[2018 November Tests] England vs New Zealand 10/11/18

[ncurd]

Maybe it's because the Spring Boks realised they had more than that one decision to blame for the loss, even if its a wrong decision, and have stopped complaining and the morning after had moved onto forward planning. Where as the English fans have not stopped talking about it and are still salty, instead of asking why they could not score for almost an hour after going up 15-0.

Except The SA team were still *****ing about it 4 days later and their fans.

 

[MikeTheNative]

These England threads are so boring after the match. People refuse to talk about 99% of the game and focus on one incident when the game has been won and lost at other points too.
I said before that I predict England to kick them to death and even before the weather I reckon that was their tactic. Fair play To England though that first 20 minutes was a perfect example of how to play the conditions, Youngs and Farrell bossed that period of the game. NZ were a bit naive in their approach at the start of the game, they just turned up and thought that their own game would be enough to win and they put themselves under pressure. That's the thing about NZ though, they adapted and it was them putting the pressure on for the rest of the game.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

umm was that decision really worth all this discussion? says the hypocrite. and now people will reply to me. oh the irony.

has anyone said anything (else) about the game though? I'm finding it hard to find in this thread.

england was good in the first half, accurate with good decisions, good scrum. all blacks were inaccurate with bad decisions. second half all blacks a bit better, and dominated england's lineout. more to it than than? ahh, I see why noone is discussing it.
...
(whistles nonchalantly)
...

 

[MikeTheNative]

umm was that decision really worth all this discussion? says the hypocrite. and now people will reply to me. oh the irony.

has anyone said anything (else) about the game though? I'm finding it hard to find in this thread.

england was good in the first half, accurate with good decisions, good scrum. all blacks were inaccurate with bad decisions. second half all blacks a bit better, and dominated england's lineout. more to it than than? ahh, I see why noone is discussing it.
...
(whistles nonchalantly)
...

How am I a hypocrite over talking about the decision? Unless that's aimed at someone else?

Good point about the lineout though, it fell to pieces 2nd half. I saw a few criticising George's throwing but that didn't seem the problem to me. Retalick just marked Itoje and whoever called the lineouts just kept calling it to Itoje despite him getting beaten each time.

 

[kesh]

instead of asking why they could not score for almost an hour after going up 15-0.

Underhill did.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

How am I a hypocrite over talking about the decision? Unless that's aimed at someone else?

Good point about the lineout though, it fell to pieces 2nd half. I saw a few criticising George's throwing but that didn't seem the problem to me. Retalick just marked Itoje and whoever called the lineouts just kept calling it to Itoje despite him getting beaten each time.

i'm the hypocrite.

yeah, i rememebr watching one steal (the third of three in a row) and I actually wondered if they were showing a replay. pretty dumb to make the same call. i guess they thought they were double bluffing the all blacks?

 

[MikeTheNative]

i'm the hypocrite.

yeah, i rememebr watching one steal (the third of three in a row) and I actually ondered if they were showing a replay. pretty dumb to make the same call. i guess they thought they were double bluffing the all blacks?

Ok fair enough

I thought it was odd, especially since wasn't there 3 locks on the pitch at that point?

 

[Nudger]

Nubiwan you're correct that they are all offside, but as a try was never scored and its not counted as foul play then ref and TMO cant go back and review it

Except the tmo was in garces ear all after calling infingements

 

[Steeler]

well it has to be said SBW is on the way out, we evidently and obviously improved when he came off and Crotty came on - Goodhue and Crotty have won consecutive Super Rugby ***les and barely had a bad match in two years together - they have to be first choice paring imo

i thought we missed Moody a lot, our scrum wasn't bad, but a bit dodgy at times

thought Dane Coles looked good, he's looking a bit bigger and stronger


Hansen being so good in the past pre-2016 with subs has lost his touch with them in the last few years i reckon. I've lost count of the amount of times we've made replacemnts which ended up actually being detrimental to the teams performance in the last 20 minutes - TJ Perenara probably being the main culprit.
Damo was playing pretty decently and is ace under the highball, so i thought taking him off wasn't a great idea, i can see why he wanted Ritchie on for his kicking game, but it was really uneccessary as i mentioned earlier

But in saying that, I thought bringing S.Barrett at blindside for Squire on to challenge their set piece was a touch of brilliance tho, they've done their homework on Jamie George.

would've been nice to finish off that nice move we had where we went through the middle but Savea couldn't hold the bad pass.

anyhoo big improvement is needed to beat the Irish - we all know they'll come out fired up, need to start better and not make mistakes in the first 20 minutes and end up chasing the game, cause Schmidt will have worked on game management since we last played them

 

[smartcooky]

Apparently that was the weekend the new '2018 TMO Protocol' was introduced.
https://rugbyreferee.net/2018/10/05/tmo-protocol-to-change-for-autumn-internationals/

So we now know that:

>Garces told Lawes he was onside

Did he?

