@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@taniwharugby said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial as I mentioned a few weeks back, it isnt so much the kicking that is the issue, its the distance from the foot, and suggested they could probably have a slightly smaller/lighter ball (like a 4.5) but @Stargazer said this was looked at a year or 2 back and they decided to leave as is.

When you watch the last 2 games of the BFs it seemed clear that less kicking was a tactic, especially against England where a kick would often not get past the 22, meaning England would then have an attacking lineout with thier maul, so keeping it away from there was paramount.

In general I agree but some technique coaching in that area can improve things. There are some decent out of hand kickers in other teams and it's not like that have massive legs or longer levers. Technique and timing can go a long way just like in cricket.
Proper drop punting where more force is put onto the ball going onto the foot is a technique I'm not seeing much. Old school spiral punts will also get distance.
Key is finding the time and expertise to put effort into this area. Not much different to the mens game in that respect where natural kickers are the start point

You may be able to eek out a few more meters but men just have more power through the leg drive and may also have to do with the physiological differences between men and women such as height, body shape, hips etc. There's a good video on YouTube with the differences between a helium filled rugby ball and one filled with air. The distance is crazy. Maybe they could look into a helium/air blend so distances in kicks will be increased but not to the point where it completely changes the way the women play.

Ok idea in theory only. The mix would need to be regulated and certified, the preparation of balls witnessed.......all sorts of logistical issues.

The other way would be to go full helium. I'm sure the woke movement would be against some sort of advantage though...

There’s only one ball in play. What advantage?
But you keep thinking that the womens game is a lesser version of the mens rather than thinking of it as a slight variation.
Kicking is one of the aspects that brings variation. You get more running out of the 22, less penalty shots for goal, more quick taps etc.
once you get used to that you view the game a little differently.

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@taniwharugby said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial as I mentioned a few weeks back, it isnt so much the kicking that is the issue, its the distance from the foot, and suggested they could probably have a slightly smaller/lighter ball (like a 4.5) but @Stargazer said this was looked at a year or 2 back and they decided to leave as is.

When you watch the last 2 games of the BFs it seemed clear that less kicking was a tactic, especially against England where a kick would often not get past the 22, meaning England would then have an attacking lineout with thier maul, so keeping it away from there was paramount.

In general I agree but some technique coaching in that area can improve things. There are some decent out of hand kickers in other teams and it's not like that have massive legs or longer levers. Technique and timing can go a long way just like in cricket.
Proper drop punting where more force is put onto the ball going onto the foot is a technique I'm not seeing much. Old school spiral punts will also get distance.
Key is finding the time and expertise to put effort into this area. Not much different to the mens game in that respect where natural kickers are the start point

You may be able to eek out a few more meters but men just have more power through the leg drive and may also have to do with the physiological differences between men and women such as height, body shape, hips etc. There's a good video on YouTube with the differences between a helium filled rugby ball and one filled with air. The distance is crazy. Maybe they could look into a helium/air blend so distances in kicks will be increased but not to the point where it completely changes the way the women play.

Ok idea in theory only. The mix would need to be regulated and certified, the preparation of balls witnessed.......all sorts of logistical issues.

The other way would be to go full helium. I'm sure the woke movement would be against some sort of advantage though...

There’s only one ball in play. What advantage?
But you keep thinking that the womens game is a lesser version of the mens rather than thinking of it as a slight variation.
Kicking is one of the aspects that brings variation. You get more running out of the 22, less penalty shots for goal, more quick taps etc.
once you get used to that you view the game a little differently.

Oh FFS. If a ball is full of helium, it flies further. That fucking advantage.

Also, the market would suggest the women's game is an inferior product. How many of you "fans" on here supported the women's game before the WRWC?

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@taniwharugby said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial as I mentioned a few weeks back, it isnt so much the kicking that is the issue, its the distance from the foot, and suggested they could probably have a slightly smaller/lighter ball (like a 4.5) but @Stargazer said this was looked at a year or 2 back and they decided to leave as is.

