Australia vs England (2nd Test) - 09/07/22

[Derpus]

^^

Just another reason why league is currently the better of the two at the moment.

 

[Grizwald]

^^

Just another reason why league is currently the better of the two at the moment.

I listened to a pod cast recently with Drew Mitchell. Sounds like the RU is continue to struggle down under. My understanding is ARL and NRL had previously not really had their feelers in to the private schools, but have various initiatives now to drive interest and recruitment.

Very competitive professional sports market in Aus chasing a relatively small population. Grew up with memories of the 90s and early 00's Aussie sides that were top notch.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I listened to a pod cast recently with Drew Mitchell. Sounds like the RU is continue to struggle down under. My understanding is ARL and NRL had previously not really had their feelers in to the private schools, but have various initiatives now to drive interest and recruitment.

Very competitive professional sports market in Aus chasing a relatively small population. Grew up with memories of the 90s and early 00's Aussie sides that were top notch.

and AFL and NRL are actually making changes so the game is more enjoyable to watch and engaging, from law tweeks right through to the marketing

....Rugby just adds more laws and confuses things, @depus is right though...thuggish play just gets penalised...but speculative (at worst cynical) get carded

To our Aussie posters, is there a general move towards integrating traditional Aussie tribal languages and cultures in the country or is it more of a rugby thing?

there aren't too many of those on her anymore, but hopefully a kiwi in aus will do, there is a bit of an effort but not loads, the more forgiving side of me says this is at lest partly due to there being 250 Aboriginal languages

there is a movement to incorporate more Aboriginal recognition in day to day stuff, i know every formal meeting i attend has a culture of caring moment and recognition of the traditional owners of the land on which we meet

 

[Derpus]

I listened to a pod cast recently with Drew Mitchell. Sounds like the RU is continue to struggle down under. My understanding is ARL and NRL had previously not really had their feelers in to the private schools, but have various initiatives now to drive interest and recruitment.

Very competitive professional sports market in Aus chasing a relatively small population. Grew up with memories of the 90s and early 00's Aussie sides that were top notch.

Plenty of rugby talent coming out of schools. Private schools still don't play NRL. NRL just sign up the best rugby players.

NRL and AFL have more money and a more polished product.

The bunker in the NRL makes rugby TMO referalls look positively amateur. Granted the game is simpler and the calls usually easier.

They also actively tweak the rules to constantly encourage a faster game. Similarly, AFL has pretty much no stoppages at all except for the quarter breaks.

I went back and watched some classic Bledisloe games and it's remarkable how much slower Union is now compared to back then when it was on a more even footing with NRL.

I still prefer a great game of union to a great game of league but they are just so rare. Mungo ball is a much safer bet.

I mean - when people are getting sinbinned for dropping the ball you are really pushing **** up a hill.

 

[Geordie]

So a good chance to see how young Chessum goes as a starter for T3.

 

[Grizwald]

Plenty of rugby talent coming out of schools. Private schools still don't play NRL. NRL just sign up the best rugby players.

NRL and AFL have more money and a more polished product.

The bunker in the NRL makes rugby TMO referalls look positively amateur. Granted the game is simpler and the calls usually easier.

They also actively tweak the rules to constantly encourage a faster game. Similarly, AFL has pretty much no stoppages at all except for the quarter breaks.

I went back and watched some classic Bledisloe games and it's remarkable how much slower Union is now compared to back then when it was on a more even footing with NRL.

I still prefer a great game of union to a great game of league but they are just so rare. Mungo ball is a much safer bet.

I mean - when people are getting sinbinned for dropping the ball you are really pushing **** up a hill.

Thanks for the perspective. Would agree something needs to be done to improve the game as a spectacle. I'll always watch as much rugby as is offer but trying to attract spectectators and to a certain extent new players can't be getting any easier.

Concussion is a big thing at the moment. I'm not sure the increased number of cards is causing less Concussions. I thought the Kiwi props red card at the weekend was a bit harsh. One of my pet hates is the TMO reviews in the time they take but mostly EVERYTHING looks far worse in slow motion.

