• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[2014 EOYT] England vs New Zealand

Status
Not open for further replies.
First it depends on where and how the tackles were missed, were they head on/down his channel or were they cover tackles/jockeys?

Secondly the England defence system doesn't count made/missed tackles it judges each tackle based on positive or negative outcome - so even if his tackle is a miss if the outcome is positive (sends the attacker into the back row etc... ) it's ok.
Second this.
It's the way he's utilised in a Farrell Sr. defence. He's the first man up in the rush/blitz defence, pressuring the 9/10/12 - his stats will say he has a lot of missed tackles but if he's pressuring the passer, or forcing them to run into whoever's on his left/right then job done.
Sam Tuitupou had one of the highest missed tackle rates in the premiership last season, but he does exactly the same as Farrell - first man onto the ball receiver, either ruining his day or forcing them into a mistake/another defender.

Stats often don't tell the full story.
 
I only got to see the first half hour of this. Was it the same old NZ being about seven times more clinical than anyone else in the world that got them the win?
 
I would start by dropping Tom Wood and Owen Farrell.

Ignoring the Farrell view I have, Wood isn't doing anything. He's losing pace, having no positive effect in defence or attack. Giving away penalties and often they are dumb penalties. I'd just like us to be less "safe" because Eastmond showed up well.

The big issue for me is almost Farrell seniors influence. He's calling some of the substitutions now. I'd like to know if he's just a defence coach now...

Also I wish Lancaster could be less PR. He says the right things to appease people but there becomes a point where it gets tiring to here and a bit pathetic. It keeps you comfy in a job... And allows you to cover up selection issues just because and I don't like it. The papers, telegraph in particular are really starting to pick up on it as well.
 
I only got to see the first half hour of this. Was it the same old NZ being about seven times more clinical than anyone else in the world that got them the win?

New Zealand were clinical, but England were extremely naive by trying to chase a game with 20-30 minutes to go.

I would start by dropping Tom Wood and Owen Farrell.

Agree on Wood, needs to go warm the bench for a bit. I thought Farrell was ok, but i'd probably go for Ford against SA as i think we have to really move the ball against them.


The big issue for me is almost Farrell seniors influence. He's calling some of the substitutions now. I'd like to know if he's just a defence coach now...

he's the backs coach - handles attack & defence.
 
Last edited:
Now I've had some sleep here are my thoughts on the rugby played:

Overall I thought it was a reasonable game of rugby, though the weather conditions made it more difficult to play open rugby in the 2nd half. I agree with the suggestion that England had the better of the 1st half. I thought they dominated the 1st 20 or so minutes, but the AB's did fight back in the later part of the half. Despite not being rewarded with a huge amount of points (thorough a combination of poor goal-kicking, poor execution close to the line, and desperate England defense) I felt the AB's were quite dominant in the 2nd half. There was a clear change in tactical approach by England in the 2nd half. It may have had something to do with the weather conditions, but where-as in the 1st half they were happy to play with pace, in the 2nd they went out of their way to slow the game down (even when they were chasing the game in those last 5 minutes).

A few England players really stood out for me:
- Hartley's work-rate impressed, while the reserve props obviously did a strong job at scrum time.

- Attwood was brilliant at lock, and I was really impressed with Kruis too. England certainly have no shortage of quality locks!

- I felt the England were largely outplayed in the loose-forwards. Robshaw and Wood worked hard but weren't as effective as their counter-parts, and we managed to contain Vunipola for a change (he has done some damage against us in the past).

- The midfield was very strong defensively, though didn't offer a lot on attack.

- Johnny May. Wow he's got some speed! I thought he looked very sharp. Mike Brown was pretty average IMO - he hasn't really performed up to his capabilities against the AB's in recent tests.

For the AB's:

- The starting front-row did a pretty good job overall, though as Nickdnz mentioned they didn't seem to be rewarded despite dominating a few scrums (indeed on one occasions were penalized for bringing the scrum down despite driving the England scrum backwards!). Franks tackling was much better than in recent weeks, but he still looks lost when he gets the ball in space. Despite my protesting at the time Coles probably did deserve his yellow. Other refs may have let it go, but the intent to kick an opponent was clearly there. If you do stupid things you shouldn't complain about being yellow carded. Coles used to have a big discipline issue in the past but he has improved in this area - hopefully this was just a one-off incident.

- Retallick was very quiet in the 1st half - not sure what his injury was? Whitelock was good throughout, and was perhaps unlucky not to be awarded a try, while I thought Tuipolotu really impressed from the bench with his physicality.

