[2014 EOYT] England vs New Zealand

[goodNumber10]

The problem with this point in bold is that you only had to look Ireland's win today against a side who had also been together for 3 months to know this doesn't wash.

Of course it does.

Are you genuinely saying that 3 months of warm up games don't better prepare a team? Because Ireland won on a sh*tty day in dublin doesn't undermine that.

 

[Maverick1987]

Of course it does.

Are you genuinely saying that 3 months of warm up games don't better prepare a team? Because Ireland won on a sh*tty day in dublin doesn't undermine that.

I agree with GN10 here . He's not saying that everytime we play in the November tests we should lose because they have been together for weeks he's saying it helps them . Hopefully one day we can draw our seasons together then we can have some summer rugby

 

[Kapa O Pango]

McCaw what a guy.

Especially the ABs back-row.

What a force they were, McCaw tackling machine, Read ranging wide, Kaino brutal.

 

[Maverick1987]

McCaw what a guy.

Especially the ABs back-row.

What a force they were, McCaw tackling machine, Read ranging wide, Kaino brutal.

Yep I think these 3 guys were the difference today . Especially when the weather went crap

 

[RoosTah]

I agree with GN10 here . He's not saying that everytime we play in the November tests we should lose because they have been together for weeks he's saying it helps them . Hopefully one day we can draw our seasons together then we can have some summer rugby 

I think the problem is that England also sent out a better prepared and stronger team in June this year to face a pretty raw ABs side and still went down 3-0. Sure, it does help, but for me this England side played a lot like the a England side of that second test - out of the blocks with plenty of vigor, but not able to capitalise enough on their early pressure and ultimately not being able to match it with the ABs for the full 80. So a little like the Wallabies against them in Brisbane too.

 

[mysportingvoice]

World Cup | MSV - mysportingvoice
http://mysportingvoice.com/2014/11/09/world-cup/

 

[Maverick1987]

I think the problem is that England also sent out a better prepared and stronger team in June this year to face a pretty raw ABs side and still went down 3-0. Sure, it does help, but for me this England side played a lot like the a England side of that second test - out of the blocks with plenty of vigor, but not able to capitalise enough on their early pressure and ultimately not being able to match it with the ABs for the full 80. So a little like the Wallabies against them in Brisbane too.

They didn't send a better prepared team it was ravaged by a stupid block up in fixtures meaning we were short a dozen players that were playing in the Premiership final . Therefore joined the tour late and didn't get time to train much with the others in the squad . Although the RFU only really have themselves to blame for that to be fair . Also what do you mean when you say a raw ABs team ?

 

[Maverick1987]

World Cup | MSV - mysportingvoice
http://mysportingvoice.com/2014/11/09/world-cup/

Holy crap who wrote that ?!?

 

[RoosTah]

They didn't send a better prepared team it was ravaged by a stupid block up in fixtures meaning we were short a dozen players that were playing in the Premiership final . Therefore joined the tour late and didn't get time to train much with the others in the squad . Although the RFU only really have themselves to blame for that to be fair . Also what do you mean when you say a raw ABs team ?

The ABs hadn't played together at all yet that year, and it was in the middle of the Super Rugby season, so they were off the pace at the start of the series. They really grew into it though, and I thought it that showed in how the more under strength England side pushed the ABs closer than the post Premiership Final full team did.

 

[Big Ewis]

ah, been meaning to do this for a while:



Kaino.

 

[Maverick1987]

The ABs hadn't played together at all yet that year, and it was in the middle of the Super Rugby season, so they were off the pace at the start of the series. They really grew into it though, and I thought it was interesting that the more under strength England side pushed the ABs closer than the post Premiership Final full team did.

I know it seemed crazy although looking back on it now the under strength team was probably the better prepared they had been together for the best part of a month before that first test

 

[first5eight]

I don't disagree with anything Ewis said.

They are starting to hit their ceiling which is a worry. It doesn't help our best and key players are injury prone. It's killing us now. NZ never ever get long injuries. We have 10 of which 6 are first teamers.

.

No long term injuries? You're kidding right? No Carter for almost a year, no Woodcock for the bulk of the season and Nonu gone for six months.. That's nearly 300 caps worth of experience on the sidelines which is far more significant than the English injury problems. Either one of those players would've have had a massively significant impact on the game yesterday. In fact it would'nt have even been close if Carter had been match fit and playing.

 

[j'nuh]

Yes, I'm not disputing they are allowed to reach out. But they aren't allowed to come up short, then have another go, then another go, then another go.

Being close to the goal-line doesn't mean "be as crazy as ya want". You can reach out, but if unsuccessful then the player must place the ball any direction except forward.

Having two or three attempts immediately will not be punished, having one attempt 10 seconds after the tackle will. It has nothing to do with the number of attempts and everything to do with the immediacy of the attempts, as it says in the rules.

If a player has four attempts, then it's very likely that the third or fourth attempt will be deemed not to be immediate. So it won't count. But it's because it wasn't immediate, not because it was four attempts.

The NZ try at the centre of this, the player placed the ball on his second attempt, but immediately after being tackled. He hit the ground with the ball under him, then he stretched forward for the goal line. In league it may be considered double movement but in union it's placing the ball immediately. So the try stands.

 

[Maverick1987]

No long term injuries? You're kidding right? No Carter for almost a year, no Woodcock for the bulk of the season and Nonu gone for six months.. That's nearly 300 caps worth of experience on the sidelines which is far more significant than the English injury problems. Either one of those players would've have had a massively significant impact on the game yesterday. In fact it would've have even been close if Carter had been match for and playing.

