[2014 EOYT] England vs New Zealand

[TRF Mr Fish]

what behavior? he pulls a guys jersey, that's generally what happens at rucks, coles fell over looked like a *** and kicked out at anyone and made contact - what if he'd caught his own teammates face? it was petulant and dangerous, and people get reds for less.

It wasn't legal, what Hartley was doing. I'm sure we can at least agree to that.

Personally I'd like to see that kind of crappy off the ball stuff removed from the game. There are probably a lot of people who are OK with that kind of stuff, and I guess you don't mind it too much? I feel differently, but whatever

I have been a referee, a referee advisor and a referee coach for 35 years, and I can state quite categorically that YOU ARE WRONG

I am now going to explain why, and highlight the word that proves it.

[TEXTAREA]15.5 THE TACKLED PLAYER

(b) A tackled player must immediately pass the ball or release it. That player must also get up or move away from it at once.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(d) A tackled player may release the ball by pushing it along the ground in any direction except forward, provided this is done immediately.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(e) If opposition players who are on their feet attempt to play the ball, the tackled player must release the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

f) If a tackled player’s momentum carries the player into the in-goal, the player can score a try
or make a touch down.

(g) If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground
the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down.[/TEXTAREA]

The crux of the issue is 15.5 (b) - the tackled player must release the ball immediately. Placing, passing, pushing and letting go of the ball are the four ways in which he is allowed to to release the ball.

If the tackled player near the goal line attempts to place the ball over the line, and fails to reach it successfully at the first attempt, then ANY further attempt to do so is beyond immediate, and is a penalty against him for not releasing. Go out to your local rugby ground on any given Saturday and ask ANY referee and they will tell you the same thing.


PS: The game of rugby is governed by Laws, not Rules

You have the cheek to comment on someone's else post when it is I that summoned you here? :devil:

 

[austingtir]

In which case the problem is nothing to do with objectivity, crowd influence, television producers etc... The issue is that foul play is not being adjudicated correctly (or perhaps it is, I have no idea, maybe if a player kicks out then referees have to issue yellow cards, which I don't personally agree with, but meh).

You've totally lost me on that one with out all three of those things it would never of been the wrong decision! Nigel was clearly influenced by the crowd and the big screen! If it was just the TMO calling him up it was a penalty!!

 

[Peat]

Do you play rugby?

if so do you play pre-season freindlies? And again if so why?

Ireland got a win, on an cr*ppy day in Dublin, great they got a win against a settled team, but that has zero bearing on what i'm saying about England and New Zealand.

Would you back Ireland to do the same against the All Blacks?

Without seeing the original context of this argument, I'd back Ireland to do better against them than we did, simply because they've got smarter coaches and half-backs.

edit: Ok, having gone back, yup, Ireland's win over SA is relevant to an argument over the worth of those extra three months of team cohesion, but not overly so. Anyone in their right mind knows it's an advantage but not an insuperable one, so yeah, not really relevant to the point.

 

[austingtir]

Nigel Owens made a couple of very poor decisions that affected the game yesterday.
The try he awarded to Aaron Cruden looked short of the line to me and should not have been awarded but Nigel had his hand in the air straight away... he should have gone upstairs. English fans have every right to be sorely aggrieved at that poor decision.

Second one was the penalty try.
A penalty was surely on the cards for England but a penalty try? With 8 All Blacks still in the scrum and another three behind the scrum.
Ok I can understand that Nigel has to live on this island and he felt he needed to make amends, but to use a penalty try in that manner sets a dangerous precedent.
They should only be used when there is no cover that could interfere with proceedings and change a potential outcome.

I thought he had a poor game for both teams and made for an unexciting game.

Rubbish on Crudens try, it was totally legit.

And even the penalty try at the end I cant complain about as England to me clearly had the weigh on and got us going backwards. They popped up on both sides.... maybe England did that on purpose.... but end of the day we should of been able to hold them in an important scrum like that in that position you simply have to hold them... end of story.

So yeah I cant really agree with you.

 

[barkinghooker]

Am I being too hard on England or am I right in saying it was bit of a mess ? Some good individual performances. The pack was decent but 9,10, 14 and 15 didn't bother turning up? I watched the game in a football pub with football people so it kind of made it hard to absorb the game. Roko pretty much put in a ghost performance like he did against the ba baas. Can't blame the teams tactics for that. He looks like yarde when tracking back. I appreciate the England team is like a club but I wouldn't of started with Farrell. I need to watch the game or read all the comments because I don't feel optimistic right now.

 

[Maverick1987]

Jesus the Coles Yellow was ridiculous. Nigel owens is such a piece of #@%!!!!


This should be Owens last international game this was honestly a disgraceful performance.

The last try NZ scored like a minute after awarding it he went to the video ref to check it? WTF is this ****??



I loved the look on the England coaches face after we scored that last one. He looked well beaten.

No matter what anyone says beating England 4 times in a row before the WC tournment next year is a good enough effort for me.

You need to grow up . Seriously get your head out your arse . I'm done with this thread . Arseholes like you have ruined the England vs NZ thread and not for the first time this year ....