When you watch the last 2 games of the BFs it seemed clear that less kicking was a tactic, especially against England where a kick would often not get past the 22, meaning England would then have an attacking lineout with thier maul, so keeping it away from there was paramount.

In general I agree but some technique coaching in that area can improve things. There are some decent out of hand kickers in other teams and it's not like that have massive legs or longer levers. Technique and timing can go a long way just like in cricket.
Proper drop punting where more force is put onto the ball going onto the foot is a technique I'm not seeing much. Old school spiral punts will also get distance.
Key is finding the time and expertise to put effort into this area. Not much different to the mens game in that respect where natural kickers are the start point

You may be able to eek out a few more meters but men just have more power through the leg drive and may also have to do with the physiological differences between men and women such as height, body shape, hips etc. There's a good video on YouTube with the differences between a helium filled rugby ball and one filled with air. The distance is crazy. Maybe they could look into a helium/air blend so distances in kicks will be increased but not to the point where it completely changes the way the women play.

Ok idea in theory only. The mix would need to be regulated and certified, the preparation of balls witnessed.......all sorts of logistical issues.

The other way would be to go full helium. I'm sure the woke movement would be against some sort of advantage though...

There’s only one ball in play. What advantage?
But you keep thinking that the womens game is a lesser version of the mens rather than thinking of it as a slight variation.
Kicking is one of the aspects that brings variation. You get more running out of the 22, less penalty shots for goal, more quick taps etc.
once you get used to that you view the game a little differently.

Oh FFS. If a ball is full of helium, it flies further. That fucking advantage.

Also, the market would suggest the women's game is an inferior product. How many of you "fans" on here supported the women's game before the WRWC?

Quite a few actually.

Explain who is getting an advantage against who if the ball is filled with helium and travels further. Both teams play with the same ball.

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@taniwharugby said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial as I mentioned a few weeks back, it isnt so much the kicking that is the issue, its the distance from the foot, and suggested they could probably have a slightly smaller/lighter ball (like a 4.5) but @Stargazer said this was looked at a year or 2 back and they decided to leave as is.

When you watch the last 2 games of the BFs it seemed clear that less kicking was a tactic, especially against England where a kick would often not get past the 22, meaning England would then have an attacking lineout with thier maul, so keeping it away from there was paramount.

In general I agree but some technique coaching in that area can improve things. There are some decent out of hand kickers in other teams and it's not like that have massive legs or longer levers. Technique and timing can go a long way just like in cricket.
Proper drop punting where more force is put onto the ball going onto the foot is a technique I'm not seeing much. Old school spiral punts will also get distance.
Key is finding the time and expertise to put effort into this area. Not much different to the mens game in that respect where natural kickers are the start point

You may be able to eek out a few more meters but men just have more power through the leg drive and may also have to do with the physiological differences between men and women such as height, body shape, hips etc. There's a good video on YouTube with the differences between a helium filled rugby ball and one filled with air. The distance is crazy. Maybe they could look into a helium/air blend so distances in kicks will be increased but not to the point where it completely changes the way the women play.

Ok idea in theory only. The mix would need to be regulated and certified, the preparation of balls witnessed.......all sorts of logistical issues.

The other way would be to go full helium. I'm sure the woke movement would be against some sort of advantage though...

There’s only one ball in play. What advantage?
But you keep thinking that the womens game is a lesser version of the mens rather than thinking of it as a slight variation.
Kicking is one of the aspects that brings variation. You get more running out of the 22, less penalty shots for goal, more quick taps etc.
once you get used to that you view the game a little differently.

Oh FFS. If a ball is full of helium, it flies further. That fucking advantage.

Also, the market would suggest the women's game is an inferior product. How many of you "fans" on here supported the women's game before the WRWC?

Quite a few actually.

Explain who is getting an advantage against who if the ball is filled with helium and travels further. Both teams play with the same ball.

It means they can kick the ball from the sideline and get it over the cross bar.

"Quite a few actually." - let me guess, big fans, always have been? Like the fuck all up until the RWC?