Meh you guys sent Carter on a sabbatical for 6 months so presumably you counting that in the year ? How long has he been back off said sabbatical ?

Injuries we have

1. Corbisiero/Vunipola
2. Youngs
3. Cole
4. Launchbury
5. Parling
6. Croft
7. Haskell

We only need a number 8 to get injured and its a whole bloody scrum !!!! Never mind injury to both first and second choice outside centres our first choice left wing aswell .
Maybe you should do a bit of research before spouting off .....

Actually I've just been reading through your previous comments and I'm not surprised by anything you say . You are undoubtedly the rudest most arrogant person on this forum and it actually boils my **** reading your drivel . You might learn a bit more about rugby if you pull your head from up your arse . Anyway I'm blocking you now

Good day to you sir

 

[William18]

Then what the ***** is home advantage for if you expect everyone to sit quietly and golf clap.

Owens saw what he saw and the try review was courtesy of the TMO asking to check... pretty sure Owens words were, "you want to check? ok", the TMO then said straigth away that he was wrong.

Match officials should not be influenced by the crowd. Some people tried to say that shining a laser in the eyes of the goal kicker was home advantage as well. Home advantage is all about trying to cheer your team on and get them to play better. You also have familiarity with your surroundings. I'm not blaming the crowd for supporting their team but the match officials should not be influenced by it.

 

[Mikel92]

Having two or three attempts immediately will not be punished, having one attempt 10 seconds after the tackle will. It has nothing to do with the number of attempts and everything to do with the immediacy of the attempts, as it says in the rules.

I'm afraid you're just creating your own rules. The rules allow the player to immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line ... that isn't an invitation to take as many stabs at it as possible. Even if it is immediately. How is that fair to the defending team? You have to view the rules collectively, not just view one subsection in isolation to everything else. The tackled player must also release the ball, the tackled player must do that in a direction that isn't forward. Just because a tackled player is close to the goal line does not make his other obligations null and void. You do not get a free reign, if you are short, to go again quick.

http://www.irblaws.com/content/video_popup_ver6.php?v=laws/2245-reach-out-try ... take a look at this video. It is a video by IRD that exemplifies subsection G. See what the tackled player does, he stretches out immediately over the line. That's good ... thats what Subsection G is all about. He doesn't end up short, then quickly try again. That is NOT what subsection G is telling you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=my0yiL3troM .. or have a look at this video. Fast forward to 1:13 and watch that sequence. Going by your logic, DEFINITELY less than 10 seconds, and looks pretty immediate to me. Inital attempt was fine ... not 3 attempts, like the referee indicates. Also, if you watch the full game on youtube, even the commentators side with the fact that you are allowed one movement, not multiple goes.

I know you'll say "but that wasn't immediate" .. oh but it was. You have to think about what did the IRB intend? Surely a fair opportunity for the attacking team to create exciting rugby and reward their hard work if they get close enough .. but that opportunity (to stretch out) has it's limits. It's not "multiple" placements of the ball immediately, it's one. Same reason why you can't keep crawling along the ground once you're tackled ... you've had a fair shot, now recycle the ball.

 

[RoosTah]

Bit of a side note, but was really funny when the Haka started and they panned to Owen Farrell - my girlfriend said "jeez, what's with that guy!? looks like a poster boy for the SS". A bit rough, but he kinda does have that look to him doesn't he - haircut has a very German precision and consistency to it, and seems to have a permanently emotionless face.

 

[goodNumber10]

Match officials should not be influenced by the crowd. Some people tried to say that shining a laser in the eyes of the goal kicker was home advantage as well. Home advantage is all about trying to cheer your team on and get them to play better. You also have familiarity with your surroundings. I'm not blaming the crowd for supporting their team but the match officials should not be influenced by it.

Read what wrote again...

 

[first5eight]

Meh you guys sent Carter on a sabbatical for 6 months so presumably you counting that in the year ? How long has he been back off said sabbatical ?

Injuries we have

1. Corbisiero/Vunipola
2. Youngs
3. Cole
4. Launchbury
5. Parling
6. Croft
7. Haskell

We only need a number 8 to get injured and its a whole bloody scrum !!!! Never mind injury to both first and second choice outside centres our first choice left wing aswell .
Maybe you should do a bit of research before spouting off .....

Actually I've just been reading through your previous comments and I'm not surprised by anything you say . You are undoubtedly the rudest most arrogant person on this forum and it actually boils my **** reading your drivel . You might learn a bit more about rugby if you pull your head from up your arse . Anyway I'm blocking you now

Good day to you sir

No need for sour grapes old chap. I stand by what I said. Carter, Nonu or Woodcock are all more experienced and arguably better players than anyone on the english injury list. We could throw Corey Jane in the mix as well but at the end of the day both teams have injuries so deal with it. I think the players coming back for NZ are of a higher quality and would've had more influence on the game. I'm sure stats/winning percentages would back me up but please feel free to find that info if in doubt. Peace.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, I'm not disputing they are allowed to reach out. But they aren't allowed to come up short, then have another go, then another go, then another go.

Yup. The tackled player gets one chance to place the ball forward over the goal-line if he does so immediately.

What is often misunderstood is that even if the ball touches the ground when the tackled player is brought to ground, he can still place the ball over the goal-line, provided that he does not promote his own body forward in order to reach the line.