• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

[November Tests 2016 EOYT] England vs. South Africa (12/11/2016)

The Rugby Forum - Global Rugby Union News, Six Nations & RWC Discussion

Help Support The Rugby Forum:

It wasn't like he knocked it on into Lambie - if anything it would be considered a rip, even if it only lasted a fraction of a second, not a knock on.
 
TRF_Olyy said:
It wasn't like he knocked it on into Lambie - if anything it would be considered a rip, even if it only lasted a fraction of a second, not a knock on.
Click to expand...
lol well I'm obviously not going to have you English blokes agree with me on this one.
Anyway, ultimately you won by enough that it didn't matter.
 
RoosTah said:
If you fumble forward it's a knock on and that's what happened. If that happened in League there'd be no chance it was given. The knock on law is the same in both codes - the only difference is League places a greater premium on control and any hint of a drop or fumble is called a knock on unless it's blatantly backwards
Click to expand...

Looked like a knock one even in slo mo, but just had another look and I can see why it was given, Brown's hands go under the ball and don't actually touch it Lambe knocks it forward (or back in his case). I wouldn't want to be the TMO though, making that call.

1.09

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdPNu_TlEX0

- - - Updated - - -

I thought England played OK, but they need to be more clinical and learn how to put away weaker sides like the All Blacks do. If they smell blood they go for the throat.

I thought the England forwards were OK, Billy Vunipola gets better with each game, he could do with losing a few kgs though. I thought England's first try was all class, probably a try previous England teams wouldn't have been able to execute. Not a May fan, but you can't question his finishing ability. Yarde was a bit of a disappointment, his pass and running line for May's try was superb though. If they can get Tuilagi back in and a replacement for Brown, someone in the mould of Israel Folau they will be very tough to beat. Where's the black winger who played against in the 3 test series - Watson is it? Can he play fullback. He played well over here.
 
Last edited:
Zed said:
Looked like a knock one even in slo mo, but just had another look and I can see why it was given, Brown's hands go under the ball and don't actually touch it Lambe knocks it forward (or back in his case). I wouldn't want to be the TMO though, making that call.

1.09

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdPNu_TlEX0
Click to expand...

1.22 fullback clearly touches it and it rolls forward. Seriously how is that not a knock on? This isn't AFL guys
 
Watson's out injured atm,
He's played a decent amount of 15 for his club and I'm pretty sure EJ has mentioned him as a possible 15 going forwards.
 
TommiG88 said:
I would have have itoje in the locks with Launchbury. Why play a top player out of position?
Click to expand...

Partly to get all your best players on the pitch

Partly because I think his ceiling is higher at 6 than lock. I don't see it as out of position at all for him, but I would like to see him play there for Sarries

Partly because it would enable him to become even more involved and exert more influence on the game.

Partly because playing him alongside Billy could bring back row balance that we haven't had in years. Playing those 2 means that the 7 wouldn't need to be powerful, or a line out option....
 
ragerancher said:
Haven't read through the thread but how could the 1st Saffa try be given when the pass went 3-5m forwards? Unbelievable..
Click to expand...

As soon as I hear people say the ball went (insert distance here​) forwards, I know immediately that they don't understand either the forward throw Law or the guidance to referees.

I presume you are talking about this try?

https://youtu.be/kdPNu_TlEX0?t=126

There is nothing wrong with the pass.

1. It was made to look worse because the passer was falling and slowing, thereby exaggerating the apparent forward travel of the ball.

2. The forward travel of the ball was purely down to momentum of the passer. If the passer was standing still and he executed the exact same passing action, the ball would not have gone forward from him.

The issue is, and has been ever since 1948 (when the RFU issued a Case Law Ruling), whether the ball was thrown in a forward direction, NOT whether the ball traveled forwards.

[TEXTAREA]Case Law: "If a player passes to one of his own team who is in line with him parallel to the dead ball line, both players running towards the opponents goal line, must not the pass be a forward pass in relation to the ground, owing to their forward movement?"

R.F.U. Ruling: "Yes, but it is pointed out that the definition of a throw-forward is not decided on relation to the ground, but on the direction of the propulsion of the ball by the hand or arm of the player passing the ball"
- as published in Royds, 1948[/TEXTAREA]

Saying that the ball traveled x metres forwards has no relevance to Law 12.
 
