State of Origin 2 turned out satisfactorily at least on the scoreboard. Having achieved the historic fourth straight win, will Queensland make it the first clean sweep since NSW did it in 2000? Qld last achieved this feat in 1995. Could we see more of this?
And more of this?
Poor old Gidley. Couldn’t bear to look in the first and upended in the second.
Actually NSW has selected an awesome team, the best by a clear margin this series, whereas Qld has arguably it’s worst. So I’m thinking we could see more of this:
Not a pretty sight. That’s not Williams cursing when he spilt the ball. It’s the Wolf-man celebrating after scoring.
We could also see more of this:
Can’t be running flat out though. He seems to have his heel on the turf.
I guess this bloke too was just going for a jog in front of that big crowd:
One thing we don’t want to see more of is this:
Note the technique Barrett uses with his right hand in trying to wrap up the ball.
Someone suggested that Inglis fell into the tackle. I saw a replay and what happened was that Inglis went low to catch the ball and was in fact on the way up when attacked tackled. Inglis reckons that Barrett hasn’t been in touch to say “Sorry, mate, I didn’t mean it.” If you believe the local rag Qld players are still extremely pissed over the incident.
Actually Barrett’s probably hoping that someone will take a swing at him so that NSW can get the penalty. One reason why I wouldn’t select Crocker. He’s silly enough to fall for it. Meninga is playing it all down, so if Crocker does something silly I expect he’ll get the hook.
I reckon NSW will be the hungrier team and should win comfortably. It could even be ugly, but you never know. Now that Harrigan and Mander have been given the heave-ho at least we might not be talking about the video refs.
For the statistically minded, Queensland actually won the first five ‘series’ from 1980 to 1984. It’s just that in 1980 and 1981 there was only one match each year.
In the first 10 years to 1989 Qld won 17 matches to NSW’s 9. That included a period of NSW dominance in 1985-6 when NSW won 5 out of 6. After that Qld regained ascendancy, Qld’s true golden period, when we won 8 out of 9.
Barrett’s act was grubby and I’m sure he’ll cop some attention. I’m all for tough Origin games but deliberately taking a player out belongs in the past. Gidley is a big worry for us. It is one thing to cop an injury and play a game out. But to carry a rib injury into a game is a liability.
NSW’s only hope is that Hayne. He’s tried his best to win the past two matches by himself. If he gets some help this time you never know.
At least Bill Harrigan has been dropped from the QLD squad for this game.
If NSW do lose, the angry mob to march on NSWRL HQ will assemble in Martin Place. Please bring your own pitchforks and flaming torches.
Onya Shaun
Hayne could have been given man of the match last game and I for one would not have complained. The Wok reckons he should be fullback and Gidley on the bench. But I can’t believe they would play Gidley injured after the injuries taken into the last game which cost NSW.
That must be why Gordon Tallis isn’t involved with Qld Origin in any form – the players object on principal.
Which principal was that?
*choke*
Adrian, if the Qlders are up in arms about the Barrett incident, I assume they’d really hate, say, diving onto the back of someone’s head with both forearms well after he’s scored a try. Or something.
And goodness Brian, let the sprinting thing go. Apart from being wrong (you have again used a photo of the reach portion of a track sprinter’s stride to try and demonstrate the drive phase), there’s nowt worse than a sore winner.
Sorry sean, I should have added – ‘and what school?’ and been a total smart arse. No point in being a partial smart arse.
Having played league I am forever excused from being able to spell thankyou very much.
“Adrian, if the Qlders are up in arms about the Barrett incident, I assume they’d really hate, say, diving onto the back of someone’s head with both forearms well after he’s scored a try. Or something.”
I just wonder if that reference is to the little jockey Slater. It’s been in my attention for a number of years he often attacks the try scorer feet/knees/elbows first – I once saw Freddy blow up deluxe on him in a club game, and Freddy was very rarely known for going the biff on the field.
In my opinion Slater is complete cat. Moreso than Barret although I never thought Barret should have been picked for NSW.
The sore winner routine from Queensland is not exactly an edifying spectacle.
Sean, all I’m doing is presenting evidence that when the sprinters leading foot hits the ground his heal is in contact with the ground. Having watched a footballers side-on sprinting on TV I think I’m right. I’m open to other evidence. But that’s the last word from me.
