[2014 Mid-Year Tests] New Zealand vs England (2nd Test)

[munstermuffin]

Did you hear what the TMO said? The ref (correctly) stated he though there was an arm under the ball, but the TMO stated it didn't matter because it was an English arm

No the TMO was asked "Is there any reason I can't award try?"
This means ref saw a grounding at some stage and wanted clarification. TMO wasn't shown any clear cut evidence so therefor can't alter decision.

 

[goodNumber10]

Obviously i'm not happy with the loss but i think there were some massive positives in that game for England:

Three good Try's (i don't care about discussing the TMO decision), i said before the game the important thing here is England show the ability to score trys - and they scored three well worked trys. Mike Catt and Andy Farrell have got our backs playing better than any England team since 2002, they play with a lot of positivity and right on the tackle line - yes some of our 1 on 1, and 2vs1 execution is poor but that will be worked on in the next cycle.

I think we know we now have depth - it's a different thing to go to NZ for a 3 test series than playign them at home - it's not really in our DNA, we haven't really grown up on test series, so it's important that England came away with consistent performances over this series. Bar 20 minutes they've have done that so far and importantly we're all left knowing they can and will improve.

Set piece is solid, even shorne of front line players, and scrum is still a weapon for us - can you imagine Corbisiero against that front row?fingers crossed he can maintain some fitness over the next 15 months or so.

 

[Tony Manx]

No the TMO was asked "Is there any reason I can't award try?"
This means ref saw a grounding at some stage and wanted clarification. TMO wasn't shown any clear cut evidence so therefor can't alter decision.

It was Garces that thought there had been a try but it should be checked......the questions was asked and given! I would give up on this as you will not convince them!!

 

[Aristodemus]

does anyone not think Eastmond would have got opened up in this game?

I'm not sure it's fair to blame twelve trees for anything, he overcooked one kick and made one poor offload - there are others who didn't shine.


For me it's:

09: Care (Dickson on bench)
10: Farrell (Burns)
11: Foden
12: 36 (Eastmond on the Bench)
13: Tuilagi (because of last week - and because Burrell had lost form tail end of the season)
14: Foden (tough call on Ashton)
15: Brown



so you're agreeing with me?

Nope, saying Care and Yarde made the try

 

[Rich Taff]

Was the referee swapped for a twin at half time?
Suddenly every decision went NZ way (including multiple missed forward passes) until they were 15pts clear. Then some decisions went back Englands way.
Also, do any S.Hem refs actually referee blockers at the breakdown? Seems to be ignored by them all.
I get the feeling the Tuilagi experiment on the wing was done as a counter to some of the giant wingers they'll be up against in the World cup. Was a complete failure though. Tuilagi may be a one trick pony, but he's very effective in midfield and just looked lost on the wing (especially in defence).

 

[Tony Manx]

Was the referee swapped for a twin at half time?
Suddenly every decision went NZ way (including multiple missed forward passes) until they were 15pts clear. Then some decisions went back Englands way.
Also, do any S.Hem refs actually referee blockers at the breakdown? Seems to be ignored by them all.
I get the feeling the Tuilagi experiment on the wing was done as a counter to some of the giant wingers they'll be up against in the World cup. Was a complete failure though. Tuilagi may be a one trick pony, but he's very effective in midfield and just looked lost on the wing (especially in defence).

You also had a number of AB's standing onside in front of their back line at breakdowns making the English defence more difficult! Hey, you can look at all sorts of incidents and say that was wrong, that was wrong but the ref cannot possibly see them all and as long they are balanced out, who cares! The ref is doing his best even dear old Nigel who was incredibly one sided last week!!!!!

 

[Darwin]

No the TMO was asked "Is there any reason I can't award try?"
This means ref saw a grounding at some stage and wanted clarification. TMO wasn't shown any clear cut evidence so therefor can't alter decision.

I was aware what question the ref asked. It means the ref (/touch judge?) thought he saw a grounding. That meant a try would be awarded unless the TMO saw a reason not to award it. However there was a clear reason not to award the try - it was held up! Both the ref and the TMO saw this, but the TMO for some thought it should be a try because it was an English arm under the ball (which makes no sense what-so-ever!).

 

[Bada-Bing!]