Ok Itoje, I think his future is at lock. We have a good enough crop of young flankers coming through that I don't think we need Itoje to make up that balance in the long run, plus Kruis may not be in the fold for too much longer (Still got a couple of years left in him) so keeping locks at lock is valuable. If we are able to have a lock that is as good in open play as a back rower, but doesn't sacrifice the set piece, then they should be at lock so we can get more genuine back rowers on the pitch. But yes, for now while we don't have many in the flanker stocks and 6 international quality locks, than a temporary shift to the back row for Itoje would make sense. I think we should be working towards a pack of:

1. Vunipola
2. Taylor
3. Hill
4. Itoje (c)
5. Launchbury
6. Williams/Jones
7. Underhill/Evans
8. Vunipola
 
smartcooky said:
As soon as I hear people say the ball went (insert distance here​) forwards, I know immediately that they don't understand either the forward throw Law or the guidance to referees.

I presume you are talking about this try?

https://youtu.be/kdPNu_TlEX0?t=126

There is nothing wrong with the pass.

1. It was made to look worse because the passer was falling and slowing, thereby exaggerating the apparent forward travel of the ball.

2. The forward travel of the ball was purely down to momentum of the passer. If the passer was standing still and he executed the exact same passing action, the ball would not have gone forward from him.

The issue is, and has been ever since 1948 (when the RFU issued a Case Law Ruling), whether the ball was thrown in a forward direction, NOT whether the ball traveled forwards.

[TEXTAREA]Case Law: "If a player passes to one of his own team who is in line with him parallel to the dead ball line, both players running towards the opponents goal line, must not the pass be a forward pass in relation to the ground, owing to their forward movement?"

R.F.U. Ruling: "Yes, but it is pointed out that the definition of a throw-forward is not decided on relation to the ground, but on the direction of the propulsion of the ball by the hand or arm of the player passing the ball"
- as published in Royds, 1948[/TEXTAREA]

Saying that the ball traveled x metres forwards has no relevance to Law 12.
Click to expand...

By passing out of the back of hand the ball was propelled forwards as he over rotated his wrist. Therefore, by your definition of rules - it is forwards. Secondly, they were parallel, and the receiver had to stretch forward to catch the ball so law 12 doesn't cover it.

2 points there for you to consider and find a law to counteract me with.
 
TommiG88 said:
By passing out of the back of hand the ball was propelled forwards as he over rotated his wrist. Therefore, by your definition of rules - it is forwards. Secondly, they were parallel, and the receiver had to stretch forward to catch the ball so law 12 doesn't cover it.
Click to expand...

What a load of cock!

TommiG88 said:
2 points there for you to consider and find a law to counteract me with.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to consider. Nothing you have said counteracts the guidance referees receive from WR via their unions.

What the receiver had to do is irrelevant; the receiver is not mentioned in Law 12

(In fact, I will be adding that clip to my collection of examples of passes that look forward but aren't for the next time I hold a training session on Law 12.)
 
Zed said:
Looked like a knock one even in slo mo, but just had another look and I can see why it was given, Brown's hands go under the ball and don't actually touch it Lambe knocks it forward (or back in his case). I wouldn't want to be the TMO though, making that call.

1.09

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdPNu_TlEX0

- - - Updated - - -

I thought England played OK, but they need to be more clinical and learn how to put away weaker sides like the All Blacks do. If they smell blood they go for the throat.

I thought the England forwards were OK, Billy Vunipola gets better with each game, he could do with losing a few kgs though. I thought England's first try was all class, probably a try previous England teams wouldn't have been able to execute. Not a May fan, but you can't question his finishing ability. Yarde was a bit of a disappointment, his pass and running line for May's try was superb though. If they can get Tuilagi back in and a replacement for Brown, someone in the mould of Israel Folau they will be very tough to beat. Where's the black winger who played against in the 3 test series - Watson is it? Can he play fullback. He played well over here.
Click to expand...


Watson is injured. Broke his jaw during an England training session.
 
smartcooky said:
What a load of cock!



