England v New Zealand breakdowns

[Isurus]

Below is the meaty bit of an article in today's NZ Herald(http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11159105):

...the All Blacks came away feeling they didn't get a fair deal at the breakdown. As winners, they can raise the point not as an excuse but with a genuine desire to get it fixed.

It was their view that the England players mostly went off their feet, sealed the ball off and got away with it.

As a consequence, the All Blacks chose to be highly selective about competing for the ball. Because of that, referee Craig Joubert said England's approach made no material difference as they were going to secure possession anyway. Classic chicken and egg and yet when the All Blacks decided they should do the same and seal the ball, they were penalised - because England made the decision to compete every time.

My view of the match is pretty much in line with the above. England only stayed competitive because of the way the breakdowns were being policed. Either the breakdowns were being policed unfairly/inconsistently or we have a problem in interpretations.

What would be really helpful is a proper analysis of individual breakdowns but that is a lot of work and I'm not going to do it

Anyone want to offer an opinion?

 

[admartian]

I think it's both. I saw instances were an ENglish player would fall off, hands on ball, keep playing/not release but not get called. But also, I think that they simply matched and/or bettered us in that department for a good chunk of the game.

Out strength still lies in counter-attacks - give us a sniff, no matter how little/much we have the ball, and we'll score. Obviously you can't rely on that too much, as too often we've seen games when we're not flowing so well (ball drops, mis-timings, bad communication etc).

 

[TRF_Olyy]

The NZ players can, collectively, eat a big fat one.
Sour grapes at not having their own way/getting a taste of their own medicine.

 

[Isurus]

So, nothing to offer but still want to hang a sign round your neck saying "zero credibility". Fair enuff.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Just watched the first 15-20 mins of the second half and didn't really see anything you could really complain about.
If there is a particular period that is being touted as an example LMK.

The instance where Cruden tried to have a word with Joubert and Farrell told him basically to **** off:

Vunipola tackles Smith from behind, with Farrell assisting - Mike Brown is over the ball as soon as Smith hits the deck.
Farrell is half standing, half kneeling between Smith and the AB players who are coming in to clear out.
Smith gets penalised for holding on.
That's what Cruden was complaining about - I don't buy that at all - Farrell was the assistant tackler and did stand up and brace himself for the cleanout.
Farrell could have been done for not moving away, but that was the second offence - after Smith holding on.
The AB's lost out because Brown was over the ball immediately, not because Farrell was lurking.

 

[admartian]

Just watched the first 15-20 mins of the second half and didn't really see anything you could really complain about.
If there is a particular period that is being touted as an example LMK.

The instance where Cruden tried to have a word with Joubert and Farrell told him basically to **** off:

Vunipola tackles Smith from behind, with Farrell assisting - Mike Brown is over the ball as soon as Smith hits the deck.
Farrell is half standing, half kneeling between Smith and the AB players who are coming in to clear out.
Smith gets penalised for holding on.
That's what Cruden was complaining about - I don't buy that at all - Farrell was the assistant tackler and did stand up and brace himself for the cleanout.
Farrell could have been done for not moving away, but that was the second offence - after Smith holding on.
The AB's lost out because Brown was over the ball immediately, not because Farrell was lurking.

I think that was unnecessarily touchy of Farrell. I mean it's not like Cruden was disrespecting Joubert - he was merely voicing his opinion and making a case for his side as most players do.

Wat's it to ****ing Farrel if Cruden is Captain, or the friggin pope or not? No need for that shove really.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Farrell tells everyone to do one, it was nothing personal - he has a very short temper at times, especially in tight/tense games.
Like in the France game in the last Six Nations when he was pushing and shoving the French players (specifically whoever was at fullback - Huget?) all game.

 

[admartian]

Farrell tells everyone to do one, it was nothing personal - he has a very short temper at times, especially in tight/tense games.
Like in the France game in the last Six Nations when he was pushing and shoving the French players (specifically whoever was at fullback - Huget?) all game.