Shame you aren't all like Darwin ...

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Do you play rugby?

if so do you play pre-season freindlies? And again if so why?

Ireland got a win, on an cr*ppy day in Dublin, great they got a win against a settled team, but that has zero bearing on what i'm saying about England and New Zealand.

Would you back Ireland to do the same against the All Blacks?

What difference does it make if i play rugby or not? Do you play rugby at international level? No, thought not.

"Crappy" day in Dublin against the Springboks? It wasn't pouring with rain and played in filthy conditions. I'm sure Irish fans would beg to differ and nice way to denigrate Ireland's win yesterday? So if England do the same to the Springboks next week, will that be a crappy day?

And you ask I back Ireland to do the same v the ABs? Well, they almost did and should have done last November. So that is a silly question. They obviously learnt from that experience and put it to good use in putting away the Springboks yesterday.

Yep, I can see now you are being deliberately obtuse. England lost and have lost 5 in a row v the the ABs, so there are no excuses - 3 months without playing or not or list of injuries; that is just test match rugby and our seasons not being in sync. We just have to deal with it. Ireland did and they won v the 2nd best side in the world, despite not having played warm up games and a list of injuries; no different to what England faced. I thought ABs did not play that well and were there for the taking yesterday, but yet again England did not take their chances, not for lack of warm up matches.

 

[RoosTah]

I think we could go further, it's frankly quite ridiculous that in the 21st century rugby is not designed for New Zealand to win... Sort it out now IRB!

You mean it isn't? Because it sure as f##k has felt like it for the past few years...

 

[Mikel92]

If the tackled player near the goal line attempts to place the ball over the line, and fails to reach it successfully at the first attempt, then ANY further attempt to do so is beyond immediate, and is a penalty against him for not releasing. Go out to your local rugby ground on any given Saturday and ask ANY referee and they will tell you the same thing.

This.

I know I've been like a pitball terrior with this topic today, but this was all that I was trying to say. It is not some foreign concept I dreamed up. I watch rugby at all levels weekly and there are plenty of instances where a guy reached out for one stab, doesn't make it, has another go and gets pinged. There is a Bible of precedent for it. Call it double movement, call it the fk'n Irish jig for all I care. You're not to do it.

Phew, hopefully the Scottish game won't be this intense!

 

[j'nuh]

The crux of the issue is 15.5 (b) - the tackled player must release the ball immediately. Placing, passing, pushing and letting go of the ball are the four ways in which he is allowed to to release the ball.

If the tackled player near the goal line attempts to place the ball over the line, and fails to reach it successfully at the first attempt, then ANY further attempt to do so is beyond immediate, and is a penalty against him for not releasing. Go out to your local rugby ground on any given Saturday and ask ANY referee and they will tell you the same thing.


PS: The game of rugby is governed by Laws, not Rules

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=15

See the video accompanying 15.5 (g). The player is grounded and after this reaches out on a second movement of the arm. This is deemed to be immediate. That situation is no different to the Cruden one.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Rubbish on Crudens try, it was totally legit.

And even the penalty try at the end I cant complain about as England to me clearly had the weigh on and got us going backwards. They popped up on both sides.... maybe England did that on purpose.... but end of the day we should of been able to hold them in an important scrum like that in that position you simply have to hold them... end of story.

So yeah I cant really agree with you.

As you don't agree with anyone on tis thread or forum I am quite comfortable with your disagreement, I feel I'm on the right track.

 

[Mikel92]

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=15

See the video accompanying 15.5 (g). The player is grounded and after this reaches out on a second movement of the arm. This is deemed to be immediate. That situation is no different to the Cruden one.

That is the video I showed you because it demonstrates what I'm saying. He lands, stretches out once quite clearly. That is different to what you're trying to say, and it is different to Cruden's try. Stretching out is fine, you seem to think there is a suggestion here that it isn't. That video demonstrates one crack, which is immediately. Two or three goes would not have been.

Specsavers mate, you might want to look into it.

 

[j'nuh]

That is the video I showed you because it demonstrates what I'm saying. He lands, stretches out once quite clearly. That is different to what you're trying to say, and it is different to Cruden's try. Stretching out is fine, you seem to think there is a suggestion here that it isn't. That video demonstrates one crack, which is immediately. Two or three goes would not have been.

Specsavers mate, you might want to look into it.

I couldn't access the link you posted (try it yourself, just gave me a blank page). And I completely disagree. Both are done on the second movement of the arms after having been grounded. Also, I would argue that Cruden's attempt is more immediate than the one shown in the IRB video.

 

[Mikel92]

I couldn't access the link you posted (try it yourself, just gave me a blank page). And I completely disagree. Both are done on the second movement of the arms after having been grounded. Also, I would argue that Cruden's attempt is more immediate than the one shown in the IRB video.

I posted the same link as you basically. The Welsh player lands on his back and stretches out....one time. And that is completely fine.

Anyway, think we should call it a day on this subject. Life moves on!