I haven’t been aware of the Slater thing so I’ll watch out for it. I did see him kick Hodges in the head once when Hodges was diving over the line in a club game, which didn’t look all that smart.
Stuff the sore loser thing. I’m interested in the truth and am actually surprised at how biased some NSW commenters are.
Brian, come on, there have been plenty of totally dodgy Qld players and plays going back years in the Origin of the Species series.
You need to watch a series out of Queensland!! Where I watch most SOO games – and where I’m about to head off to now, is usually about a 60/40 NSW/Qld NRL crowd, including my own crew which are 50/50.
And it’s amazing just how many dodgy & crucial and non-crucial refereeing decisions against both teams that both sets of supporters concede when viewing in a totally mixed crowd. It’s a different game compared to watching it with only one eye, a racing pulse and heart in hand etc
Go Blues!
I’d rather like to see Steve Fielding give the ‘Toads a power talk on NSW climate, like why it’s a bit cool , he ain’t busy at the moment, could just match intellects.
Being from Canberra, I normally support any team playing NSW. But I think “The Game” needs a convincing NSW victory tonight.
Talking about dodgy QLD plays at the try-scorer…
jo, it might surprise you but I believe every word you said, apart from the last two. I think we watch the game and notice things selectively. But I seem to be here by myself with a bunch of NSWers who are never wrong.
BTW there were no complaints from this side of the border when Harrigan got the flick.
This game is the biggest bumblethon ever, but NSW look the stronger.
Tyro, he was trying to kick the ball out, which is what Slater did to Hodges way back when. But that time there was no added penalty and from memory it cost the Bronc’s the match.
On the ABC they are saying that Thurston will probably get a suspension and that Slater used to make an art form of it, but got pinged in the end because they are cracking down on that aspect. Fine with me.
I only saw the second half, but it alternated between extremely sloppy and just plain violent. It was like watching a cross between muppets and boxers try to play football.
Anyway, hooray NSW won etc etc.
I’ve only seen it once but that late fight looked bad for Waterhouse. Given that Price started off with that knee to the White’s head as White got up, it was all above board and gentleman-like until numbnutz came up from behind and appeared to Grab Price around the neck and dive sideways. He’d better hope Price’s vertebrae are all OK.
Yep, it got distinctly ordinary at the end. Initial reports suggest Price will be OK. I sincerely hope so.
For the record it was 28-16. Actually only 4 tries to 3 and the match stats were closer than I thought.
For us it was a case of what might have been. For me the turning point was in the 61st minute when Gidley’s knee knocked the ball out of Tonga’s grasp over the line and then in the 67th Creagh made it over the line – just.
Hodges’ aerobatics was almost the greatest try ever.
Slater was disappointing with four errors by my count.
I thought man of the match could have been Kimmorely or Whatmough. Whatmough was a deserving winner. Inglis as man of the series was also deserving.
In the end the Blues forwards came to play and that made the difference.
I can’t remember a single refereeing decision that bothered me.
SOO will go on but I’ll be reflecting on what I do here. It took a lot of time to find those pics and upload them. Hardly seems worthwhile.
Cross-posted, but yes, Sean @ 18, he’d better. People have been successfully sued for that sort of thing, have they not?
Contact sports are one of the few areas in life where you can consent to an assault, but it has to be vaguely within the rules.
Well Price isn’t seriously hurt apparently. If he was just on his arse because he lost a fight that he started, I guess that’s his bad luck.
Sean, I’ve heard a lot of commentary, including what they said in the ABC stall. You are the only one saying Price started it.
But it doesn’t excuse Price hitting back.
Nor if Price did use his knee does it excuse White for taking a swing at him.
Sean,
I thought there was something in the tackle as well although I don’t think it was Price but the other tackler and White just took it out on Price. Still, Waterhouse will probably spend a couple of weeks on the side line along with Thurston. I think Hodges will also be charged with a Grapple on Morris (I think) that wasn”t penalised (early-mid first half).