There is nothing to consider. Nothing you have said counteracts the guidance referees receive from WR via their unions.

What the receiver had to do is irrelevant; the receiver is not mentioned in Law 12

(In fact, I will be adding that clip to my collection of examples of passes that look forward but aren't for the next time I hold a training session on Law 12.)
Click to expand...

Haha, your word is nonsense and no more important than others so hop off that mighty big horse of yours.

The ball went forward, the propulsion of the was forward. So it's forward, and the law you dug up has no bearing on this situation. If the pass had not come from the back of hand and was normally moved on and ended up in the exact same place, and motion it would have been forward.
 
Anyway......

Overall a pleasing performance
Robshaw and Launchbury were excellent as was Youngs and May. Yarde isn't an international class wing I'm afraid and looked like a rabbit in the headlights. Anyone know when Watson is back?
 
Not to burst any English supporter's bubble, i'm sure you are pleased with the win, but South Africa are just downright dreadful.
 
smartcooky said:
What a load of cock!



There is nothing to consider. Nothing you have said counteracts the guidance referees receive from WR via their unions.

What the receiver had to do is irrelevant; the receiver is not mentioned in Law 12

(In fact, I will be adding that clip to my collection of examples of passes that look forward but aren't for the next time I hold a training session on Law 12.)
Click to expand...

Not sure about the exact definition of the rules, but from a rugby player/supporters perspective it looked forward. Marginal, but forward. Immaterial really, it didn't have an outcome on the game. One of those calls, like Laws's try, where you'd accept the refs decision either way.
 
I thought the Boks looked alright. There were times when they bossed the game in the first half and England were conceding a pile of penalties, some quite cynical.
Johnny May took his try very well, the poor lads been out for a long time with injury too, good to see Eddie give him a chance.
The English backs are starting to come together and although as expected they were a bit rusty they put some good moves together.
The Boks are still tough but until the politics of revenge back home relent so the best players can be chosen the Boks will continue to struggle a bit at the top level, however, a good coach would still make them a very competitive outfit at the highest level. Trouble is, they don't have a good coach.
 
The Jones Boy said:
I thought the Boks looked alright. There were times when they bossed the game in the first half and England were conceding a pile of penalties, some quite cynical.
Johnny May took his try very well, the poor lads been out for a long time with injury too, good to see Eddie give him a chance.
The English backs are starting to come together and although as expected they were a bit rusty they put some good moves together.
The Boks are still tough but until the politics of revenge back home relent so the best players can be chosen the Boks will continue to struggle a bit at the top level, however, a good coach would still make them a very competitive outfit at the highest level. Trouble is, they don't have a good coach.
Click to expand...

When SA were shovelling it sideways in the second half, that was my main thought.

Jones would love coaching this SA side. They could play his attacking pattern of crash crash crash and give it to the speedsters really well. But we have Jones and they have Coetzee and I thought that was a big difference. SA had us in trouble at times but there was no structure and there was no deliberate attempt to target England's weaknesses. Not sending a jumper up against Launchbury at the front every time for instance.

And Colombia is right that Etzebeth going off caused an immediate and noticeable drop in SA's performance, particularly at scrum time. I don't think SA were winning the match with him there but it helped.

Saying it was caused by a Vunipola headbutt is ridiculous though.

As too is ignoring the difference Itoje makes to our pack - he is irreplaceable, everything Kruis does can be replaced.


Anyway. England's performance.

Standard EJ game it feels like. We hustled and were clinical. Defence held up mostly although SA didn't pose the threat of Australia. Didn't really dominate up front but we didn't get dominated either and we made some great inroads in the forwards at times.

No one had a bad game. Some guys were quiet or made mistakes to go with the good stuff, some guys were only okay, but no one had a bad game.

Uhm. Yeah. Doesn't feel like there's a lot to say. Good game, keep on trucking.
 
The Jones Boy said:
The Boks are still tough but until the politics of revenge back home relent so the best players can be chosen the Boks will continue to struggle a bit at the top level, however, a good coach would still make them a very competitive outfit at the highest level. Trouble is, they don't have a good coach.
Click to expand...