You have evidence of this?

>that an incident has to be CLEAR and OBVIOUS under acts of foul play for a TMO be get involved

This is incorrect. The "acts of foul play" you are talking about is in General Play. What you have failed to understand is the part of the protocol that deals with an attacking team grounding the ball in-goal

Television Match Official (TMO) Global Trial Protocol

2 Potential infringement by the team touching the ball down in opposition in-goal

2.1 If, after a team in possession of the ball has touched the ball down in their opponents' in-goal area (including after a try is awarded and before the conversion is struck), any of the match officials (including the TMO) have a view that there was a potential infringement, within the list of offences (see 2.3) before the ball was carried into in-goal by the team that touched the ball down, they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.

2.2 The potential infringement must have occurred between the last restart of play (set piece, penalty/free-kick, kick-off or restart) and the touch down but not further back in play than two previous rucks and/or mauls.

2.3 If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence was and where it took place. Potential infringements which must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS are as follows:
• Law 8.1. Scoring points
• Law 9.1 to 9.6 and 10.11 t0 10.23. Foul play: obstruction, dangerous play, tackling a
player without the ball
• Law10.4. Offside: player in front of the kicker
• Law 11 Knock-on
or throw forward
• Law 15.5 to 15.9 Ruck: offside at the ruck – players not joining the ruck
• Law 16.5. Maul: offside at the maul – players not joining the maul
• Law 18.1 and 2. Player in touch
• Law 18.3 to 18.7. Lineout: quick throw
• Law 21 In goal (including ball grounded by a defending player)
• Law 21.7 and 21.8 In goal: Grounding the ball and double movement.​

Get yourself a copy of the new trial protocol and read it. Then you will be able to debate from a position of actually knowing what you are talking about.

>Garces said to the TMO "what should i do"
>the TMO disallowed the try
>against the protocol saying it was ultimately up to the on-field ref

World Rugby defended the decision:
>"Ultimately however, the governing body believes a number of mitigating factors meant Garces was within his rights to defer the final decision to the TMO, chiefly the poor weather conditions which made visibility of Twickenham's big screens more difficult."

Compare the sections I have highlighted in red and see if you can work out why Garces left it to the TMO.

CLUE: It was fine and dry with 100% visibility in the TMO Box

 

[smartcooky]

All Blacks are a protected species mate. How are you not used to this?

Lions tour 2017.

Where was that protection when two French referees made two enormous cock-ups that probably cost us the series.

I mean it's nonsense, but the simple reasoning is it's the difference between asserting a correct decision was made and chucking a referee under the bus for the wrong one.

And in the case of Angus Gardner, WR already threw him under the bus for making a decision that they told him to make!

 

[RugbyTackle91]

No, literally no one cares. Take that virtue signaling elsewhere.

Not really virtuous

No, literally no one cares. Take that virtue signaling elsewhere.

Clearly you are wrong about that

 

[kesh]

Did he?

You have evidence of this?



This is incorrect. The "acts of foul play" you are talking about is in General Play. What you have failed to understand is the part of the protocol that deals with an attacking team grounding the ball in-goal

Television Match Official (TMO) Global Trial Protocol

2 Potential infringement by the team touching the ball down in opposition in-goal

2.1 If, after a team in possession of the ball has touched the ball down in their opponents' in-goal area (including after a try is awarded and before the conversion is struck), any of the match officials (including the TMO) have a view that there was a potential infringement, within the list of offences (see 2.3) before the ball was carried into in-goal by the team that touched the ball down, they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.

2.2 The potential infringement must have occurred between the last restart of play (set piece, penalty/free-kick, kick-off or restart) and the touch down but not further back in play than two previous rucks and/or mauls.

2.3 If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence was and where it took place. Potential infringements which must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS are as follows:
• Law 8.1. Scoring points
• Law 9.1 to 9.6 and 10.11 t0 10.23. Foul play: obstruction, dangerous play, tackling a
player without the ball
• Law10.4. Offside: player in front of the kicker
• Law 11 Knock-on
or throw forward
• Law 15.5 to 15.9 Ruck: offside at the ruck – players not joining the ruck
• Law 16.5. Maul: offside at the maul – players not joining the maul
• Law 18.1 and 2. Player in touch
• Law 18.3 to 18.7. Lineout: quick throw
• Law 21 In goal (including ball grounded by a defending player)
• Law 21.7 and 21.8 In goal: Grounding the ball and double movement.​

Get yourself a copy of the new trial protocol and read it. Then you will be able to debate from a position of actually knowing what you are talking about.



Compare the sections I have highlighted in red and see if you can work out why Garces left it to the TMO.