 

[BrokenWing]

Just watching the highlights…

Why does the Aussie keep going on about a knock DOWN?

A knock on is a knock on. If you go for an interception with one hand and miss, it's deliberate.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Just rewatching the knock on, I'm really annoyed with Eng's back play. It was a 4 on 3 against a dog leg defence. This should have been straightforward to exploit.

Farrell to my mind was in exactly the right place, coming from deep on a line towards the gap created by White having charged out of the defensive line. He's not the fastest thing on 2 legs but from a simple pop pass he might have scuttled over, or at least set up an excellent position.

On the other side of White, Steward was probably in advance of where he should have been but the line he was taking and a well timed pass might also have seen him home.

But what we didn't really have was the option of drawing the men and putting it through the hands as when Smith throws the pass Farrell, Steward and Freeman are pretty much in a straight line.

It was a situation that just needed the simple.

 

[BPM]

Just rewatching the knock on, I'm really annoyed with Eng's back play. It was a 4 on 3 against a dog leg defence. This should have been straightforward to exploit.

Farrell to my mind was in exactly the right place, coming from deep on a line towards the gap created by White having charged out of the defensive line. He's not the fastest thing on 2 legs but from a simple pop pass he might have scuttled over, or at least set up an excellent position.

On the other side of White, Steward was probably in advance of where he should have been but the line he was taking and a well timed pass might also have seen him home.

But what we didn't really have was the option of drawing the men and putting it through the hands as when Smith throws the pass Farrell, Steward and Freeman are pretty much in a straight line.

It was a situation that just needed the simple.

I agree. I don't even think it needed him to be particularly quick. It was a good line that probably would have seen him score.

 

[die_mole]

just getting around to watching the game now. Commentators were questioning why Hill didn't get called for an intentional knock about ten minutes in on a play where didn't even knock it on. Went backwards off his hands and then off his leg.

Addition: Just heard the phrase "rugby league fans across the world" used to describe the five cities where the game is played.

 

[BPM]

just getting around to watching the game now. Commentators were questioning why Hill didn't get called for an intentional knock about ten minutes in on a play where didn't even knock it on. Went backwards off his hands and then off his leg.

Addition: Just heard the phrase "rugby league fans across the world" used to describe the five cities where the game is played.

Are you referring to the one where he clearly tried to make an interception with both hands? If that's it, I think it was a knock-on, but a genuine attempt to catch the ball. He wasn't stretching, it was at torso height and ought to have been successful.

If he'd caught that, he was away. He definitely wouldn't have gone all the way, but it would have been interesting if he had support.

FWIW, I think Perese's was also a genuine attempt to catch the ball for an intercept, but when you're that close to your own line and you're stretching for it with one hand, the difference between a miracle play and picking up a yellow is minimal. Could quite easily have been a penalty try.

To complete the picture - Smith's was 100% a yellow. No attempt to actually catch the ball.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

Are you referring to the one where he clearly tried to make an interception with both hands? If that's it, I think it was a knock-on, but a genuine attempt to catch the ball. He wasn't stretching, it was at torso height and ought to have been successful.

If he'd caught that, he was away. He definitely wouldn't have gone all the way, but it would have been interesting if he had support.

FWIW, I think Perese's was also a genuine attempt to catch the ball for an intercept, but when you're that close to your own line and you're stretching for it with one hand, the difference between a miracle play and picking up a yellow is minimal. Could quite easily have been a penalty try.

To complete the picture - Smith's was 100% a yellow. No attempt to actually catch the ball.

It's a harsh rule, but I don't know how to get around it otherwise. I do think there should be more discretion exercised with the yellow card.

E.g. when Biggar was sent off in the first test against SA, it looked to me like the ball was thrown into his hand after he moved to block the pass option, rather than any deliberate attempt to knock on. The passer should be punished for the bad decision in that circumstance, not Biggar for good defence.

 

[die_mole]

Just saw Smith, that was blatant.

Hill's wasn't a knock on . I get why it was called a knock on at full speed but yeah he had two hands to catch it so a PK would have been insane.

Perese was a no-brainer; you go up with one hand you have to catch it otherwise you are off.

