[2018 November Tests] England v South Africa (3/10/18)

[Jimbo]

Maybe I'm looking with tinted glasses but Ester appears to be leading with his forearm, pretty sure I've seen players punished for this in the prem all season, Looks like a damn good hit to me not a 50 50, I genuinely think if it was the other way I wouldn't see it differently. What good would Ford be in a match that physical, he would have been dragged across the pitch, it doesnt matter what Faz does some people will always favour Ford over him even when he doesn't have the game management and physically Faz does, if you want a 10 with more of a running threat and plays close to the line Ford isn't even the best we have on offer they guy is soooo inconsistent it's crazy.

 

[User1245]

News just in, given recent developments Butch James has been immediately recruited by Boks as a tackling consultant. In reaction WR's Bill Beaumont has given James a "presidential pardon" for the 37 yellow and red cards he received for 'late wrapping tackles'. James concluded the ceremony with "I always wrapped eventually, it's not my fault the player was no longer there"

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Well to be cited it needed to be deemed a red card and yellow would have been extremely unlucky for Faz, let alone a red. There was no contact with the head and he hits his chest with Esterhuizen's chin going over his shoulder, as has been pointed out by Yoshimitsu, making it look like it is contact with the throat. Esterhuizen also leans forward just before the tackle lowering his body height in the tackle.

He could have given a Citing Commissioner warning, which is equivalent of a yellow card, but falls short of a full citing which would need to meet the red card threshold. But as it is he didn't even issue a warning to Farrell AFAIA,

 

[User1245]

Jokes aside I think Owen (BTW Faz is like the worst nickname I've ever seen) did that because he had his head on the wrong side to put in a 'proper' tackle as Esterhuizen was coming on the angle. He had to employ bad technique to make the stop. I do agree that there is room for interpretation but the tackle was definitely more bad than it was good. Like 80:20.

Jonathan Kaplan, one of the most experienced refs ever, disagreed with Gardner. But of course is not part of the WR establishment so he can speak freely as an ex-referee. Not saying there's collusion but do I think WR is hanging onto that small bit of interpretation they have available to back their man

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Jokes aside I think Owen (BTW Faz is like the worst nickname I've ever seen) did that because he had his head on the wrong side to put in a 'proper' tackle as Esterhuizen was coming on the angle. He had to employ bad technique to make the stop. I do agree that there is room for interpretation but the tackle was definitely more bad than it was good. Like 80:20.

Jonathan Kaplan, one of the most experienced refs ever, disagreed with Gardner. But of course is not part of the WR establishment so he can speak freely as an ex-referee. Not saying there's collusion but do I think WR is hanging onto that small bit of interpretation they have available to back their man

Wow you're saying a South African ref is taking the side of the Boks? That seals it then.

 

[Jimbo]

Jokes aside I think Owen (BTW Faz is like the worst nickname I've ever seen) did that because he had his head on the wrong side to put in a 'proper' tackle as Esterhuizen was coming on the angle. He had to employ bad technique to make the stop. I do agree that there is room for interpretation but the tackle was definitely more bad than it was good. Like 80:20.

Jonathan Kaplan, one of the most experienced refs ever, disagreed with Gardner. But of course is not part of the WR establishment so he can speak freely as an ex-referee. Not saying there's collusion but do I think WR is hanging onto that small bit of interpretation they have available to back their man

Where is this 80:20 coming from seems a bit arbitrary to me?

The contact wasn't too high the initial contact was made with the shoulder but an attempt with the arms was made, every time i watch it, it looks a fairer tackle the collision was as such both players quickly bounced backwards, making it difficult to wrap the arms.

 

[User1245]

Where is this 80:20 coming from seems a bit arbitrary to me?

The contact wasn't too high the initial contact was made with the shoulder but an attempt with the arms was made, every time i watch it, it looks a fairer tackle the collision was as such both players quickly bounced backwards, making it difficult to wrap the arms.

Well it's coming from my opinion.
Having looked at it multiple times and from different angles I think Farrell's head wasn't in the right position to make any other attempt at stopping Esterhuizen. His tackle attempt was more wrong than right in technique. The position of his right arm leading into the tackle and on impact is telling in this regard.

 

[Hydraulxx]

Clear shoulder charge, his arm was flailing after hit. To me he made no attempt to wrap his arm in the tackle

 

[WaterboySA]

I don't care about the tackle. England won, end of discussion.....

If Marx does not work on his line-out throws, he should never wear the jersey again. He cost us the game. And it's not the first time. I don't care if he's an extra loosie....his main job is line-outs and scrums. Do your job or gtfo.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I'd rather you lot just owned the fact that you are, and pretty much always have been, the team to beat.

haha. you might be the only one who feels that way.

i would have loved the ABs to play you guys at the top of your game when you were on your winning streak. An easy win for the ABs it would have been, of course, but just good to see a team get within 50 of us sometimes

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I think we're overstating the injury situation a little.