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

"Quite a few actually." - let me guess, big fans, always have been? Like the fuck all up until the RWC?

Personally I have very little interest in ladies rugby. However there are people on TSF who are interested and have been for some time

For instance here is all the Black Ferns threads: https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/tags/blackferns

Or this years female Super Rugby: https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/tags/aupiki

I'm sure not every thread has been tagged correctly either. Plus there's been discussion of 7's and the NPC for years too

@Duluth said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

"Quite a few actually." - let me guess, big fans, always have been? Like the fuck all up until the RWC?

Personally I have very little interest in ladies rugby. However there are people on TSF who are interested and have been for some time

For instance here is all the Black Ferns threads: https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/tags/blackferns

Or this years female Super Rugby: https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/tags/aupiki

I'm sure not every thread has been tagged correctly either. Plus there's been discussion of 7's and the NPC for years too

FPC thread was fairly active.

“Ladies Rugby”?
Is that as opposed to Lords Rugby? Gentlemen’s Rugby?

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@taniwharugby said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial as I mentioned a few weeks back, it isnt so much the kicking that is the issue, its the distance from the foot, and suggested they could probably have a slightly smaller/lighter ball (like a 4.5) but @Stargazer said this was looked at a year or 2 back and they decided to leave as is.

When you watch the last 2 games of the BFs it seemed clear that less kicking was a tactic, especially against England where a kick would often not get past the 22, meaning England would then have an attacking lineout with thier maul, so keeping it away from there was paramount.

In general I agree but some technique coaching in that area can improve things. There are some decent out of hand kickers in other teams and it's not like that have massive legs or longer levers. Technique and timing can go a long way just like in cricket.
Proper drop punting where more force is put onto the ball going onto the foot is a technique I'm not seeing much. Old school spiral punts will also get distance.
Key is finding the time and expertise to put effort into this area. Not much different to the mens game in that respect where natural kickers are the start point

You may be able to eek out a few more meters but men just have more power through the leg drive and may also have to do with the physiological differences between men and women such as height, body shape, hips etc. There's a good video on YouTube with the differences between a helium filled rugby ball and one filled with air. The distance is crazy. Maybe they could look into a helium/air blend so distances in kicks will be increased but not to the point where it completely changes the way the women play.

Ok idea in theory only. The mix would need to be regulated and certified, the preparation of balls witnessed.......all sorts of logistical issues.

The other way would be to go full helium. I'm sure the woke movement would be against some sort of advantage though...

There’s only one ball in play. What advantage?
But you keep thinking that the womens game is a lesser version of the mens rather than thinking of it as a slight variation.
Kicking is one of the aspects that brings variation. You get more running out of the 22, less penalty shots for goal, more quick taps etc.
once you get used to that you view the game a little differently.

Oh FFS. If a ball is full of helium, it flies further. That fucking advantage.

Also, the market would suggest the women's game is an inferior product. How many of you "fans" on here supported the women's game before the WRWC?

Quite a few actually.

Explain who is getting an advantage against who if the ball is filled with helium and travels further. Both teams play with the same ball.

It means they can kick the ball from the sideline and get it over the cross bar.

And where is the advantage over the team they are playing. I’m still not getting your original comment.

@Duluth said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

"Quite a few actually." - let me guess, big fans, always have been? Like the fuck all up until the RWC?

Personally I have very little interest in ladies rugby. However there are people on TSF who are interested and have been for some time

For instance here is all the Black Ferns threads: https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/tags/blackferns

Or this years female Super Rugby: https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/tags/aupiki

I'm sure not every thread has been tagged correctly either. Plus there's been discussion of 7's and the NPC for years too

Great, so 20 blokes on a rugby forum is a reflection of the wider populous? It's actually unreal in an effort to stay woke people refuse to admit the ladies game is inferior. Hopefully they get their equal footing but right now no one gives a shit.

It still has feck all to do with the fact women cannot kick the ball as far as men. Which is what my original comment was about.

