that South Africa won their last game of the 2003 RWC on Saturday. As for Straueli's head rolling? Before the team went to Australia, there was a HUGE blow up with a political situation (in the team), and Straueli was either fired, resigned or was told to quit, but that he had to see the team through the World Cup. Whether we win or lose, he is gone!

Kia Ora Yeah, but do you know what the schedule is for the rest of the competition? The winner of Quarter Final 1 i.e NZ/SA meets the winner of QF 2 (Oz/Scotland)and the winner of QF 3 (France/?)meets the winner of QF 4 (England/?). The climax is drawing near - the teams are all calling up their most powerful players - Stirling Mortlock got the call up for Australia today. Tana Umaga might be a starter now in the ABs line up. England is doing their homework against Wales, the French are polishing their armour once more and the Irish are figuring out what they need to do to shock the World. D-Day is approaching Leah. Rob

Kia Ora With under 30 hours to go until the All Blacks take on South Africa, how do things look from the South African perspective Leah? Tana Umaga is out of the Quarters. Carlos Spencer is on the team and Jerry Collins is back. Joe Rokocoko and Doug Howlett are in as well. I still rate the South Africans as having as high as a 50-50% chance of winning, because we were a bit lame on defence last week and the Welsh punished us. I would expect the South Africans to exploit the weak spots and push us to the limits. Best of Luck against NZ (but that does not necessarily mean I want YOUR team to win). Rob

Hi Rob Best of luck to you too, (but that doesn't mean I want YOUR team to win.) What are our chances? Commentators and those in the know are saying that NZ has peaked too early, and that although its great to win the TriNations, they should have pulled back a little for their 'big' games in the World Cup. Time will tell. It's make or break for our teams.

By the way, the match is at 9:30 am on Saturday morning in South Africa. Our country will be at a standstill. A good time to go shopping I think ;-)

Kia Ora *Laughter* True. It is 7.30pm here and because of that it will be straight after or during dinner, which makes it a bit more difficult to ignore seeing as my parents and I eat in the lounge so we can watch the telly. I think I will retreat to the computer or conservatory and unwind, since I will have just finished exams. I have a geology exam tomorrow which I expect to pass fairly comfortably. I know Straeuli seems to be a goner, but perhaps he can depart with a bit more dignity if his team were to win this game. Or is he so far gone that no win regardless of who is playing against SA, will help him out of the quagmire? Rob

Kia Ora "IT" has begun... Someone HAS to lose. Goodluck. Rob

Kia Ora WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! Rob

Good game Leah. South Africa might be on it's way home now, but I am not going to rub it in, with due respect and in the spirit of fair play. I guess that is the end of Rudolf Straeuli and possibly Corne Krige is it? Had the Kiwi's been South Africans, this would be the end of the road for John Mitchell, his assistant Coach Robbie Deans and the captain Reuben Thorne. It is improbable that Kiwi's would have let them survive in their current capacities. With South Africa gone, next up is Australia vs Scotland. Tomorrow England plays Wales, while France takes on Ireland. God bless you Leah. Rob

Rob Congratulations. A game that was won by the better team.

Kia Ora South Africa may be out, but lets keep in touch shall we? I would be interested in hearing what life is like in post-Apartheid South Africa and their perspective on the world. It has a strong sporting culture that many I think have come to respect - South Africa is after all one of the stronger sides in Rugby, Cricket, and to a lesser extent netball. Best Rob

Kia Ora The Welsh dragon came close to roasting the English rose with its fire last night. At half time they were leading the English 10-3, and playing like they were going to win. It was an impressive display from the men of Steve Hansen's team, whcih reminded me why he and other Kiwi rugby coaches who have gone abroad, are so desired. But the boot of Johnny Wilkinson is deadly - he kicked 6 penalties and a drop goal against Wales which got them most of the 28 points England scored. The Aussies are in too, but they were hardly convincing against Scotland who held them in check at half time. They also had a scrap with one of the Scots after some row blew up. And today the Sydney Morning Herald was talking of the Aussies as "road kill in the headlights of a Kiwi juggernaut" - hardly encouraging to hear your leading paper call your rugby team road kill is it? Oz will be back - one can reasonably expect them to come out guns blazing at this semi-final and challenge the All Blacks every step of the way to the final. So are the French, who have been hardly challenged in pool play and are now finding themselves being challenged for sudden death positions. The dark horse of France will have to beat England if the Tricoleurs are going to challenge whoever wins the NZ/Aust showdown, and they have not yet had their armour checked out by the opposition for kinks. They will, and if Clive Woodward has anything to say, they will also investigate the possibility of being on the next flight to Paris if things screw up. But in Melbourne a black juggernaut gathers... Rob