CLUE: It was fine and dry with 100% visibility in the TMO Box

I tried replying in quotes but on phone and.

First: he is pointing backwards and verbalising something that yes i got from hearsay that said he told Lawes he was onside.

Second: rude, the adjudication of the TMO with regard to tries itself is vague and could you explain it? I admit I can't. Though again it's upto the on-field ref and at that point in time it wasn't raining hard.


——-edit— look specifically between 0.5-0.6 seconds. Clear as day try.

 

[TommiG88]

Maybe it's because the Spring Boks realised they had more than that one decision to blame for the loss, even if its a wrong decision, and have stopped complaining and the morning after had moved onto forward planning. Where as the English fans have not stopped talking about it and are still salty, instead of asking why they could not score for almost an hour after going up 15-0.

Few people are salty and the vast majority have agreed it was offside. The game was not lost at that point, the game was lost by small margins in other areas of our game.

Keep reading into something that isn't there...

 

[Paulo]

Few people are salty and the vast majority have agreed it was offside. The game was not lost at that point, the game was lost by small margins in other areas of our game.

Keep reading into something that isn't there...

I can't read the comments that aren't written, and all that keeps coming up was 'that' decision. But ofcourse I know it's the vocal minority that is making all the noise, just like it is with all supporters around the globe. It's the small minority that tends to be most vocal and give crowds and fans a bad name, and I include Kiwi crowds in that too. Most of us know we were in a hard-as-duck dog fight with England and proper respect to them for taking it to us. Hoping you guys pull that out again next week when you take on the Wallabies.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I don't think people are salty as much as they want to fully understand the WR laws/processes

Decisions like this expose the ignorance many have in the laws and it's an opportunity to understand the roles of the TMO/the mechanics of the ruck etc. better.

Obviously there's a vocal minority who are angry about it, but most just wanna understand what's happened

 

[Paulo]

Few people are salty and the vast majority have agreed it was offside. The game was not lost at that point, the game was lost by small margins in other areas of our game.

Keep reading into something that isn't there...

Sorry for double post, but couldnt resist pointing out the irony of saying most people agree it was offside and few people are salty, right under Kesh post where he has a grid work and what not drawn up to justify his obsession. Atleast one person is still very salty front the looks of it.

 

[Paulo]

I don't think people are salty as much as they want to fully understand the WR laws/processes

Decisions like this expose the ignorance many have in the laws and it's an opportunity to understand the roles of the TMO/the mechanics of the ruck etc. better.

Obviously there's a vocal minority who are angry about it, but most just wanna understand what's happened

Fair enough. My understanding of the process is, foul play can be taken back as far back as needed for review. There is a list of what constitutes foul play. Illegal play, in the lead up to a try being scored, can be reviewed back to the last set price but no more than 2 phases back. The TMO can advise the infield ref he may need to review something. The on field ref can then choose to review or ignore. The new protocas call for the on field ref to review via big screen and make the call. On this occasion, due to the weather and poor visibility, and admittedly tight decision, Graces has asked Jonkers to advise on his opinion of the call, deferring to him for this call.

As for the law. Stay behind the hindmost body part in the ruck. The ball is not out until the half back lifts the ball or the ref advises it is out.

Now when is a ball out or in? From practical viewing, that is very lenient on the side in possession, all teams seem to get the benefit of the ball being 'in' when I would argue it is out. Kaplan's explanation of a bird being able to crap on it meaningful it's out, just does not hold up to almost any ruck in the modern game and only suits the 'onside' narrative. Look at any ruck and what is deemed in or out, it needs to be a long way 'out' before it is called as such.

 

[Paulo]

I tried replying in quotes but on phone and.

First: he is pointing backwards and verbalising something that yes i got from hearsay that said he told Lawes he was onside.

Second: rude, the adjudication of the TMO with regard to tries itself is vague and could you explain it? I admit I can't. Though again it's upto the on-field ref and at that point in time it wasn't raining hard.


——-edit— look specifically between 0.5-0.6 seconds. Clear as day try.

Ball is lifted, hindmost body part circled, using your grid lines, Lawes is well offside.

Whether he is offside due to him moving forward or the ruck moving forward is regardless, he needs to retire onside before advancing. He does not.

 

[TommiG88]

I can't read the comments that aren't written, and all that keeps coming up was 'that' decision. But ofcourse I know it's the vocal minority that is making all the noise, just like it is with all supporters around the globe. It's the small minority that tends to be most vocal and give crowds and fans a bad name, and I include Kiwi crowds in that too. Most of us know we were in a hard-as-duck dog fight with England and proper respect to them for taking it to us. Hoping you guys pull that out again next week when you take on the Wallabies.

Social media gave the inept minority a voice these days.