[2014 Mid-Year Tests] New Zealand vs England (1st Test)

[Jack Reacher]

So everyone who said this was Englands 'B' team, will they be making 15 changes next week? We were without the last 2 international players of the year (Carter and Read) plus no Savea. I agree the ref was poor but that also contributed to NZ's flow and pattern too. England has to realise that NZ playing poorly will still manage 18-20 points so unless England think they will kick at least 6-7 penalties they've got to plan to score a try somehow.
Also I've had it all weekend (Kiwi living in England) how lucky we are - I've said it before you can't be lucky if you win ALL the time. Look at the GREAT teams over the years, Man Utd, Aus cricket, Chicago Bulls etc - NZ has a better record than all of them, we are currently getting close to beating the world record for consecutive test wins (19 I think) for the third time in the last 5 years!

 

[smartcooky]

...Also I've had it all weekend (Kiwi living in England) how lucky we are - I've said it before you can't be lucky if you win ALL the time. Look at the GREAT teams over the years, Man Utd, Aus cricket, Chicago Bulls etc - NZ has a better record than all of them, we are currently getting close to beating the world record for consecutive test wins (19 I think) for the third time in the last 5 years!

Yep. The harder you work, the luckier you get!

 

[exeter]

So everyone who said this was Englands 'B' team, will they be making 15 changes next week? We were without the last 2 international players of the year (Carter and Read) plus no Savea.

Before the first test, England's 1st choice 23 would (more-or-less) have been: Corbisiero, Hartley, Cole, Launchbury, Lawes, Wood, Robshaw, Vunipola, Care, Farrell, Yarde, Twelvetrees, Tuilagi, Ashton, Brown

Marler/Vunipola, Youngs, Wilson, Parling, Morgan, Youngs, Ford, Foden

So England were missing 10 players from the XV and 13-14 players from the 23.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

So everyone who said this was Englands 'B' team, will they be making 15 changes next week? We were without the last 2 international players of the year (Carter and Read) plus no Savea. I agree the ref was poor but that also contributed to NZ's flow and pattern too. England has to realise that NZ playing poorly will still manage 18-20 points so unless England think they will kick at least 6-7 penalties they've got to plan to score a try somehow.
Also I've had it all weekend (Kiwi living in England) how lucky we are - I've said it before you can't be lucky if you win ALL the time. Look at the GREAT teams over the years, Man Utd, Aus cricket, Chicago Bulls etc - NZ has a better record than all of them, we are currently getting close to beating the world record for consecutive test wins (19 I think) for the third time in the last 5 years!

This is a pretty badly misdirected post, to be honest.

1) Re Luck: Go and tell your friends/co-workers that: zero people on here are suggesting New Zealand were lucky to win. On the contrary, most of us are saying that it shows a permanence of class to have 4 consecutively close games against the Northern hemipshere which were close going in to the home strait, but to have the confidence and skill under pressure to comfortably win each one.
You got a couple of decisions going your way, that's the extent of your luck, imo. You still played well enough to win.

2) Re. Changes: Well, just because we won't see 15 changes next week does not mean they're not second choices - coaches will prefer not to try and fix that which isn't broken, so for example Eastmond may very well stay in there ahead of Twelvetrees, even though he's not the first choice. We did well on saturday and should give many of those guys another chance. Picking them again isn't akin to saying they're the best player in each position.
There's no doubt, however, that we were missing a core of class and experience: 8 British and Irish Lions I think?
EDIT: LIONS: CROFT; COLE; FARRELL; CORBISIERO; YOUNGS; HARTLEY; TWELVETREES; WADE; BARRIT = 10 who were selected as Lions at one point.
NOT LIONS WHO ARE NONETHELESS AS IMPORTANT AS THE ABOVE: FORD; LAWES; CARE

3) Re Playing poorly: Again, New Zealand did not play to their best, they were certainly rusty, but let's all notice that this has been said for each of the last 4 games against northerm hemipshere opposition. "Well done England, France / Ireland, but New Zealand were poor". Why is that? Because THE OPPOSITION PLAYED BETTER THAN IN RECENT YEARS. The All-Blacks are a great team as we all know but part of the current mythology around them is that they are literally unstoppable. On the contrary, teams can stop them scoring 50+ points by playing better, and this is happening more and more. One day, a team will beat the All-Blacks and it won't be because you played poorly.

4) I feel you're resorting a bit to the 'England don't score tries' principle; It's only fair to admit that, although you may not have expected it, England looked fairly threatening and created chances with ball in hand. In fact, the controversies from a refereeing perspective revolve around the fact that England might have scored 2 tries had New Zealand not infringed (intent or no) Therefore it seems extremely harsh to make the suggestion that England won't win until they can start scoring tries.

 

[exeter]

I've watched it several times and the only explanation I can offer is that the tackled player and the tackler were lying pretty parallel to the touch line and therefore the width of the gate was very narrow. Harsh decision, however.

 

[goodNumber10]

No he wasn't.

The gate is NOT the width of the ball, it is the whole width of tackled player and the tackler lying on the ground...