Hi all Tis not been a great day in NZ rugby. Congrats to Australia for winning a game in which they were clearly the superior team and were clearly underestimated. Rob (P.S Leah, I know how you feel - ain't feeling that flash myself at the moment) ---- Wallabies dash All Black dreams 15 November 2003 By GUY MacGIBBON Australia 22 New Zealand 10 Superior defence, accurate goalkicking and a run-away try led the Wallabies to a 22-10 win over the All Blacks in their Rugby World Cup semifinal at Sydney's Telstra Stadium tonight. The All Blacks were rocked in the 10th minute when Wallabies centre Stirling Mortlock intercepted a Carlos Spencer pass to run away with an 80 metre try to put the first points on the board, which second five-eighth Elton Flatley converted to give the Wallabies the early 7-0 lead and a huge psychological boost. Mortlock's was the Wallabies' only try in the end, but it proved enough, as they doggedly held on to the lion's share of possession and regularly ratcheted up the pressure on the All Blacks with penalties, never surrendering the lead. The Wallabies seemed to have an answer for every question the All Blacks' move-it-wide-at-all-costs attack asked of them, while the Wallabies backline finally fired, with Mortlock penetrative, maligned league converts Lote Tiquiri and Mat Rogers dangerous and pivot Stephen Larkham elusive. All Blacks No 8 Jerry Collins was ruled to have made a dangerously high tackle on Wallapies lock Nathan Sharpe, who left the field dazed while Flatley nailed the penalty kick for the Wallabies to lead 10-0 with 23 minutes gone. Flatley made it 13-0 seven minutes from halftime with his second penalty goal. Staring at a doughnut at the break, the All Blacks put themselves back into the game in the 35th minute with a try to captain Reuben Thorne, who latched onto a nice pass from Spencer and crashed over. Leon McDonald nailed the conversion to give the All Blacks seven points. Elton Flatley gave the Wallabies the first second-half points in the 42nd minute with a straightforward penalty goal, awarded against Collins. The three made the score 16-7 to the Wallabies. Australian prop Ben Darwin was stretched off early in the second half after a Wallabies scrum was smashed by the All Blacks eight. The game was delayed for several minutes as the medical team attended to Darwin, with the shadow of a possible serious neck injury hanging over the pitch. Kees Meews had just come into the All Blacks front row before the scrum. Flatley's fourth penalty around the 50 minute mark gave the Wallabies a 19-7 advantage. MacDonald reduced the gap by three with an easy penalty in the 57th minute. In the 62nd minute Flatley pushed the lead out again with a penalty awarded against replacement All Blacks lock Brad Thorn to make the score 22-10, where it remained until the final whistle. Australia 22 (Stirling Mortlock try; Elton Flatley pens 5 con) bt New Zealand 10 (Reuben Thorne try; Leon MacDonald con pen)

Rob, Commiserations (sp?) You now have the great match to look forward to against France to see who comes third... We watched the match, and it was as if NZ thought that by just showing up at the stadium, they would win. A little bit of reality set in. The better team won on the day, but it could have easily gone the other way.

Kia Ora Thanks. How do you feel in the wake of the RSA/NZ game? Disappointed or not surprised? Tis a late hour, but later on this week I'll do an analysis of what went wrong so you can why we Kiwi's are not overly impressed. Rob