With the Biggar one. Yeah the ball was thrown into his hand but what was his hand doing there in the first place. I don' think it should matter if your hand was there before the ball was thrown or not. I do think it puts an onus on the referee to get the call right though cause they are more likely to knock it back in those situations.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

Just saw Smith, that was blatant.

Hill's wasn't a knock on . I get why it was called a knock on at full speed but yeah he had two hands to catch it so a PK would have been insane.

Perese was a no-brainer; you go up with one hand you have to catch it otherwise you are off.

With the Biggar one. Yeah the ball was thrown into his hand but what was his hand doing there in the first place. I don' think it should matter if your hand was there before the ball was thrown or not. I do think it puts an onus on the referee to get the call right though cause they are more likely to knock it back in those situations.

In open play there's no offside line, so Biggar can put his hand wherever he wants. I think calling that a knock on is a bad precedent, like when scrum-halfs could chuck the ball at a player trapped offside in the ruck to milk a penalty.

 

[die_mole]

In open play there's no offside line, so Biggar can put his hand wherever he wants. I think calling that a knock on is a bad precedent, like when scrum-halfs could chuck the ball at a player trapped offside in the ruck to milk a penalty.

so? it has nothing to do with offside. If you put your hand there to block a pass before the ball is thrown you are still putting your hand out to block a pass. It carries the same risk/reward that putting one hand out to catch a ball would. I just don't see the difference with the timing. In fact, if you just stick one arm out there to obstruct the passing lane I have less of a reason to believe you were ever trying to catch the ball.

edit: I'll add this. If you want to obstruct the passing lane, do it with a part of the body that doesn't result in a penalty if it bounces a certain way off of it. That's the risk you take for putting your hand there instead of your body.

 

[Derpus]

Just saw Smith, that was blatant.

Hill's wasn't a knock on . I get why it was called a knock on at full speed but yeah he had two hands to catch it so a PK would have been insane.

Perese was a no-brainer; you go up with one hand you have to catch it otherwise you are off.

With the Biggar one. Yeah the ball was thrown into his hand but what was his hand doing there in the first place. I don' think it should matter if your hand was there before the ball was thrown or not. I do think it puts an onus on the referee to get the call right though cause they are more likely to knock it back in those situations.

I don't get why in rugby we encourage constant competition for the ball - except when it's in the air. Then you can't compete (unless you are 100% certain you will get it).

Well - that and mauls, which are just ugh...

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

I don't get why in rugby we encourage constant competition for the ball - except when it's in the air. Then you can't compete (unless you are 100% certain you will get it).

Well - that and mauls, which are just awesome

FTFY

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

.

Well - that and mauls, which are just ugh...

You're not from the Southern Hemisphere by any chance?

Mauls from a 5m line out are as tedious as they come, but you saw the damage Eng caused with one driving maul on Sat which gained them 20+ yards, tying in loads of Aussies in the time there might have been 5 'phases' that took maybe 2 opponents out of the game for 3 seconds each time with a net territory gain of 6.5 inches.

There's room for both, and decent teams should have both. I've always been amazed how few open field mauls and, for that matter, drop goals we see now. Just groupthink at its worst. Why would teams not use effective weapons? Surely the more options you have the harder it is to defend against?

 

[ncurd]

.

You're not from the Southern Hemisphere by any chance?

Mauls from a 5m line out are as tedious as they come, but you saw the damage Eng caused with one driving maul on Sat which gained them 20+ yards, tying in loads of Aussies in the time there might have been 5 'phases' that took maybe 2 opponents out of the game for 3 seconds each time with a net territory gain of 6.5 inches.

There's room for both, and decent teams should have both. I've always been amazed how few open field mauls and, for that matter, drop goals we see now. Just groupthink at its worst. Why would teams not use effective weapons? Surely the more options you have the harder it is to defend against?

Aussies have been moaning about English mauls since 2003

 

[Derpus]

Because they don't make any damn sense. Rugby is about constant competition for the ball but suddenly in this one discreet circumstance obstruction is allowed and you cant tackle the ball carrier.

Fukn nonsense.