I personally don't think the current Bok woes are related to politics. The team is not playing as a cohesive unit in defence or attack mode. There are obviously some serious coaching and leadership issues.

I don't think Coetzee was unqualified for the job, but the defensive qualities of his Stormers side a few years ago certainly don't seem to have found their way into this Bok team.

If we perform poorly in the next few games, he should resign. Hey, sometimes things don't work out, like Mourinho at Manchester United, and Mickey Arthur with Australia's cricket team (he was great with SA beforehand and is doing a great job with Pakistan in Tests)
 
BakkiesBokke said:
I personally don't think the current Bok woes are related to politics. The team is not playing as a cohesive unit in defence or attack mode. There are obviously some serious coaching and leadership issues.

I don't think Coetzee was unqualified for the job, but the defensive qualities of his Stormers side a few years ago certainly don't seem to have found their way into this Bok team.

If we perform poorly in the next few games, he should resign. Hey, sometimes things don't work out, like Mourinho at Manchester United, and Mickey Arthur with Australia's cricket team (he was great with SA beforehand and is doing a great job with Pakistan in Tests)
Click to expand...

You cannot be serious ? Even Heineke was more qualified and he was out of his depth.
 
smartcooky said:
As soon as I hear people say the ball went (insert distance here​) forwards, I know immediately that they don't understand either the forward throw Law or the guidance to referees.

I presume you are talking about this try?

https://youtu.be/kdPNu_TlEX0?t=126

There is nothing wrong with the pass.

1. It was made to look worse because the passer was falling and slowing, thereby exaggerating the apparent forward travel of the ball.

2. The forward travel of the ball was purely down to momentum of the passer. If the passer was standing still and he executed the exact same passing action, the ball would not have gone forward from him.

The issue is, and has been ever since 1948 (when the RFU issued a Case Law Ruling), whether the ball was thrown in a forward direction, NOT whether the ball traveled forwards.

[TEXTAREA]Case Law: "If a player passes to one of his own team who is in line with him parallel to the dead ball line, both players running towards the opponents goal line, must not the pass be a forward pass in relation to the ground, owing to their forward movement?"

R.F.U. Ruling: "Yes, but it is pointed out that the definition of a throw-forward is not decided on relation to the ground, but on the direction of the propulsion of the ball by the hand or arm of the player passing the ball"
- as published in Royds, 1948[/TEXTAREA]

Saying that the ball traveled x metres forwards has no relevance to Law 12.
Click to expand...

I do understand the law, I don't think the pass was in a backwards direction and I think the distance it went forward simply reinforces that, I think he offloaded forwards.
 
ragerancher said:
I do understand the law, I don't think the pass was in a backwards direction and I think the distance it went forward simply reinforces that, I think he offloaded forwards.
Click to expand...

Firstly, a throw does not have to be backwards, it only has to be not forwards, so flat is not forwards

Secondly, I maintain that the ball keeps the momentum of the passer, in other words it travels forwards at the same speed that the passer is traveling forwards (ignore the ball relative to the ground and watch only the ball and the passers head)

NFP-ENGvSAF.gif


Note that the ball keeps pace with the passer. A ball thrown forwards will have the forward momentum of the passer PLUS the additional momentum given by the passer as he throws the ball in the direction he is traveling. This is not rocket science, it is simple physics that any year 12 science pupil understands.

This clip proves that the passer did not impart any additional forward momentum over and above his own. If he had, the ball would have got ahead of him. It didn't.... QED!
 

Similar threads

mackerzz
New Zealand vs France - 4 July 2026
Replies
0
Views
109
mackerzz
mackerzz
saulan
South Africa vs Wales - 18/07/2026
2 3
Replies
78
Views
2K
Welsh Exile
W
AlRums
Fiji vs Scotland - 18 Jul 26, 14:20 ITV
2
Replies
39
Views
744
Reiser99
R
AlRums
Argentina v Scotland 4/7/2026 20:10 BST ITV4
2
Replies
41
Views
815
Welsh Exile
W
big ginger 8
Japan vs Ireland Kick-off 8.10pm local time/11.10am Irish time
2 3 4
Replies
112
Views
2K
Demfad
D

Latest posts

Back
Top