The only advantage England have is its at home honestly if you guys werent at home for next year id be giving you very little chance. Your team is very similar to us pre 2003 and 2007. Young team thats to unsettled on what players to start. If the England coach settles on a starting 15 and unearths about 3 or 4 world class players between now and then I might give you a chance. Personally I think SA will steamroller you guys out of the WC if you play this style.

Lol. Home advantage is massive in World rugby. I'd still have us 3rd favourites as long as, we top pool A. The ABs have a difficult draw in the knockout stages. If it's France ( so long as PSA gets sacked) then that is a potential QF or Ireland. Then SA in the semi final, which could be mammoth test match. If England top group A then it's Somoa/Scotland in the quarters and then Ireland/France in the semis. A home final against whichever battered team emerge from a monster semi between the ABs and SA? I'd certainly take that and give England a chance, with a feverant home crowd behind them at Twickenham.

Th question you have to ask is for all the ABs superiority today, why it was not reflected on the scoreboard? England might not play great running rugby, but WCs are rarely about great running rugby. Usually, it's about tight defences and who kicks their penalties that win WCs.

 

[Tony Manx]

I was aware what question the ref asked. It means the ref thought he saw a grounding. That meant a try would be awarded unless the TMO saw a reason not to award it. However there was a clear reason not to award the try - it was held up! Both the ref and the TMO saw this, but the TMO for some thought it should be a try because it was an English arm under the ball (which makes no sense what-so-ever!).

I repeat...it was Garces the linesman who thought it was a try NOT the ref.......and also repeat, we will never be able to convince you!!

 

[St George]

It would be nice if next weeks game would not be marred by decisions by the officials which take up most of the analysis afterwards.

IMO England have been singularly punished with regards Yellows, and the ABs are too good to go down to 14 men against them and not expect to concede tries (2003 accepted).
Browns Try needs to be asked a question of the Ref and TMO as IMO it wasnt grounded. My mate said that justice was done for bad decisions against us, but i dont work that way. All bad decisions have to be judged for what they are regardless if they are for or against your team. Some on here should abide by that otherwise Rugby is no better than Football. I hold Rugby up to all my Football mates as the way for sport to go, and so am gutted when the aftermatch chitchat is about reffing decisions.

England were very unlucky last week and deserved the win IMO, but this week we were well below par and did not deserve to get within a point. The positional experimenting aside (would rather see it than same old same old untested), our form players in the 6N were average....Brown & Care. And our alround kicking from hand was awful with regards execution and chasing (apart from Wilsons little effort pmsl ).

I think the comment that England at home in the WC gives them an atvantage, is correct, but why not? New Zealand have benefitted twice to-date.

 

[Tony Manx]

It would be nice if next weeks game would not be marred by decisions by the officials which take up most of the analysis afterwards.

Fact of life............!!

 

[Darwin]

I repeat...it was Garces the linesman who thought it was a try NOT the ref.......and also repeat, we will never be able to convince you!!

Of course you won't convince me - I am obviously correct!

Are you seriously suggesting that if you ground the ball on your own arm (as both the ref and TMO agreed happened!) you should be awarded a try. Last time I checked that isn't in the law book.....

 

[dasNdanger]

Of course you won't convince me - I am obviously correct!

Are you seriously suggesting that if you ground the ball on your own arm (as both the ref and TMO agreed happened!) you should be awarded a try. Last time I checked that wasn't in the law book.....

I'm thinking there will be some debate among the IRB & Co. over this one. The only thing I can think of for why it was allowed was the off chance that one tip of the ball did touch the ground before it leveled out on his arm. Otherwise, not a try (mostly I'm saying that to rile Tony M. ).


das

 

[Tony Manx]

................. one tip of the ball did touch the ground before it leveled out on his arm. das

Reasonable doubt Me Lud!!

 

[Darwin]

I'm thinking there will be some debate among the IRB & Co. over this one. The only thing I can think of for why it was allowed was the off chance that one tip of the ball did touch the ground before it leveled out on his arm. Otherwise, not a try (mostly I'm saying that to rile Tony M. ).


das

There would have been no problem at all if the TMO or ref thought there was a chance that the tip of the ball was touched down. If they did a try would have been the correct call under the laws. The problem IMO was that they both thought it was clearly held up, but awarded the try anyway!