[TEXTAREA]Law 15.6
(d) At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the
ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players' goal
line.[/TEXTAREA]

Here is the diagram from the iRB's "Rugby Ready" document..

In any case, the point is moot, because the gate does not exist once the tackle ends. Owens called "Ruck Now" and Black 13 joined immediately after that. The Laws for joining a ruck are different from those for joining a tackle

[TEXTAREA]Law 16.5 (c) Players joining or rejoining the ruck. A player joining a ruck must do so from behind the
foot of the hindmost team-mate in the ruck. A player may join alongside this hindmost
player. If a player joins the ruck from the opponents' side, or in front of the hindmost teammate,
the player is offside. A player may bind onto an opposition player providing the player
is not otherwise offside.[/TEXTAREA]

Black 13 did EXACTLY what the Law required

Owens did not call or signal advantage when Black 13 joined so the penalty could not have been against him.

The tackled players was cipriani - he is middle of that pile of bodies. The tackler is can opened by 18 and rolled to the right (NZ Zealands left). Therefore the width of the ruck is to Smiths left, he comes in at the side of the ruck, and drives through.

there is less than a seconds delay - which i put down to Owens processing the decision, or processing a linesmans call.

I did say i thought it was harsh, but i believe that is what the call is.

Lastly can we maybe just once have a normal discussion with out you continually being rude and belittling on here? I know you were in the forces, but we weren't and the tone you take with people is frankly insulting and completely unwarranted.

 

[Icemn]

why r you debating black 13's position of entry... its conrad smith guys... conrad smith doesnt make mistakes... he looks exactly like chuck norris.... mmmmm... i wonder if chuck and conrad are not the same person.....

anyways...

not sure if englad was poor and nz made them look good by being poorer :? or if NZ defense was outstanding and England attack was poor... was a good game, and im glad england came to the party... dagg needs to be dropped, been saying this for the last year... ben smith on fullaback, jane on 14, savea on 11... done klaar...

dagg is ther e cuz of his boot by the looks of it, but when nz got a penalty and kicked for touch they use cruden instead of dagg... which made me think he might have an injury and they want to minimize his kicking... but in other games, cruden always kick for touch, why dont they use dagg for this :? anycase...

kaino is not human lol... i dont wane see him and read in the same team :O messam prob gonna be dropped to the bench... kaino on 6, read on 8, mccaw 7... wonder if they will pick messam over vito on the bench...

Both teams were rusty but NZ made a lot of mistakes esp handling errors... and kicked the ball away far too much...

so i hope they drop/rest dagg and place ben on fullback, jane on14 and savea on 11
cant wait for the 2nd test...

what happens if the next 2 games are a win to england and a draw.. who takes the series?

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Just rewatched highlights and re Fekitoa:

It's one situation where you simply have to referee the outcome rather than any perceived intent.

With absolutely no release of the tackled player at all, he denied England the chance to distribute the ball
Given that all professional players know that releasing the tackled player is obligatory, and given the field position, we can infer very likely intent too. I don't see how he stayed on the field.
Re. Teams slowing down: I could be wrong but from memory many of our penalties - including the Fekitoa incident - were for the All-Blacks slowing us down. In other words our ball was continually slowed down in attacking positions. I think it's ridiculous to try and argue England did this any more than the All-Blacks given the fact that this was what prevented us scoring possible tries.

 

[nickdnz]

Lastly can we maybe just once have a normal discussion with out you continually being rude and belittling on here? I know you were in the forces, but we weren't and the tone you take with people is frankly insulting and completely unwarranted.

There is nothing in that post that is at all confrontational. You on the other hand always seem to be defensive..

 

[smartcooky]

The tackled players was cipriani

Cipriani was not tackled, he was knocked off his feet when Black 13 missed his tackle. To be tackled a player must be grasped, brought to ground and held. None of these three happened.

What you had with Cipriani was a situation covered by Law 14 BALL ON THE GROUND - NO TACKLE

[TEXTAREA]DEFINITIONS
This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck.

It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled.[/TEXTAREA]

In a Law 14 situation, there is NO GATE!! Players can come from any direction to try to take the ball from the player on the ground.

- he is middle of that pile of bodies. The tackler is can opened by 18 and rolled to the right (NZ Zealands left). Therefore the width of the ruck is to Smiths left, he comes in at the side of the ruck, and drives through.

there is less than a seconds delay - which i put down to Owens processing the decision, or processing a linesmans call.

I did say i thought it was harsh, but i believe that is what the call is.

All of this is moot, because it wasn't a tackle.

 

[Big Ewis]

3) Re Playing poorly: Again, New Zealand did not play to their best, they were certainly rusty, but let's all notice that this has been said for each of the last 4 games against northerm hemipshere opposition. "Well done England, France / Ireland, but New Zealand were poor". Why is that? Because THE OPPOSITION PLAYED BETTER THAN IN RECENT YEARS. The All-Blacks are a great team as we all know but part of the current mythology around them is that they are literally unstoppable. On the contrary, teams can stop them scoring 50+ points by playing better, and this is happening more and more. One day, a team will beat the All-Blacks and it won't be because you played poorly.