I thought it was pretty clear, as White gets up to play the ball Price gives him a little knee to the forehead/temple. Not much in it, but if you wanna play that way for a bit of psych advantage, you can’t whinge when the other boofhead takes a swing. You know, people have emotions B Man. After Thurston kicking Wolfman in the head, and NSW keeping under control, maybe another (and this time definitely deliberate) lower leg contact with the noggin put White over the edge.
Waterhouse went about it all wrong in any case. He said he was tring to pull Price out of the fight, but if that’s your aim you pull your own bloke away, which diffuses rather than escalates.
PS: I often pick up stuff before the commentators. If I’d been a better player I could do that for a buck !)
Next time I’ll definitely tape the bloody thing so I can check for myself.
There was talkback this morning and one bloke they talked to used to have a senior position in rugby union. He was in that position when a kid in the lower grades hit an opponent with a single punch and unfortunately killed him. That is exactly why it was not OK for White to take a swing at Price. Goes for Crocker too or any other boofhead who has the propensity to do that sort of thing.
So it’s not OK and the league should do whatever it takes to get the message through. If that means higher penalties for knees to the head, then let then do it, but clearly the head is off limits.
Thurston entered an early guilty plea and got 75 points, so he’ll be playing next week. His kick came after the try was scored. Probably they should up the penalties on that sort of thing too.
But I’ve been punched in the head heaps of times, and I’m perfectly banana banana teapot.
Maybe explains a lot, Sean!
I don’t think punches are kosher on the field at any time, but when White threw the first punch, Price already had his own fist clenched and raised, and in that situation the first punch is a moot point.
I haven’t been able to work up any interest in football since about 1980, so Im probably not qualified to comment but …
For the life of me isn’t it time the public discourse stopped taking elite sport so seriously? It’s probably every bit as retrograde as organised religion, shares some of the same problems, represents a diversion of public funds that is inequitable, would certainly have a terrible environmental footprint etc …
Can publicly funded elite sport be justified? Just wondering.
If we engage with your question Fran, we won’t exactly be lowering the seriousness quotient of the thread. It doesn’t have to be justified. The NRL is largely privately funded, we like it & it’s a free country. To the extent govt provides facilities such as grounds, they are for juniors & amateur level adults.
Richard: Price’s knee is a tactic I’ve never liked. They do something like that in the tackle which the ref won’t notice, but the tacklee will know its deliberate. Tacklee loses his rag. Tackler gets possession & a penalty. It’s neither part of the game nor a crime of passion, and I’d also prefer that penalty-milking stayed in soccer where I would never have to see it.
“The NRL is largely
privatelygambling revenue funded”Just sayin’
sean@31 Isn’t sponsorship/advertising during the NRL a tax-deductible expense? Aren’t police provided for the games? Would the grounds be there if there were not high profile events there? Hmmm
In any event, Iw as talking about elite sport more generally. The links betyween the state and elite sport are huge. In 2001 Australian governments spent about 2.2billion on funding sport, most of which would be fore elite sport, one suspects.
I do accept that this discussion won’t lower the seriousness of the thread, but perhaps that’s a price worth paying (pun not intended)
Yes of course thare are police there, and at the gay mardi gras, and Big Day Out, and New Years fireworks, and if Sunrise pulls a big crowd in Martin Place one Tuesday morning, and in popular entertainment districts, etc etc.
The big sports grounds are obviously for sport. If ordinary people weren’t allowed to watch, they wouldn’t support the existence of the facilities purely for the benefit of the elite sportspersons themselves. But they are allowed to watch, and they greatly enjoy it, so they want the facilities there. It’s a deomcratically mandated use of public space. There are also museums and opera houses and so on, if that’s your cup of tea instead/as well.
I don’t know if NRL sponsorship is tax deductible. Film financing is though isn’t it?
Sean@34 I feel sure that people who pay for advertising during an NRL game or buy corporate boxes or make donations of one kind or another are counting this as an expense in their accounts when they do their taxes.
Yes, you make the point that this use of public space and the police attending are there as part of a democratic mandate, which is why I think it germane to raise the policy as a matter of discussion. Shouldn’t the NRL *pay* a suitable fee to the relevant state to cover the police time or better yet hire their own people?
Isn’t it time to separate elite sport and state?
I’d say so.