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@taniwharugby said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Crucial as I mentioned a few weeks back, it isnt so much the kicking that is the issue, its the distance from the foot, and suggested they could probably have a slightly smaller/lighter ball (like a 4.5) but @Stargazer said this was looked at a year or 2 back and they decided to leave as is.

When you watch the last 2 games of the BFs it seemed clear that less kicking was a tactic, especially against England where a kick would often not get past the 22, meaning England would then have an attacking lineout with thier maul, so keeping it away from there was paramount.

In general I agree but some technique coaching in that area can improve things. There are some decent out of hand kickers in other teams and it's not like that have massive legs or longer levers. Technique and timing can go a long way just like in cricket.
Proper drop punting where more force is put onto the ball going onto the foot is a technique I'm not seeing much. Old school spiral punts will also get distance.
Key is finding the time and expertise to put effort into this area. Not much different to the mens game in that respect where natural kickers are the start point

You may be able to eek out a few more meters but men just have more power through the leg drive and may also have to do with the physiological differences between men and women such as height, body shape, hips etc. There's a good video on YouTube with the differences between a helium filled rugby ball and one filled with air. The distance is crazy. Maybe they could look into a helium/air blend so distances in kicks will be increased but not to the point where it completely changes the way the women play.

Ok idea in theory only. The mix would need to be regulated and certified, the preparation of balls witnessed.......all sorts of logistical issues.

The other way would be to go full helium. I'm sure the woke movement would be against some sort of advantage though...

There’s only one ball in play. What advantage?
But you keep thinking that the womens game is a lesser version of the mens rather than thinking of it as a slight variation.
Kicking is one of the aspects that brings variation. You get more running out of the 22, less penalty shots for goal, more quick taps etc.
once you get used to that you view the game a little differently.

Oh FFS. If a ball is full of helium, it flies further. That fucking advantage.

Also, the market would suggest the women's game is an inferior product. How many of you "fans" on here supported the women's game before the WRWC?

Quite a few actually.

Explain who is getting an advantage against who if the ball is filled with helium and travels further. Both teams play with the same ball.

It means they can kick the ball from the sideline and get it over the cross bar.

And where is the advantage over the team they are playing. I’m still not getting your original comment.

It has nothing to do with having an advantage over the other team. It's about being able to kick goals which is what my comment re: DC being a shit kicking coach was about.

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

Great, so 20 blokes on a rugby forum is a reflection of the wider populous? It's actually unreal in an effort to stay woke people refuse to admit the ladies game is inferior. Hopefully they get their equal footing but right now no one gives a shit.

I never said that. I was simply pointing out that you were incorrect. Also, I am not woke

@Duluth said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

Great, so 20 blokes on a rugby forum is a reflection of the wider populous? It's actually unreal in an effort to stay woke people refuse to admit the ladies game is inferior. Hopefully they get their equal footing but right now no one gives a shit.

I never said that. I was simply pointing out that you were incorrect. Also, I am not woke

So the women's game is as popular as men's?

@Joans-Town-Jones

Are you retarded?

@Joans-Town-Jones You could start by not calling us woke people. I like women's rugby not because I'm woke, but because I like all different forms of the code, women's, men's U20s, school's, sevens.

I also don't think it's an inferior product. It's a different product, that you can like or not like, just like bantam weight boxing is a different product from heavy weight boxing, or the different weight classes in other fight sports, or the different car classes in racing, the different distances in swimming or rowing.

And no, some blokes on a rugby forum isn't a reflection of the wider population. In the wider population, women's rugby probably has more support, because that wider population also includes women and, generally, people who enjoy the sport withouth joing a forum. And no, I'm not saying the women's game is as popular as men's, but it's popularity is growing pretty fast.

@Duluth said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones

Are you retarded?

Appears you are. I just refuted DC is a shit kicking coach.

@Stargazer said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones You could start by not calling us woke people. I like women's rugby not because I'm woke, but because I like all different forms of the code, women's, men's U20s, school's, sevens.