Kia Ora Saturday November 15 was not New Zealand's night on the rugby field. The worst fears of every Kiwi was realised when Australia took out the Semifinal against the All Blacks, and fairly convincingly at that. In looking for the cause of the problem many people zeroed in on Reuben Thorne and John Mitchell seeking to lay the blame on a Captain the team knew as Mr Freeze, and a coach often targetted for his lack of accessibility regarding the media. So, why did New Zealand lose a match that most people thought we had in the bag? There are several reasons for the defeat, not least that the All Blacks had no Plan B. Others problems but not necessarily causes for defeat included media hype that predicted an All Black win by 20 points or more, the busting of a boiler early on in the campaign, media inaccessibility, player positions/roles and a lack of on field communication. These problems meant the team could not function with it's usual cohesion, chances were lost or wrongly interpreted and wrong decisions taken. But the most defining problem was you NEVER WRITE OFF THE AUSTRALIANS!!!! We did and paid the subsequent price - go figure. ---- The reasons for defeat are: I am very surprised that the most feared Rugby outfit in the WORLD had no Plan B, which made it almost shocking to hear John Mitchell say "we believe in a particular way". The most basic planning in all good teams includes a Plan B for when Plan A falls apart by failure to execute or by disintegration under pressure from the opposition. Most Plan B's have a Plan C (a "just in case" plan, incase B was too hastily conceived, was based on crap intelligence or poor logic). The lack of communication by Reuben Thorne has often been a problem during his tenure as Captain, which may explain his nickname "Mr Freeze" - when things go to custard as they did on Saturday night - he froze in place. Most teams have a communicator who can talk the talk and walk the walk - I think ours would have to be Tana Umaga who can often see the wider game for what it is and talk the team through the tough times (Australian defence being rock solid). Great things can be and are achieved when the team is on the same wave length. Did the team peak too soon? It is possible that the tide had turned before the World Cup started leaving us on a retreating tide of superiority by the time the World Cup started. This brings back memories of 1999 when the All Blacks were beaten by France (who we are playing as I type this for the 3rd/4th positions on the rankings ladder). Three months before we had been on song, but by the time the World Cup got going the tide had changed. Despite a frenetic first half, the All Blacks were soundly defeated by a French team that saw it's chance and grabbed it. The Media hype has only itself to blame for the implosion of our hopes and aspirations for World Cup glory. It fuelled grotesquely inaccurate hype about the prospects for victory against Australia. This lunacy wrote the Australians so badly that their victory came as a bucket of cold water over our heads, for which I am caught in two minds - I am grateful for the reality check. You NEVER write a team off, and it is because of this that the sweetest single thing Eddie Jones had in the World Cup was the Australian victory against the All Blacks. Short of victory in the final, the Australian team led by George Gregan has redeemed itself in every way. John Mitchell was very inaccessible to media. His self belief at times almost bordered on arrogance and their justification for leaving a number of players at home (Andrew Mehrtens, Anton Oliver, Christian Cullen among others)made us wonder what his agenda was. Mehrtens is a renown kicker and his boot ranks alongside Johnny Wilkinson for accuracy and points scored. Christian Cullen is one of the most prolific try scorers, and while his replacement has justified himself, having the experience never hurt. Losing Tana Umaga was a bad sign at the time and was a loss that I think most New Zealanders rued. So why did we bust a boiler in a game we would have won easily? Would it not have been wiser to save the effort for the games where busting a boiler might have been required to win (Australia...). Tana communicated with the whole team and talked them through questionable situations. He is also a sportsman of the first order and his rendering first aid when a Welshman was injured playing NZ last year earned him a prize from Wales at a private function. Why did New Zealand not save its best lineup until last? Why expend your A team against C grade teams when you know you still have A grade teams to meet later on? Learning to be resourceful is one thing all World Cup winners will have learned to be. To be fair it is wise to give them some play time, but you do not necessarily have to keep them on the whole duration of the game. But perhaps the most important is the will to win. You have to be prepared to play hard but fair, seize chances as they come and exploit them to the fullest. The team that won would win because they took risks when confronted with hard choices, and improvised when things fell apart. They had the hunger to win, equivalent to fuel in a car. ---- I wonder if it ever occurred to the All Blacks to take a leaf out of the Silver Ferns book on winning World Cups? Here is a national outfit that has learnt the harsh lessons against Australia in several World Cup finals, and successfully applied them. The Silver Ferns netball team had a Plan B for their 2003 World Cup campaign, and contingencies for every possible scenario - player send off, power failure (Kingston is notorious for power outages), injury among others. The only one that was actioned was player send off, when Temepara Clark was sin binned for reasons as no one ever figured out. The Silver Ferns were generous with their media access while not letting in on their game plan. I recalled seeing the interior of the gym that they worked out in during the days leading up to the competition, and them talking to the media about their game. The skipper, Anna Rowberry had an idea of what to do when Plan A fell to bits, and when Temepara Clark was sinbinned. They successfully put their back up plan into action and covered each others backs when Clark was off. The other plans were not needed, but it is indicative of the planning that went into the campaign before it started and what to do when they found themselves challenged. The media were realistic about the Ferns. Only on the day of the Final did any of them start seriously thinking about the prospects of international netball supremacy. The Ferns were realistic too - four of them were around for the 1999 shock loss to Australia in Christchurch, and most of the team were at the Commonwealth Games, when in double extra time they were beaten by Australia. They had the hunger - the prospect of another defeat was just too much to contemplate, and the will to play like they had never played before was there. This was the frame of mind that set the parameters of the 90 most electrifying moments of international netball ever seen on television. I tell you Leah, it was SPECTACULAR!!! Rob