Fair enough. I don't see a problem when any player shoves in defense of his teammate and/or the other guy was asking for it due to an offence/infringement. But Cruden was simply having a word and I thought lol that was uncalled for!

 

[ratsapprentice]

It's a bit prickish... but he had a point!

 

[Big Ewis]

Like in the France game in the last Six Nations when he was pushing and shoving the French players (specifically whoever was at fullback - Huget?) all game.

that's right, Huget. But in fairness, Picamoles and possibly others were beeotches to him after that during the game

 

[InsaneAsylum]

You'd think Farrell would have learned not to be a dick after this

 

[admartian]

It's a bit prickish... but he had a point!

A point? sure, a real anal, nitpicky that harms no one point. If they only want captains to talk, make it an offence for any players to direct any forms of words to the ref. :rolleys:

And again, Cruden was not being a dick to warrant a dickish response- that old chestnut "equal and opposite reaction".

 

[ratsapprentice]

He's not being "nitpicky"... he doesn't want the opposition to talk to the ref, it's just a bit of harmless sociopathy!
Just gamesmanship - which isn't necessarily a bad thing IMO.
There is a certain degree of gamesmanship engrained into rugby that I love - that falls within it IMO.
It's not golf!

 

[Kiwiwomble]

pointing out to the ref he shouldn't be talking to anyone but the captain would be gamesmanship...walking up and giving someone a shove is just dickish, its the kind of thing i would have reversed the penalty for

 

[smartcooky]

Farrell is just like his father, a jumped up little prick who, one of these days, is going to pick the wrong person to say "fack off" to, and he'll thoroughly deserve what he gets as a consequence.

 

[Peat]

Farrell is just like his father, a jumped up little prick who, one of these days, is going to pick the wrong person to say "fack off" to, and he'll thoroughly deserve what he gets as a consequence.

Yup, and with any luck this comeuppance will be seen and penalised. Win-win.

As for the breakdown... Joubert is far from the first ref to allow minor offences to slip by without notice to keep the game moving. I think we all know its a relatively rare offence for the side in possession to be pinged for their action. If you want the ref to ping something, you must make the ref see it. England competed for the ball and pointed it out to him, NZ didn't - supposedly, I haven't watched it back yet. If that's what happened, sorry, but the All Blacks were a little naive. Harsh, but there we go.

 

[LittleGuy]

Farrell is just like his father, a jumped up little prick who, one of these days, is going to pick the wrong person to say "fack off" to, and he'll thoroughly deserve what he gets as a consequence.

To be fair it's more like Andy is his older brother.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Just watched the first 15-20 mins of the second half and didn't really see anything you could really complain about.
If there is a particular period that is being touted as an example LMK.

The instance where Cruden tried to have a word with Joubert and Farrell told him basically to **** off:

Vunipola tackles Smith from behind, with Farrell assisting - Mike Brown is over the ball as soon as Smith hits the deck.
Farrell is half standing, half kneeling between Smith and the AB players who are coming in to clear out.
Smith gets penalised for holding on.
That's what Cruden was complaining about - I don't buy that at all - Farrell was the assistant tackler and did stand up and brace himself for the cleanout.
Farrell could have been done for not moving away, but that was the second offence - after Smith holding on.
The AB's lost out because Brown was over the ball immediately, not because Farrell was lurking.

If it happened as you described then it should have been a penalty to NZ. The tackled player is required to release the ball AFTER the tackler rolls away.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

You'd think Farrell would have learned not to be a dick after this

He's from Wigan, that's just how they say hello up there.

 

[Big Ewis]

A point? sure, a real anal, nitpicky that harms no one point. If they only want captains to talk, make it an offence for any players to direct any forms of words to the ref. :rolleys:

hey, hey, hey !! Easy with profaning certain words here, OK, some words in there deserve a better context !