- The loose-forward trio as a whole was superb IMO. Read was everywhere with ball in hand, and was accurate both at lineout time and on defense. McCaw continued his strong season. As usual he pushed the boundaries at the breakdown (I actually felt he was a bit more conservative than usual in this regard!), and he did make a couple of brilliant (legal) breakdown steals. Kaino was man of the match for me. His physicality - both in attack and defense was one of the real keys for the AB's.

- Aaron Smith was pretty good overall, though I felt he was over-doing the box-kicking early in the match (and was kicking them a bit too far). Perenara made an encouraging cameo. He didn't do anything spectacular, but he seemed to make good (quick) decisions at the back of the breakdown.

- Cruden's general play was actually pretty good IMO. He distributed well, made a nice break, made few mistakes, and made his tackles. His tactic kicking game wasn't quite as accurate as it could have been, and his goal-kicking was not acceptable (2/5). Barrett's goal-kicking wasn't any improvement though (1/3).

- SBW had a bit of a mixed game. He made some good breaks, but forced offloads that weren't on a couple of times, and did blow a couple of tries by passing the wrong way after making said breaks. His defense was solid though. Conrad Smith was very solid barring the early missed tackle on May, as was Crotty when he came on.

- Savea was very well contained by England (for a change). Ben Smith was pretty well contained too, but did cause England some issues in the air. Dagg...... was actually ok. It was no surprise to see him miss the tackle on May, but apart from that (and one wonky clearing kick) he didn't do that bad. He still offers next to nothing with ball in hand against top class opposition - he apparently had 19 runs with the ball this match but failed to break a single tackle. He has a phenomenal ability to put himself off balance as he approaches the defensive line, so opposition players only need to get a hand on him and his tips over. Dammit, that turned into another Israel Dagg rant didn't it.....
 
I want now

9) Dickson
10) Myler
11) Doesn't matter
12) Farrell
13) Barritt
14) Doesn't matter
15) Doesn't matter
 
Pretty sure he can make the decision based on what he sees on the big screen - that is the protocol.




again, I'm pretty sure he can review it when he wants it something comes to light after the try was awarded...

On both occasions the outcome was correct so what are people moaning?

I'm not upset about the outcome; I just don't like the way it came about. I don't believe we should ignore an error if it didn't affect the outcome; it should be addressed so that it won't be repeated in a game where it does affect the outcome.

If Owens wanted to make a decision for himself, he should've asked for a big screen replay. Since he went for a TMO review instead, he needed to listen to and understand what the TMO was saying. Like I said, if he understood it and disagreed, than it's fine; I'm objecting to what seemed to be a misunderstanding between the TMO and Owens.

If I recall correctly, the referee can only go to the TMO if he hadn't awarded the try yet. If that's not the case, then I don't have a problem with the second occasion. Well, okay, I'd still be a little disgruntled that he let the crowd influence his decisions, but that's a grey area.
 
Last edited:
I'm not upset about the outcome; I just don't like the way it came about. I don't believe we should ignore an error if it didn't affect the outcome; it should be addressed so that it won't be repeated in a game where it does affect the outcome.

If Owens wanted to make a decision for himself, he should've asked for a big screen replay. Since he went for a TMO review instead, he needed to listen to and understand what the TMO was saying. Like I said, if he understood it and disagreed, than it's fine; I'm objecting to what seemed to be a misunderstanding between the TMO and Owens.

If I recall correctly, the referee can only go to the TMO if he hadn't awarded the try yet. If that's not the case, then I don't have a problem with the second occasion. Well, okay, I'd still be a little disgruntled that he let the crowd influence his decisions, but that's a grey area.

As far as I could make out, the incident was being replayed on the big screen. Owens got a suggestion, didn't like the sound of it, asked to see it again, and then ignored the suggestion to take out the card.

And while I'm not sure of the protocols, I am fairly sure Owens went to the TMO after that try after the TMO requested it... I've seen a ref go to the TMO after blowing the final whistle though, so clearly that's some latitude there.
 
I'm not upset about the outcome; I just don't like the way it came about. I don't believe we should ignore an error if it didn't affect the outcome; it should be addressed so that it won't be repeated in a game where it does affect the outcome.

If Owens wanted to make a decision for himself, he should've asked for a big screen replay. Since he went for a TMO review instead, he needed to listen to and understand what the TMO was saying. Like I said, if he understood it and disagreed, than it's fine; I'm objecting to what seemed to be a misunderstanding between the TMO and Owens.

If I recall correctly, the referee can only go to the TMO if he hadn't awarded the try yet. If that's not the case, then I don't have a problem with the second occasion. Well, okay, I'd still be a little disgruntled that he let the crowd influence his decisions, but that's a grey area.
In the premiership final Saracens had a try awarded and then the ref went to the TMO, which isn't actually allowed, and he then gave a forward pass. It cost us the game but it was the right decision.
 