Actually Fran, I think they **do** pay? I doubt it defrays the entire cost, but you’re ignoring an aspect of the reality here. People still have some right to congregate, and whenever they do so in numbers, for sporting or other reasons, the state tends to send along its armed officers to maintain order.
And Lord lumme, though my scepticism of the plods is well published, give me them over rent-a-cops any day. Although the rent-a-cops will be there too – it really has been a while since you attended any sweaty competitive business hasn’t it?
Fran I personally don’t want to get into a full scale discussion on this right now because I don’t want to spend the time. Sorry.
I’m addicted to anything that displays skill in the use of the human body, and that includes ballet, dance generally, athletics, swimming. I’d probably stop at tiddly winks. Watching chess or other board games would bore me to sobs.
Generally the rules of the game are designed to make it entertaining to watch, and that includes having competitive contests. Rugby League repeatedly changes its rules to remain competitive with other sports in this regard.
I’m not sure that interstate and international sport is going to survive climate change, but, like eating meat, you would be brave politically to try to rule it out.
I believe there is a fairly direct relationship between how much money you invest in elite sport and international sporting success, eg. in the Olympics. There is little doubt that achievement in sport is part of national identity, but you can have arguments as to whether that is a good thing or indeed whether the nation state is a good thing.
When we were having arguments about rugby league at the time of the Matt Johns affair there was an article about a young player called Alex Glenn who had just been given a contract by the Broncos. When he was young his mother brought him over from Auckland to live on the Gold Coast. She’d come over for a holiday, liked the place, grabbed the younger siblings and shot through. He will tell you that if she hadn’t he’d now be involved in drugs, gangs and crime which was what he was looking forward to over there. Along the way he had to get over a congenital spinal weakness which prevented him from playing contact sport for two years. Two years of discipline and consistent training because playing RL was always his goal.
Quite a few of the Qld team are from the fringes of society, possibly NSW also. Sporting opportunities are one way out of the circumstances they were born into. RL is one of the low entry sports economically.
Recently I heard the comment that if you were spotting kids with excellent eye-hand coordination and elite sporting potential you’d pick 90% of the kids in some Aboriginal communities. Sport is not the answer, but as things stand it provides a pathway for some. And for real pathways you need all levels including the elite.
Certainly there are arguments as to whether the money would be better spent elsewhere. But our social norms suggest Australians like success in elite sport. You are perfectly entitled to attempt to persuade us otherwise, of course.
There, I’ve said more than I intended.
Brian @37
You are of course entitled to take pleasure in anything in the culture that’s on offer, and IMO, as long as it’s confined to people capable of informed consent, it’s open slather. That’s not the same though as saying it should earn a public subsidy. Personally, I enjoy watching chess. Watching the handling of the middle game of an unusually followed variant of the Nimzo-Indian or the QGD is a hell of a lot of fun, but that’s just me. Chess, though a contest, is really more like art or improv theatre sports. But should it get a public subsidy at elite level? No, of course not.
You say that there is “a fairly direct relationship between how much money you invest in elite sport and international sporting success” and I have no reason to doubt this conclusion. You are very likely correct. Clearly though, unless one thinks that one of the aims of public policy is to achieve international sporting success, presumably at the expense of some other jurisdiction with the same goals, then I’m not sure that this is a good enough rationale. If our success is necessarily at someone else’s expense isn’t the net good for humanity zero?
I’m also not sure what you can mean by saying that something is part of our national identity. I didn’t know we had one, and I’m not sure the lack of one is a bad thing. National identity sounds vaguely xenophobic, and maybe the soft end of being a bigoted jingo. Frankly, if I were to entertain so dubious a thing as “national pride” (ugh!) I’d prefer that it were reflected in the disproportionate contribution my fellow nationals made to staunching human misery, especially beyond our shores. I might well smile inwardly as someone from Sierra Leone or Bangladesh, finding that I was an Australian, reflected on the selfless work my country folk were doing empowering the most needy in their communities and assumed that in some small way, I had contributed. At that moment, the fact that nobody knew we were involved in sports or had performed poorly would not trouble me in the slightest.