I also don't think it's an inferior product. It's a different product, that you can like or not like, just like bantam weight boxing is a different product from heavy weight boxing, or the different weight classes in other fight sports, or the different car classes in racing, the different distances in swimming or rowing.

And no, some blokes on a rugby forum isn't a reflection of the wider population. In the wider population, women's rugby probably has more support, because that wider population also includes women and, generally, people who enjoy the sport withouth joing a forum. And no, I'm not saying the women's game is as popular as men's, but it's popularity is growing pretty fast.

Yeah na, it's not like bantam vs heavy weight at all. It's like men's heavy weight vs women's heavy weight.

@Joans-Town-Jones

I was correcting a specific, and completely incorrect, point you made

You are putting words in my mouth and claiming I have said something I haven't. It's painfully dumb or a troll

@Duluth said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones

I was correcting a specific, and completely incorrect, point you made

You are putting words in my mouth and claiming I have said something I haven't. It's painfully dumb or a troll

I'd say both.

@Stargazer said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Duluth said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones

I was correcting a specific, and completely incorrect, point you made

You are putting words in my mouth and claiming I have said something I haven't. It's painfully dumb or a troll

I'd say both.

That's been obvious for months. I've never been sure why people keep engaging.

@Bones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

Hmmm...
View image

What I take away from that is yes there were some great players from many teams but the Ferns were the team that played as a team and had that connection with each other

@Kruse said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Stargazer said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Duluth said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Joans-Town-Jones

I was correcting a specific, and completely incorrect, point you made

You are putting words in my mouth and claiming I have said something I haven't. It's painfully dumb or a troll

I'd say both.

That's been obvious for months. I've never been sure why people keep engaging.

Won’t be an issue for a couple of weeks.

@Nevorian said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Bones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

Hmmm...
View image

What I take away from that is yes there were some great players from many teams but the Ferns were the team that played as a team and had that connection with each other

I take that they made up a random team to try and please readers.
No way would I have Demant as 10. The England player was better.
As much as I love Ruby, Portia needs to be in there.

Your comment is correct though

@Crucial

Tui is faster than Woodman.
Woodman has only looked good against lesser opponents. Against the big two (England and France) she has been ineffective in the past. I was getting my hopes up when she started running in the final but unfortunately she got knocked out.

Tui is the far better winger for the big teams. That try she scored vs France was one of the best in the World Cup. Woodman simply doesn’t have that out and out pace that Tui has. Tui’s defence is also far better than Woodman’s.

Having said that, Woodman obviously deserved her starting spot in the knockouts but I wasn’t at all worried with her replacement (Leti-Iiga) who was excellent this year.

@Nevorian said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

@Bones said in WRWC Final - NZ Vs England:

Hmmm...
View image

What I take away from that is yes there were some great players from many teams but the Ferns were the team that played as a team and had that connection with each other

What I take away from that is, same as Ardie not being on player of the year, WR are fucking clueless

England winger Lydia Thompson appeared before an independent judicial committee on Monday, 21 November having received a red card in the Rugby World Cup 2021 final on 12 November, 2022. The red card was awarded for an offence pursuant to Law 9.13 (Dangerous tackle).

The player accepted that she had committed the act of foul play and that the offence was worthy of a red card. Having considered the player’s evidence and reviewed the clips, the Committee applied World Rugby’s mandatory minimum mid-range entry point for foul play resulting in contact with the head. This resulted in a starting point of a six match suspension.

The Committee took into consideration the mitigating factors and decided that the player was entitled to the full mitigation available (three matches). The Committee decided there were no aggravating factors and therefore the final sanction was a three-match suspension.

The player is therefore suspended for the following matches:

• Worcester Women v Wasps Women – 17 December, 2022
• Worcester Women v DMP Sharks – 31 December, 2022
• Worcester Women v Gloucester-Hartpury – 7 January, 2023*

*The player may apply to take part in the World Rugby Coaching Intervention Programme to substitute the final match of the sanction for a coaching intervention aimed at modifying specific techniques and technical issues that contributed to the foul play.