GLOffside1.jpg
GLOffside2.jpg
GLOffside3.jpg


Rubbish. The ruck was on the goal line, and the hindmost foot of the hindmost England player was on the goal line (player arrowed in yellow). That means the goal line IS the offside line, and every single England player (arrowed in red) defending on their left was in front of the goal-line, so they were ALL offside.

If the England players had been on their goal-line instead of 1 - 2 metres in front of it, the extra room the NZ team has means a try was probable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Q9DeEsQMQ&t=1h30m50s

England 20 makes a legal tackle. The ball comes forward out of NZ 17's hands. There is no way New Zealand could have possibly scored from this, because it would have been a knock-on otherwise. Therefore a penalty try cannot be awarded.

Ignoring this:

1. The yellow player you've highlighted is not even in the ruck. No full arm bind = not in ruck. I am not sure what this would mean for the offside line, since I think this would mean that no England player is in the ruck.
2. Even if the yellow player was in the ruck, the picture you have taken was after the ball had left the ruck i.e. the first picture is not of the offside line. (See video above.)
3. Also, even if the yellow player was in the ruck, unless I am misunderstanding the rules, the ball is out of the ruck, which means the ball is in general play, which means England 20 plays the rest of the team onside when he goes to make the tackle on NZ 17. I would argue that this plays even England 6 onside, and therefore it should not have even been a penalty.
 
Last edited:
What's the deal with awarding tries on the ground and then subsequently seeking TMO? That was dodgy as. Dodgy.As.Bro.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_Q9DeEsQMQ&t=1h30m50s

England 20 makes a legal tackle. The ball comes forward out of NZ 17's hands. There is no way New Zealand could have possibly scored from this, because it would have been a knock-on otherwise. Therefore a penalty try cannot be awarded.

Ignoring this:

1. The yellow player you've highlighted is not even in the ruck. No full arm bind = not in ruck. I am not sure what this would mean for the offside line, since I think this would mean that no England player is in the ruck.
2. Even if the yellow player was in the ruck, the picture you have taken was after the ball had left the ruck i.e. the first picture is not of the offside line. (See video above.)
3. Also, even if the yellow player was in the ruck, unless I am misunderstanding the rules, the ball is out of the ruck, which means the ball is in general play, which means England 20 plays the rest of the team onside when he goes to make the tackle on NZ 17. I would argue that this plays even England 6 onside, and therefore it should not have even been a penalty.

I'd add, the ruck is clearly not on the goal line, it being a good meter short of it.

However the guy retreating is the guy who plays the ball - i wouldn't argue with it being a yellow but it's stretching it to say it was a penalty try as i seem to recall there were defenders out wide as well.
 
Many posters seem to be suggesting that NO was influenced by crowd.

Could I suggest he was more influenced by reviewing his 1st half decision - most notably the debatable 1st NZ try - which HE DID NOT REFER!!

He realised he had got over confident and then started doubting himself.

I am admittedly biased, and watched in crowded clubroom, but I am still to be convinced it was a try - yet some NZ posters suggest he was biased - ignoring the fact he awarded it without checking!

As for yellow card - absolutely right - Hartley doing what one would expect - ****ley wind up. If Coles had turn around and slapped him - fair enough - but he kicked/stamped on Care's ankle - lucky to just get a yellow. I would doubt anyone who has actually ever played would disagree.

Penalty try - a bit too soon - but how many penalties do you give away that close to the try line before you give PT?

Overall, Ref. made mistakes - but doesn't everyone. He made a few although probably equitable overall.

Unusually, some went against New Zealand - and they're not used to that. If you really want to see bad Reffing - look at last world cup final - shockingly biased!
 
My worry is...

is this it?? Have the last 3 years all been for nothing??
 
So NZ could only beat a England 'C' team by 3 points?

Bodes well.
 
My worry is...

is this it?? Have the last 3 years all been for nothing??

lets not forget who is missing:

Corb
Youngs T (though i'm more than happy with webber)
Cole
Launchbury
Parling (again though - prefer Attwood)
Haskell
Tuilagi
Burrell
Yarde

NZ were at full strength bar DC and Nonu, and are off the back of 3 months together.

Clearly you're new to rugby?

na, he's just bad at trolling.
 
I'd add, the ruck is clearly not on the goal line, it being a good meter short of it.

However the guy retreating is the guy who plays the ball - i wouldn't argue with it being a yellow but it's stretching it to say it was a penalty try as i seem to recall there were defenders out wide as well.

I agree. It clearly should have been a yellow IMO, but in no way should that have been a penalty try. Who exactly was Ben Franks passing too? All I saw out that side was a sea of white!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top