Kia Ora Final scoreline NZ 40-France 13 Rob

Congrats. (but who will remember who came third?) It seems that as long as teams win, the 'behind the scenes' issues are overlooked, but as soon as teams lose, all the rubbish that can be found is dug up and thrown around. SA rugby is in a state of 'picking up the pieces' and the media here is having a field day, letting the players and officials know what is wrong with them and how those left behind could have done sooo much better!

Kia Ora I have an historic announcement to make: ENGLAND have won the Rugby World Cup for 2003 20-17 against AUSTRALIA in Sydney. THE FINAL STANDINGS FOR THE RUGBY WORLD CUP 2003 ARE: WORLD NO.1 ENGLAND World No.2 Australia World No.3 New Zealand World No.4 France The Webb Ellis trophy is bound for England, and shall be defended in FRANCE four years from now. Rob

Congratulations England! Isn't four years a long time between titles? I would think they would do this yearly.

Hi all "Isn't four years a long time between titles? I would think they would do this yearly." No. Anything less is too short a time frame to brag, to rebuild, to organise the host and find out who will qualify (World Cups are often the final competition for many players and are the absolute pinnacle of their careers - bit like a mountaineer climbing Mount Everest). The rivalry is fierce among rugby playing nations and there is a lot of national pride at stake. To understand how much, just spend a year in any of the following nations: New Zealand, Fiji, Australia, France, England, Samoa, South Africa, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Tonga, Italy or Japan. The following briefly describe rugby in the other nations: In England, well, yeah right... I shall let Martin Johnson and co speak for themselves. In France it is a rising sport and is almost a religion in the southern parts of the country. In South Africa, Australia and New Zealand (all former holders of the World Cup)it is THE GAME. Wales showed what the minnow nations can do if not checked - it was almost on course for a World Cup shock quarter final victory against England until the boot of Jonny Wilkinson destroyed their dreams. It was coached by a Kiwi. Ireland tested France too, but could not finish the job. The fiery Irish spirit will be back though. Scotland was let off the hook several times and it was no surprise that Australia sunk them in the quarters. Italy was coached by another Kiwi, but has yet to adjust to the rigours of quarter and semi final rugby. Japan is a big mover and with a few expat Kiwi's in it's is starting to rattle the the Rugby World Order. Maybe sometime it will make the quarter finals. No Pacific Island nation bar perhaps Fiji likes its rugby more than Samoa. The little nation rocked England so hard in the pool play that it would be runner up in any competition for the best World Cup match for the 2003 Rugby World Cup. If the big nations stopped poaching it's players Samoa may eventually become a dark horse. Fiji was a great lost chance. Their combative style let them down, and they subsequently paid the price. Tonga is still a minnow in many ways, albeit a bit more of a dark horse than many think. Rob

Excellent idea Rob! I would love to spend a year in New Zealand, Fiji, Australia, France, England, Samoa, South Africa, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Tonga, Italy or Japan. If you had your pick of these places, where would you spend the next year. Or better yet, pick four for the next four years and tell me what I would expect from the rugby scene in each of these places. This is your midterm exam, Rob ;-)

Hi all "I would love to spend a year in New Zealand, Fiji, Australia, France, England, Samoa, South Africa, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Tonga, Italy or Japan." I will leave New Zealand, and South Africa out of the running, because we have been talking about them here since July. Australia and England are out too because it is fairly self explanatory - England has the bragging rights of the next four years, and their challenge will be to prove that they can last four years at the top. In the case of Australia, they will be back - you can bet your money that Australia will learn from their mistakes. France is the odd one out, but I think they will have a look at their last two games and see what went wrong and hopefully learn from their mistakes. So Terry. Starting tomorrow I will tell you instead about the likes of the middle order of international rugby, about the countries that are two powerful in a rugby sense to be called minnows yet too small to be called one a "super power". By this definition I am thinking of Wales, Samoa, Fiji, Japan, Ireland, Italy, Scotland and Tonga. All of these nations have potential to eventually become a force in their own rights, and which all the big boys on the block would do to watch out for. Rob

I'm looking forward to tomorrow's exposition, you're off to a good start on your rugby "exam"; heh!