By my reckoning, our first choice 23 looks something like (Eddie's selections not mine):

1. M. Vunipola
2. Hartley
3. Sinckler
4. Itoje
5. Launchbury
6. Robshaw
7. T. Curry*
8. B. Vunipola
9. B. Youngs
10. Farrell
11. May
12. Te'o
13. Joseph
14. Watson
15. Daly

16. George
17. Genge
18. H. Williams
19. Lawes**
20. Hughes
21. Care
22. G. Ford
23. Slade/Tuilagi/Nowell

Depending upon the severity of the injuries to Tom Curry and Lawes, that's either 7 or 9 of the preferred 23.

That's obviously a significant number of injuries, but I disagree when people talk about us being at 'half strength' and at this stage of the World Cup cycle and with the resources we have, we shouldn't be using it as an excuse.

The unfortunate aspect is who has been injured. Losing our top three loose heads (inc. Marler) and potentially our entire first choice back row has been the most obviously problematic, but actually I think we've really missed Joseph at 13. I don't think Eddie's system has got the best out of him in attack, but he's been massively missed in defence.

but that doesn't sound too far off "half strength", especially considering things like you are using a fourth choice loosehead.

i remember doing this exercise for the wallabies once, at a time when deans was coach, and they had 15 of their top 23 (or was it 22, can't remember) injured.

 

[Steeler]

this was a classic case of the psychological effects the homecrowd can have on a referee i reckon, still shocked not even a penalty was given

really disappointed in Angus here, he is one of my favs and often does a great job, but he spat the dummy here and i reckon he bottled it

i notice some england posters saying it was 50/50 and have to completely disagree with that, it was 100% a penalty, little to no attempt to wrap the arms and it was a high leading shoulder, on no planet is that a fair tackle gentleman

 

[Bada-Bing!]

It sets a dangerous precendent for sure. Citing commissioner didn't even issue a warning. So now we are to conclude that those sort of "tackles" where there's that kind of collision is fine. Farrell for me was trying to dislodge the ball from Estherhuizen's grasp rather than wrap his left arm around him, which Gardner seemed to be inferring.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Genuinely surprised people are calling this high - I agree it's a shoulder, but that's never high

 

[spartan32]

Can't belive people are still going on about the tackle.
The ref on the day said it was fine
Citing commission said it was fine
Anyone who's played the game at a decent level and actually has a pair says it fine
So you know what people... it's fine.

I think the issue is that those who are questioning it are looking at the "mens rea". Which does not form part of the decision making process for rugby laws. All that matters is the "actus rea". Was the player in a position to legally carry out the tackle and did he appear to make an attempt to do so? The answer to both in this case is yes. Christ they both collided so hard they bounced off each other like to rubber balls, there was no chance Faz could have grabbed him.

Now don't get me wrong, I highly suspect that Faz had no intention of grabbing him, however I, nor anyone else for that matter, can know for sure what he was thinking. So unless someone invents a mind reading machine, or Faz stands up and admits he never intended on trying to wrap the arm, both of which seem highly unlikely, we have to go on what happened only. Based on that no wrongdoing by the laws of the game has occurred.

 

[MikeTheNative]

I think it was probably a penalty nothing more. However I know it could have decided the fate of the game but this was such a small part of it but people tend to just debate the incident instead of the game and there was quite a bit to dissect from it.

 

[George Ford]

I thought Youngs was low-key England's saviour in this match. Those box-kicks did the home team helluva service.

Also - did anyone notice Faf De Klerk in the stands? Thought he wasn't allowed to enter the stadium

 

[SomeOke]

It definitely met the threshold for a penalty but that's really not the issue, the issue is that SA only had a 2 point lead after a dominant firs half. That's why we lost, not one ref's call.

 

[MikeTheNative]

I thought Youngs was low-key England's saviour in this match. Those box-kicks did the home team helluva service.

Also - did anyone notice Faf De Klerk in the stands? Thought he wasn't allowed to enter the stadium

Youngs box kicking is what kept England in it in the first half (along with the overthrown line outs). I'm not a massive fan of Youngs but it was nearly flawless box kicking all game.

 

[TRF_heineken]

The less there is said about Farrel's tackle, the better. I think Rassie said it best in his interview after the game, look at it from the 2:24 mark:



ButI don't want to talk about that, as it shouldn't be a talking point as to an opportunity where we could've won the match, it was far, and close to the corner, and I don't think Pollard or Elton would've slotted it over that far out.

But what did irk me about that incident, is that it was just a the culmination of several bad calls by Mr. Gardner. I thought he was absolutely pathetic in the middle.

• The first four scrums England got, Youngs threw the ball in under the lock's feet.
• Sinkler was scrummaging inwards the whole game, wasn't once penalised for that.
• The several high hits, and neck rolls on players - all went unpunished, not even a consult.
• the last 4 minutes of the game, the England team was constantly offside, and in the lead up to the Farrel incident, there was another high tackle on a South African player which he also missed.

As for the game. I can't believe we lost. Like seriously, we were outclassing the England team in nearly every instance apart from the scorecard. I think our biggest problem was decisionmaking, apart from the handling errors of course. Hey Siya, when you are 8 to 7 in a pack with a very good scrum, why kick for a lineout every time only to overthrow it every time??? Why not scrum them over??? And why keep on going for the lineout, and keep on throwing to the back? Their one jumper is in the bin, THROW TO THE GUY AT THE FU****** FRONT!!!!!