 

[Eyesack_P]

Im glad to come away with the win against England. It wasnt a very convincing performance but we got the job done. This is how i saw the big calls in the game:
1. Tough penalty on the 'late' tackle on Cruden
2. Owens needed to go upstairs for Crudens try. I believe he had the ball on the line but my opinion doesnt count. The TMO with super slowmotion & other camera angles 'should' of got the correct call.
3. As soft as Dane Coles kick was to get free the fact is he kicked. I cant see Owen having much choice but to yellow him.
4. Brodie scored that try. The ball is stationary on the ground and he pounced on it with downward and forward pressure. To knock it on he would have to hit it completely horizontal or scoop it off the ground then drop it. I just cant understand how you can come down on a stationary ball from above and knock it on.
5. When Sonny Bill was cut down just before the line an England player played the ball from an offside position. Owen was talking to the touch judge to find the infringing player but after 1x normal speed replay he just continued play. A player clearly committed a professional foul so you need to take the time to find their number and yellow. Owens took the time with Coles, needed to be consistant.
6. It did look like Faumuina was short of the line but whos reffing the game here? I dont blame Owens for rechecking but i think it opens a discussion about the influence of game broadcasters who are not part of the setup or even neutral. Discussion for another day.
7. Penalty try . what a joke. Correct me if im wrong but i thought the foul had to stop a probable try? the scrum was going sideways 5m from the tryline. plenty of what-ifs there.

arrrh good to get that off my chest. cant wait to see the next team!

Dagg off, smith fullback, piatau on wing. fekitoa 2nd 5

 

[Mikel92]

Dagg off, smith fullback, piatau on wing. fekitoa 2nd 5

I just don't know about Dagg. Yes, his tackling has never been that spectacular. But his passes, punting game, and ariel skills (which were awesome in this game, but not many people want to talk about that) are all sublime. I also think his running game is better than what it was compared to his rut with the Crusaders. It's debateable. Ben Smith has another set of skills which are useful. Not the trail-blazing form that he once had either, but he's very solid and can usually slip the first defender.

Thought SBW went reasonably well. Can't be too harsh; from League to a festival game, to one of the biggest threats at next year's world cup at home .. pretty big ask. I'd like to see him get involved more and given a fair chance to come into his own again. Not sure if tinkering every week is the answer. Although I gotta say, I think they have to drop Cruden. In truth, I was never a fan but we can't afford to have goal kicking like that.

 

[Eyesack_P]

Yea it's a tough one with Dagg because I agree all those traits of his are sublime. it's just that if he does one small thing wrong I start to question why Ben smith isn't back their. Ben is THAT GOOD that it magnifies Daggs shortcomings. With this particular game I was getting frustrated that Dagg wasn't feeding the ball to Julian early & he had trouble beating the first defender. Secondly I'm a huge piutau fan so would love to see that back 3 combo

 

[goodNumber10]

What difference does it make if i play rugby or not? Do you play rugby at international level? No, thought not.

"Crappy" day in Dublin against the Springboks? It wasn't pouring with rain and played in filthy conditions. I'm sure Irish fans would beg to differ and nice way to denigrate Ireland's win yesterday? So if England do the same to the Springboks next week, will that be a crappy day?

And you ask I back Ireland to do the same v the ABs? Well, they almost did and should have done last November. So that is a silly question. They obviously learnt from that experience and put it to good use in putting away the Springboks yesterday.

Yep, I can see now you are being deliberately obtuse. England lost and have lost 5 in a row v the the ABs, so there are no excuses - 3 months without playing or not or list of injuries; that is just test match rugby and our seasons not being in sync. We just have to deal with it. Ireland did and they won v the 2nd best side in the world, despite not having played warm up games and a list of injuries; no different to what England faced. I thought ABs did not play that well and were there for the taking yesterday, but yet again England did not take their chances, not for lack of warm up matches.

oh, FFS! no one is denigrating the Irish win, good win is a good win...but it has no bearing on the England outcome, aor what i'm saying, Ireland got it right once, bravo.

I may be obtuse but the one thing i do know is that 99.5% of the time cohesion will be the difference between a team winning and losing a tight match. To say 3 months together doesn't matter is just idiotic - that is exactly why you get torunament teams come the world cup, teams like Fiji and Argentina who can come off the back of shoddy results and get to the QF and Semi's.

If you don't think that the fact NZ had played together for a number of months is one of the main reasons they were able to ride out Englands charge and finish the game on top then I really don't know what to say to you as with the fact you also think that injuries don't have a bearing on the outcome of the game.

I agree they aren't excuses but they are reasons, and to make out otherwise is just plain wrong, to make out they don't matter because Ireland got a win is just daft mate. Sorry.

 

[Mikel92]

Not sure how much you can rely on the injury excuse. Not having Woodcock, Carter, Nonu at their very best isn't exactly ideal. Especially Carter. Having Rettalick gone after the first half, arguably our best forward this year. And then Coles, a key player in my mind, yellow carded for something that at BEST was a penalty. Also having Smith and Franks comes off for a certain period is equally disruptive. I appreciate that for England the loss of certain players is arguably more significant, but all teams have disruptions to game plans. We had copious amounts, and injuries was only one slice of the pie.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Lawes went off earlier than Michael, so that doesn't really count.