Hi all Leah, the South African training video is turning out to be a national calamity wouldn't you say? Will heads roll or will SA rugby try to sweep it under the carpet and hope we all forget? Rob

Kia Ora A week ago there were huge protests in London to protest the visit of George Bush. They were of anger at his and Tony Blairs policies on terror and in particular the Iraq war. 100,000 people marched. Now one week later 100,000 people or more are expected to show for the English rugby world cup Victory parade. This is celebrating the first World Cup England has won in it major codes since 1966, the FIRST time a Northern Hemisphere team has won the Rugby World Cup and the arrival of the English teams as a force on the world stage of rugby. A New Rugby World Order has arrived whether you like it or not. I am impressed. ---- WHAT TO EXPECT FROM RUGBY IN THE FOLLOWING COUNTRIES FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS. Japan: The Japanese have come a long way since they started playing serious rugby against other nations in the 1980s. Since the notorious 145-17 drubbing the All Blacks handed them, this the shortest of the teams at the 2003 World Cup have lured several New Zealanders to the country of the Rising Sun and are looking to advance to the Quarters at the next World Cup. In a nation dominated by baseball, the Japanese rugby team is a rising force both in Japanese sport and in international rugby. Wales: WHAT IF??? What if Wales had gone all the way against England in their Quarter Final? It would have been the upset of the Rugby World Cup by a mile. But they were exhausted and it took a superhuman effort on their part to get to where they did, so combined with that oh so deadly boot of Jonny Wilkinson it is perhaps not so surprising that England won. Yet this game showed that there is plenty of potential amongst the Welsh, who were at one stage on a par with the All Blacks. Unfortunately for Wales the coal mines shut down depriving the Welsh rugby team of their supply of burly hairy chested players whose rugby skills were among the most feared in the world. New Zealanders, Graham Henry (now a hot cookie for the All Black coaching job)and Steve Hansen (ex-Canterbury Crusaders - the Fifth Crusade of the Super 12 will hopefully be in 2004). But Wales will be back, and it is possible I guess that one day they just MIGHT score that stunning upset. However it may not be in 2007. Fiji: This combative side let itself down at the 2003 Rugby World Cup, and it is not so surprising that they did not make it out of pool play. A number of the high tackles and other penalty earning offences were shown to be quite delibrate, and the punishments the referee handed out as a result were wholly justifiable. But like Samoa and Tonga, Fijians LOVE their rugby and a number of players are supplied to the New Zealand and Australian Super 12 rugby teams. Their great talent and depth are indicative of the stranglehold rugby has as a sport in Fiji. Maybe in 2007 they might make amends for their poor discipline at the World Cup just ended. Scotland: "The French lifted the Scots kilts and found no balls" - NZ rugby commentator Keith Quinn on the drubbing handed to them by France in pool play. Scotland somehow bribed or stumbled their way through the World Cup pool play period remarkably intact despite the French drubbing. But they clearly showed when confronted by Australia that they were not a worthy semi-final opponent and the defending champions had no trouble putting them away. They have some chances to redeem themselves in the Six Nations, and other competitions while they wait the next 4 years until the 2007 Rugby World Cup, which France is hosting. Maybe by then they will have found their balls. Rob

Me again I goofed when writing the part for Scotland. I meant to say Quarter Final opponents and not Semi-final opponents. Scotland did NOT make it to the QF's. Rob

Kia Ora Rudolph Straeuli has resigned. In the wake of the training camp video how surprising is that? It, as the television reporter said, must have been a "national calamity". Was it? Rob

Yip. Big problems in our rugby. Heads are rolling, and today the new board members are elected. We need a new coach. Why is it surprising that no-one wants the job? There are racism issues and bootcamp issues that have shattered our rugby, there are many more issues to sort out. Our rugby team had to play so bad, because with the management that they had, do you think they could do much else?

Kia Ora John Mitchell and Robbie Deans similarly lost their heads. Mitchell can reapply for the coaching job if he wants but there will have to be an earthquake in his coaching style. No word has come about as to what will become of Deans who used to coach the Canterbury Crusaders. They will have challengers mounting attempts to take the jobs for themselves, from Graham Henry (expat Kiwi and former Wales coach)plus one other guy. Apartheid was dirty. It looks like it will be a long hard road out of hell for South African rugby and the Republic as a whole. New Zealand is only just beginning to confront the crazy days of 1981 when the country was effectively split into two camps over whether the Springboks should tour. There has never such civil unrest as was witnessed that year. Rob