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

[Pom in Exile]

There are some salty English supporters in here. I love it.

Wayne effing Barnes.

 

[Pom in Exile]

There are some salty English supporters in here. I love it.

Wayne effing Barnes.

Social media gave the inept minority a voice these days.

oh the irony

 

[Umaga's Witness]

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.

I actually hadn't seen this when I made my post. Excellent point about the thread haha.

I think you are right that New Zealand tried to play their own game to some extent, but not so much in terms of risky passes, but still high risk in terms of decisions, and execution - they lacked the serious concentration they needed as they were too over-confident at times, not composed enough at others. It was as if they expected to get the same amount of opportunities as they would in any other match. They clearly had a game plan to use grubbers but boy did they execute them badly.

Interesting point about NZ adapting too. I remember thinking in the first half how much better they were going to be after the half-time talk. I just wish the players were smart enough to adapt themselves.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Meh - I'm fine with that.
First thing I'd change is to call "use it" earlier; and for it to mean more-or-less immediate use, not to get another 2 forwards in and reposition the chaser. Maybe "ball's available" 3 sec "Use it" 2 sec "Free Kick".

The next ruck change I'd make is dangerous clear-outs - specifically shoulder barges that still seem to be allowed just so long as you look like you might have wanted to stayed on your feet if different laws of physics were applied.

Beyond that I don't like these artificially elongated rucks - I'd suggest that if a player has rucked beyond the ball (or the ball moved back beyond them), then they're no longer part of the ruck (or at least, not affecting the offside line).

i like the first point

that last point I don't agree with; a ruck is supposed to be like a scrum, not just one player. and if a team decides to elongate a ruck that's fine, they are committing more players to the ruck to do so.

there are a couple of laws I would add
1. the tackled player should have to roll away
2. players have to stay on their feet at the ruck, if they don't they have to roll away

Wait, they are both already laws.

I've never seen the first one officiated though. If it was you wouldn't see rucks collapsing into piles of bodies all the time.

and for the second one i just get endlessly annoyed that every team forms 'rucks' by gong straight to their knees, preventing a counter-ruck. or they bind to the tackled player on the ground (see 1), thus not supporting their body weight, but still preventing the opposition from counter rucking effectively. This is reffed reasonably consistently at least, but it does get called occasionally, and once you get into the territory of having a subjective degree of OKness for a law, you open the refs up hugely to influence from unconscious bias. the crowd, the players in their ears, the reputation of the team or certain players, etc all make a difference. And even without bias, it becomes a roll of the dice. I don't want to see games decided by a roll of the dice.

while I'm at it, offside in front of the kicker is hardly ever ruled these days. In particular, from box kicks, the chasing winger is often offside. Ashton certainly was at times in this game. In super rugby it's terrible, especially from NZ teams. it's an easy thing to see for the touch judge too.

 

[Which Tyler]

This Page (42) has been much better, I think it's clear most Reasonable English fans can see the call going either way, he was offside, the main reason I wish it stood though is to have Sam Underhill's bamboozling of Barrett going down in History books, was absolutely amazing. I thought his ball carrying was absolutely immense all day too

Meh, it always takes a couple of days for the losers to find their second eye when looking at things. Equally, as ever, there were plenty of reasonable comments from both sides earlier on in the discussion; but humans are really good at seeing / remembering the negatives. Besides, the negatives also give rise to discussions, which I think has been the majority of the last few pages - discussions on the intricacies amongst people who've already accepted both the result, and the call that they're talking about - especially once SC came along and started giving us the ref/law's variety.

 

[Nubiwan]

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

Hardly the point. Try wasn't scored because 5 of them are offside. How about that?

 

[Nubiwan]

are you saying that on reveiw they should have seen he was offside and just said "most of the time we dont bother with that so dont worry"?

My point is clear in the post. There are players offside at nearly every ruck in test rugby.

In an earlier post, I happened to pick out a 2 minute period were no less than 3 pretty hefty infractions occurred and the refs did nothing. I.E 5 NZ players ofside at ruck, line out interference, and Smith picking the ball out of the England front rows feet.

My overall reaction to the England performance is that they did more than enough to both win and lose a pretty decent contest. Not often we get to say that against the ABS.

The rest of what I am posting merely highlights that refereeing is scrutinized by TMO, and big decisions are made, when plenty of other laws are broken constantly in a match. Game is perhaps weighed down by the number of laws and their interpretations. Sometimes why Rugby League is soooo much more enjoyable.

 

[TommiG88]

oh the irony

??

 

[Nubiwan]

I would just like to add........

 

[Nubiwan]

In the end, a resoundingly decent effort by the English side, who I thought would struggle, and did in phases, but still came within a whisker. The hope is that they can build some momentum from it, and make the World Cup a decent spectacle.

 

[Nubiwan]

i like the first point

that last point I don't agree with; a ruck is supposed to be like a scrum, not just one player. and if a team decides to elongate a ruck that's fine, they are committing more players to the ruck to do so.

there are a couple of laws I would add
1. the tackled player should have to roll away
2. players have to stay on their feet at the ruck, if they don't they have to roll away

Wait, they are both already laws.