As to nation states, I don’t see these as good. They exist because there’s currently nothing better, much as humans once built lean-tos to live in, drank from ponds on spec and listened to medicine men. People knew no better. That doesn’t make nation states bad. It’s what we currently have to work with, but I do see little point in glorifying them. They are here whather we like them or not, and when we manage to devise something better they won’t be, no matter how wistfully some may recall them.
You argue from anecdote that some who may have done poorly have benefited from elite rugby league (and I assume similar anecdotes might be found for other elite sports). That’s as may be. Not enough in my view. Doubtless, if a fraction of the resources poured into the few escapees squalour were poured into the hundreds lacking the skills to play at elite level were poured into these communities a lot more would escape from social disadvantage, but apparently, in this, as always, life has, it seems, to be a lottery in which the misery of the many pays for the success of the few.
Fran
On the fight, you are all missing something crucial. It started because Brett White had his head down and Cameron Smith punched him in head. Brett White looked up, thought it was Steve Price and started trading blows with him. Price was caught initially unaware and was on the way down when Trent Waterhouse came in.
Fran, I’m not particularly arguing in favour of anything. I just put a few ideas out as to how things are. I think the concept of national identity is difficult and in general I’d rather leave it to sociologists. In gereal, I don’t favour cultivating any preferred characteristics as a matter of policy. national identity is for those who are interested to discover after the fact, as it were.
But at present you can’t escape the notion is that Australians elite sports people are quite good at it. I recall that just before the Olympics were held in Sydney in 2000 we were world champions in 31 events. We expect our sports people to do well. But the sad fact is that unless a good deal of public money is spent, in many events they won’t.
Remember that in the Montreal Olympics in 1976 we won one medal in swimming, if memory serves, Steve Holland’s bronze in the 1500 metres. As a matter of public policy that was held to be unsatisfactory, so we invested in the Australian Institute of Sport.
Results improved steadily until 2000, but since then our funding has not kept pace with that of some other countries, for example the Brits, who with three times the population actually beat us in Beijing.
You are right, it’s a zero sum game.
Much of the funding in many sports comes from TV revenues and sponsorship. Without public funding fewer sports would perform at the elite level in international terms.
I will say only two things in favour of elite sport. Firstly, I enjoy watching it at the highest level, and so it seems do a lot of other Australians, and for some reason. It’s generally true that I like watching Australians succeed, but not always. For some reason if Federer was playing Hewitt at tennis I’d be hoping Federer would win.
Secondly, as one who spent most of his life working in education, in my ideal world everyone would have the chance to be the best at anything of their choice that they can be. But we don’t live in an ideal world.
I’m spending too much time on this so I’ll probably leave it there.
Senex @ 39, I missed Cameron Smith’s involvement. It sounds more plausible than the Price knee theory.
The Qld players reckon that someone, a NSW player, lifted Price when he was prone on the ground. On the replay on the news tonight it seemed that that was so. Lockyer described it as “A low act”, certainly it was dangerous. Apparently that’s why Qld put up a bomb – so that they could tackle a few NSW players, and because the game was gone anyway. It’s not surprising that there was another blue.
It may ‘sound more plausible’ Brian, but I’ve watched the replay again: Smith is nowhere near it & Price’s knee contacts White’s head.
Price says he doesn’t remember doing that, which sounds plausible, hehe. Probably can’t remember his birthday yet either. Tell ya what, I’ll concede that at the 74th minute of the game, Price’s knee may have buckled slightly from muscle exhaustion. That also is plausible, I’m sure you remember the feeling.
It was Poore who picked Price up. Although he has no official comment, the papers say he has told his teammates that he didn’t initially realise Price was out to it, then panicked when he did.
If you’ve got a replay, Sean, that’s good enough for me. The problem with all this is that the Maroons are filthy over what happened, with even big Petero fingering team-mate Waterhouse for a low act and vowing “revenge” whatever that means next year. There is also a story that Barrett was seen to be making high fives and clapping as Price was carted off. Whether that’s true or not I don’t know, but it seems that Qld players believe that it is.
One of the reasons I mentioned the Barrett thing in the post was that there was talk of payback here every day for the whole week before the match on the ABC who were stirring it up more than the Courier Mail. It worried me.