 

[dasNdanger]

There would have been no problem at all if the TMO or ref thought there was a chance that the tip of the ball was touched down. If they did a try would have been the correct call under the laws. The problem IMO was that they both thought it was clearly held up, but awarded the try anyway!

Perhaps they turned a bribed eye to the laws...

I mean, blind eye.


das

 

[GoTheNaki]

Obviously i'm not happy with the loss but i think there were some massive positives in that game for England:

Three good Try's (i don't care about discussing the TMO decision), i said before the game the important thing here is England show the ability to score trys - and they scored three well worked trys. Mike Catt and Andy Farrell have got our backs playing better than any England team since 2002, they play with a lot of positivity and right on the tackle line - yes some of our 1 on 1, and 2vs1 execution is poor but that will be worked on in the next cycle.

I think we know we now have depth - it's a different thing to go to NZ for a 3 test series than playign them at home - it's not really in our DNA, we haven't really grown up on test series, so it's important that England came away with consistent performances over this series. Bar 20 minutes they've have done that so far and importantly we're all left knowing they can and will improve.

Set piece is solid, even shorne of front line players, and scrum is still a weapon for us - can you imagine Corbisiero against that front row?fingers crossed he can maintain some fitness over the next 15 months or so.

If you didn't have try number 2, and it clearly wasn't a try. You would not have got try number 3. So... Pointless. England get a try, was it 8-10 minutes in? And proceed to do what after that, till the last 10 minutes? I wouldn't take two of their tries as positives really, if I were you. I just don't see how scoring in garbage time and a terrible TMO decision is highlighted as positives.

I should really take an English standpoint that was taken last week after the loss.

No Read/Carter - Both IRB POTY Winners. Are you telling me they don't make NZ better?
Coach starting the #10 with 60 minutes of game time in 8 weeks, before the series starts.
Cory Jane will not be at the World Cup. Look for Hansen not being able to ignore the Blues' back-line players. Pick one: Moala, Halai, Tevita Li or using Piutau at wing because he's too good to pass up. Osborne/Nadolo?? Someone, anyone not called "Cory Jane". He hasn't been good since his injury.
Perenara the starting #9. Smith's pass is good and all that... But.. I think he's reached his ceiling, whereas, I think TJ could be amazing. Bet next season is huge for him.

 

[austingtir]

Lol. Home advantage is massive in World rugby. I'd still have us 3rd favourites as long as, we top pool A. The ABs have a difficult draw in the knockout stages. If it's France ( so long as PSA gets sacked) then that is a potential QF or Ireland. Then SA in the semi final, which could be mammoth test match. If England top group A then it's Somoa/Scotland in the quarters and then Ireland/France in the semis. A home final against whichever battered team emerge from a monster semi between the ABs and SA? I'd certainly take that and give England a chance, with a feverant home crowd behind them at Twickenham.

Th question you have to ask is for all the ABs superiority today, why it was not reflected on the scoreboard? England might not play great running rugby, but WCs are rarely about great running rugby. Usually, it's about tight defences and who kicks their penalties that win WCs.

It wasnt reflected on the scoreline because of a two very dubious calls one after the other by the reff near the end of the match which gave england a bit of momentum. + you have to be honest with yourself we are carrying about 3 or so totally useless players atm Jane did his best to win the game for you guys for christ sakes and A Smith was terrible aswell. Even Cruden has played his best rugby imo. Slade should be getting a call up for next week and Cruden can sit it out to watch Barrett school him.

You guys arent playing that style atm. Even the 2003 England team won playing the oldschool England style of penalty after penalty. + the fact your coach cant settle on a starting 15 a year out from the WC look at the age of the players in your team!

 

[Darwin]

Perhaps they turned a bribed eye to the laws...

I mean, blind eye.


das

You may think that, but the TMO (George Ayoub) has a habit of being completely incompetent, so it is not surprising really!

 

[dasNdanger]

You may think that, but the TMO (George Ayoub) has a habit of being completely incompetent, so it is not surprising really!

I dunno. I thought he said 'I do see a reason not to award the try' then mentioned the arm under the ball, but the ref awarded the try anyway. But maybe 'do' and 'dooooon't' sound the same to me over the telly.


das