I've never seen the first one officiated though. If it was you wouldn't see rucks collapsing into piles of bodies all the time.

and for the second one i just get endlessly annoyed that every team forms 'rucks' by gong straight to their knees, preventing a counter-ruck. or they bind to the tackled player on the ground (see 1), thus not supporting their body weight, but still preventing the opposition from counter rucking effectively. This is reffed reasonably consistently at least, but it does get called occasionally, and once you get into the territory of having a subjective degree of OKness for a law, you open the refs up hugely to influence from unconscious bias. the crowd, the players in their ears, the reputation of the team or certain players, etc all make a difference. And even without bias, it becomes a roll of the dice. I don't want to see games decided by a roll of the dice.

while I'm at it, offside in front of the kicker is hardly ever ruled these days. In particular, from box kicks, the chasing winger is often offside. Ashton certainly was at times in this game. In super rugby it's terrible, especially from NZ teams. it's an easy thing to see for the touch judge too.

Already overburdened with laws is why rugby will never be a leading world sport. Too inaccessible to the uninitiated. Yeah, you win by scoring more points across the line, but how you get there sometimes requires a PhD. The TMO events during the Lions tour, and recent England matches rather prove my point and make it all seem a little farcical, when laws are constantly being stretched and ignored all over the park.

Some lessons to be learned from Rugby League in terms of how the game should be kept moving, not stagnated at the bottom of collapsed rucks, slowed down by scrum halves at the base, teams walking to line outs and wasting time (England are famous for it). RFU needs to get the game going, and simplify stuff, if at all possible.

 

[Bean]

Not really virtuous

Clearly you are wrong about that

Okay. Some guy from Argentina cares. When Argentina finally get email, you can email someone who cares.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Already overburdened with laws is why rugby will never be a leading world sport. Too inaccessible to the uninitiated. Yeah, you win by scoring more points across the line, but how you get there sometimes requires a PhD. The TMO events during the Lions tour, and recent England matches rather prove my point and make it all seem a little farcical, when laws are constantly being stretched and ignored all over the park.

Some lessons to be learned from Rugby League in terms of how the game should be kept moving, not stagnated at the bottom of collapsed rucks, slowed down by scrum halves at the base, teams walking to line outs and wasting time (England are famous for it). RFU needs to get the game going, and simplify stuff, if at all possible.

this i can agree with, WR seem to think the only way to make the existing law work is to add more laws to them, what they need to do is go back to the school yard and built them up from scratch, start with you can carry the ball but can pass it forward and build on that....i have a feeling lots of interpretations will fall by the way side

 

[Five Meters Out]

One thing I might change about the ruck laws is change the definition of 'out' to the knee. It would likely stop the stupidity of a ball quite clearly being out in the open but players not being able to just walk up and grab the ball

Personally I can't stand the rule that allows the halfback to have hands on the ball, with the defending team still having to stay back on side. I reckon it goes against natural instincts and should change to "once the halfback touches the ball with his hands the ruck is over" and he's fair game.
Not sure such a law change would have helped Lawes re the charge down. His problem was he danced along a line ahead of all the other English defenders. He may of may not have been....but he looked off side and you can see why the TMO picked it up.

 

[ncurd]

Personally I can't stand the rule that allows the halfback to have hands on the ball, with the defending team still having to stay back on side. I reckon it goes against natural instincts and should change to "once the halfback touches the ball with his hands the ruck is over" and he's fair game.
Not sure such a law change would have helped Lawes re the charge down. His problem was he danced along a line ahead of all the other English defenders. He may of may not have been....but he looked off side and you can see why the TMO picked it up.

Hands on are an issue if they actually have to dig it out.

 

[Nubiwan]

Hands on are an issue if they actually have to dig it out.

Which is fair enough, but in the majority of cases, the ball is sitting their waiting to be played, the scrum half has one leg cocked back in the, I am about to box kick pose, and we wait a few eternities in every bloody game for his royal highness to kick the bloody thing. Half the time, it's kicked poorly anyway. If ball is visible, then scrum halves should be made to play it if the ruck is stationary. "Use it". Simple.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Already overburdened with laws is why rugby will never be a leading world sport. Too inaccessible to the uninitiated. Yeah, you win by scoring more points across the line, but how you get there sometimes requires a PhD. The TMO events during the Lions tour, and recent England matches rather prove my point and make it all seem a little farcical, when laws are constantly being stretched and ignored all over the park.

Some lessons to be learned from Rugby League in terms of how the game should be kept moving, not stagnated at the bottom of collapsed rucks, slowed down by scrum halves at the base, teams walking to line outs and wasting time (England are famous for it). RFU needs to get the game going, and simplify stuff, if at all possible.

yeah, it's a hard thing though, to simplify while maintaining the unique allure of rugby.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Hands on are an issue if they actually have to dig it out.

i know this sounds flippant and im sorry for that but in the cases i think id rather keep the rules simple and put the focus on clearing out better, or presenting the ball better and if you cant do either then hard luck

 

[Derpus]

Lions tour 2017.

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



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

Yeah one example. One. Against hundredsl.

 

[smartcooky]

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

I've put the tackle offside line in for you...

[

The ball is still touching the ground, Lawes is clearly offside

No try. WR agrees the decision was correct.....end..of...story!

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.

Ah, so someone told someone else who told you = you've got no evidence.

But even if this is true, Garces could simply have been wrong.

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 up to the on-field ref and at that point in time it wasn't raining hard.

OK, I'll quote it for you again, with highlights

You said that the TMO could only refer foul play to the referee. THIS...IS... WRONG! What you are talking about is in general play.

Here is the relevant part of the protocol as regards to the scoring of tries.

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.​

This is not rocket science, its grade school English Language Comprehension

"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)" = when a try is scored

"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)" = if the TMO sees a relevant infringement

"before the ball was carried into in-goal by the team that touched the ball down," = before the try was scored

"they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review." = he can have the referree check

So, to put it all together for you... "When a try is scored, if the TMO sees a relevant infringement, he can ask the referee to check"

Clear now?