(I have to say the Tyro R coming on and talking about “sore winners” really pissed me off. He’s done something like that just about every post in recent times and I want to tell him that I don’t appreciate personal insults, which is what I take them to be.)
So I’m worried that too much hype is going to be carried forward to next year. One bloke here who works with players on their conduct off the field and more recently on the field says he loves rugby league but won’t watch SOO and won’t let his 6 yer old watch it because the emotional content is just too high. I think he is the one who uses a father of a 15 year old who was killed by a single punch at a party a couple of years ago.
So the League has a problem IMO. The judiciary deciding that Poore had nothing to answer for doesn’t help, although I’d accept that he panicked and meant no harm. I’d also be inclined to accept that Waterhouse was simply trying to break up the fight, but what he did went wrong as well as being against the rules. But Barrett, on the evidence that he swung the arm with force and with a clenched fist, plus the fact that Inglis was getting up rather than going down, I think acted with intent.
Talk about what Slater does is irrelevant. My wife who teaches 5-year olds wouldn’t let them get away with that non-argument. At best it is arguing that one wrong-doing justifies another, which is not even at the first stage of moral reasoning.
I think there’s a fair chance that Barrett (and Kimmorley) will be there next year, which doesn’t help.
Barrett says he was celebrating the (subsequently disallowed) try, not Price’s injury.
If you’re impartial and arguing on the merits, you should be more concerned with Slater & Thurston. I accept that single punches can occasionally go fatally wrong (usually when the back of the victim’s head strikes pavement – unlikely on a footy field), but ask your local copper about kicking people in the head while they’re on the ground. Far, far worse, because more dangerous.
You’re right that some of the Qlders should stop whining and carrying on (Price himself is showing class, OTOH). The NSW blokes are happy to leave the head kicking incident on the field. I frankly think some of the Qlders are just pissy about losing both the game and the fight.
Sean @ 26 I said:
I also said that the penalties for what Thurston did should probably be increased. Make that definitely. We’ll see what Waterhouse gets, but I’m betting not much. And White? Price should get docked some points also for punching back. Take a leaf out of Creagh’s book who pushed Thaiday away from Gidley taking the bomb and then ran away.
I think Qld players see NSW infringements as being at the root cause of the hostilities. Civonoceva and Lockyer are not whingers, always give credit to good opposition play and week after week Lockyer’s post match interviews are surprising in the objectivity of the analysis of what went wrong when they lose. Both are talking about “low acts”.
But some of the Qld players need some work on their attitude. For example, Hodges behind that sweet smile seems to have an ‘eye for an eye’ attitude and has done some really dumb things, like completely upending a player and dropping him on his head in an off the ball incident last year.
I think Qld players are professional enough (there’s a stack of captains in the team) to know they were outplayed, but in truth there wasn’t a lot in it as the match statistics show. Qld has 5 more errors and were granted 4 more penalties. Most stats pretty even. Commentators usually rewrite history more than somewhat to emphasise the good play of the winners and the poor play of the losers. Qld made 9 line breaks to NSW 7. Who would have thunk?
A few centimetres here and there and a try saving tackle or two not coming off and Qld would have been comfortable winners. But the difference was Waterhouse and Kimmorely IMO.
You won’t be happy mate.
Waterhouse got off scott free yesterday. The prosecutor or whatever agreed with me that if he was breaking up the fight he should have restrained his own bloke, but the judiciary bought that as his intention. Closer inspection shows that it was the last punch that felled Price, not Waterhouse, who went down with him as he unexpectedly became a limp object.
Thurston effectively got a good behaviour bond. No real punishment this time but the record stands against him if he comes up again.
There’s also no action being taken against either Price or White. Reasoning for that here. Living near Mexico, where the Mexicans are apparently outraged, I love the bit about “Yeah but League is a contact sport”. Hehehe.
Sean, the treatment of Waterhouse is in line with all the other penalties and no penalties, including Thurston’s which I think should have resulted in missing at least one match.
I haven’t liked much of the talk around the incident with Courier Mail guys here saying in effect, “Well the passion is part of league and anyway no-one got seriously hurt.” The CM went off and asked Raudonikus, knowing full well what he’d say, thus promoting violence in sport IMO.
League have got a problem, I think, but worse than that they don’t know it.