I agree. In theory, one can't just take a final result without having seen the game and say the AB's played poorly just looking at the final scoreline. One needs to actually watch the game. And although they were a little rusty last weekend, they didn't play "poorly", that's just exaggerated. The only time I really saw them play poorly was Twickenham 2012. I can't remember seeing the AB's playing BAD besides that, and even in that game they had enough resolve to come back and score, people forget both teams scored as many tries.

And defenses are tighter than ever in this day and age, so teams can hang with the AB these days by managing a superb defensive effort for 80min, and manage maybe a try or two and make their kicks. It's enough to keep the score close, sorry to reiterate but look at the past 4 tests for NZ. Teams no longer have to play a magical game to beat them, although yes it still requires one heck of an effort and utter focus for 80min.

England this match stuck to NZ on defense, made sure they committed very seriously on each tackle. The defense moved up and down well, and then gave themselves some chances on attack too.
With a fuller pack in Test 2, I reckon England will get better ball to play and the backs will have an easier time getting close to the line.

 

[SuperEagle]

All of this is moot, because it wasn't a tackle.

Hmmm... not sure about this. Cipriani (22) gets knocked over by C. Smith (13), he tries to get up and in the process is TACKLED by Vito (20) - thus creating the gate.

Marginal, but I wouldn't say Owens in definitely wrong on this one

 

[goodNumber10]

Cipriani was not tackled, he was knocked off his feet when Black 13 missed his tackle. To be tackled a player must be grasped, brought to ground and held. None of these three happened.

What you had with Cipriani was a situation covered by Law 14 BALL ON THE GROUND - NO TACKLE

[TEXTAREA]DEFINITIONS
This situation occurs when the ball is available on the ground and a player goes to ground to gather the ball, except immediately after a scrum or a ruck.

It also occurs when a player is on the ground in possession of the ball and has not been tackled.[/TEXTAREA]

In a Law 14 situation, there is NO GATE!! Players can come from any direction to try to take the ball from the player on the ground.



All of this is moot, because it wasn't a tackle.

It might be moot if Nonu hadn't tackled him.

You can carry on quoting all the law books in the universe.

The fundamental point is we're discussing someone's interpretation of the law. Not the actual law, as you seem hell bent on.

Hmmm... not sure about this. Cipriani (22) gets knocked over by C. Smith (13), he tries to get up and in the process is TACKLED by Vito (20) - thus creating the gate.

Marginal, but I wouldn't say Owens in definitely wrong on this one

It's Nonu. ***Edit: sorry you are correct it is Vito***

And everyone said it was an iffy call but that's not good enough for smartcooky he has to argue a point no one is actually arguing just to prove his superior ability to read the rule book after the fact.

There is nothing in that post that is at all confrontational. You on the other hand always seem to be defensive..

I'm not defensive, I just think the guy comes across as a pompous d*ck.

In not the first person to point this out either.

 

[Big Ewis]

and btw, the AB's better do something about that scrum. Thank God France took Hayman away from them coz that Franks guy ain't exactly scaring too many looseheads. Hopefully for all of NZ, there isn't a match in the next RWC that comes down to the scrum.

 

[goodNumber10]

<a href="https://imgflip.com/gif/9g4i9"><img src="https://i.imgflip.com/9g4i9.gif" ***le="made at imgflip.com"/></a>

 

[Maverick1987]

Re. English press saying England will win the RWC on Sunday I read the Sunday mail, the Sunday telegraph and the rugby paper and none even mentioned winning the RWC there was a few mentions of good depth and hitting form well but that was it . What paper said they would win ?

Ps. If you have been reading the sun or the mirror from the other side of the world and listening to it you're a plank

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think Danny Care was the player most missed by England. Youngs was worse in every aspect of his game. Lots of aimless kicking, poor passing, absolutely no running threat... Care is just in a different league. Infact it was Youngs making an unforced error at the breakdown that led to the NZ break where Yarde got yellow carded.

Burns did pretty well I think, much better than many feared.

 

[smartcooky]

I'm not defensive, I just think the guy comes across as a pompous d*ck.

In not the first person to point this out either.

1. And you can tell this from my tone of voice?

2. Ad hominum attacks aren't permitted on this forum, you are stepping close to the line?

3. And I wouldn't be the first person to point out that you are arrogant!

 

[smartcooky]

Proved my point nicely thank you. A player who has one or both knees on the ground, or is sitting on the ground is "on the ground" (thats black letter Law, Rugby 101) therefore he cannot be tackled, therefore its a Law 14 situation, not a tackle.

 

[nzlizard]

The fundamental point is we're discussing someone's interpretation of the law. Not the actual law, as you seem hell bent on.

I'm not defensive, I just think the guy comes across as a pompous d*ck.

Umm you know why there are laws? as they are the standards, they should be very well written and therefore do not require interpretation. So your or my interpretation of it means jack all.

I am only new here but I quite enjoy his posts as I normally learn something new and am happy to be proven wrong, you on the other hand seem to don't want to know about it unless it supports your train of thought.