[2014 EOYT] England vs New Zealand

[Kiwiwomble]

that's what i'm asking, why not? why does one action cancel out another?

NZ gets a penalty on the 5m line, which we would probably have taken back and tried to kick (and missed) because we'd be down to 14. even if we had made the kick i would say most teams would trade 3 points to play against 14 men

is that not just? i'm only annoyed because at the moment hartley has been rewarded for foul play...just not as bad foul play as coles

 

[mysportingvoice]

Let's review it!! Or not | MSV - mysportingvoice
http://mysportingvoice.com/2014/11/09/lets-review-it-or-not/

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

that's what i'm asking, why not? why does one action cancel out another?

NZ gets a penalty on the 5m line, which we would probably have taken back and tried to kick (and missed) because we'd be down to 14. even if we had made the kick i would say most teams would trade 3 points to play against 14 men

Is that not just? i'm only annoyed because at the moment hartley has been rewarded for foul play...just not as bad foul play as coles

If the penalties are considered "equal" then first to commit is the one at fault. If someone commits a worse action in retaliation (ie punching or kicking) then penalties are reversed. Hartley actually didn't commit a foul because his action occurred after the whistle had been blown and did not hinder play. The reaction most certainly was still valid as he kicked out at Care's ankle and could have caused serious damage, hence penalty against NZ and yellow.

 

[j'nuh]

that's what i'm asking, why not? why does one action cancel out another?

NZ gets a penalty on the 5m line, which we would probably have taken back and tried to kick (and missed) because we'd be down to 14. even if we had made the kick i would say most teams would trade 3 points to play against 14 men

is that not just? i'm only annoyed because at the moment hartley has been rewarded for foul play...just not as bad foul play as coles

It would be a bad move for discipline in the sport if players were allowed to "retaliate" after any given penalty,

Hartley wouldn't have been rewarded for foul play had Coles not been so stupid. NZ losing the penalty was self-inflicted.

 

[nzlizard]

It would be a bad move for discipline in the sport if players were allowed to "retaliate" after any given penalty,

Hartley wouldn't have been rewarded for foul play had Coles not been so stupid. NZ losing the penalty was self-inflicted.

Agree with this, the card was harsh but Coles was dumb and he got what he deserved, next time he will think twice.

Hartley getting "away" with it was for 2 reasons
1. His play was just general nuisance and only warranted a penalty.
2. Coles retaliated with more force and intent

 

[Kiwiwomble]

If the penalties are considered "equal" then first to commit is the one at fault. If someone commits a worse action in retaliation (ie punching or kicking) then penalties are reversed. Hartley actually didn't commit a foul because his action occurred after the whistle had been blown and did not hinder play. The reaction most certainly was still valid as he kicked out at Care's ankle and could have caused serious damage, hence penalty against NZ and yellow.

I didn't say that

It would be a bad move for discipline in the sport if players were allowed to "retaliate" after any given penalty,

Hartley wouldn't have been rewarded for foul play had Coles not been so stupid. NZ losing the penalty was self-inflicted.

or that

starting to think i'm not typing english

i accept the yellow, i have never said you were allowed to retaliate or that the crimes were equal. I was just looking for some punishment for hartley as i feel we're just encouraging players to milk penalties by provoking others

Agree with this, the card was harsh but Coles was dumb and he got what he deserved, next time he will think twice.

Hartley getting "away" with it was for 2 reasons
1. His play was just general nuisance and only warranted a penalty. ....but wasn't penalised
2. Coles retaliated with more force and intent...so coles just needed to make sure he got one of the english to knock him out and it would be negated?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I can't think of a way to punish both parties, though.
That's why penalty reversals are a thing.

Are they supposed to allow New Zealand to kick for the corner.......and then let England kick for territory from where NZ kick it to?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I didn't say that



or that

starting to think i'm not typing english

i accept the yellow, i have never said you were allowed to retaliate or that the crimes were equal. I was just looking for some punishment for hartley as i feel we're just encouraging players to milk penalties by provoking others

How do you intend to punish Harley? You can't give a penalty to NZ after yellow carding their player and revsersing it. You certainly can't give Hartley a card for that so what do you think he should get as a punsihment?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

i did explain a situation which i think is far from perfect but personally preferable that what did happen

Im happy to engage in a conversation around other options and have tried very hard not to invoke anyone wrath so please feel free just to disagree. if everyone is happy with the one action cancels out another then fair enough, i just wondered if there was another way, there may not be

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

I can't think of a way to punish both parties, though.
That's why penalty reversals are a thing.

Are they supposed to allow New Zealand to kick for the corner.......and then let England kick for territory from where NZ kick it to?

I don't really see why you can't yellow card Coles and then penalise England. It seems a bit absurd that every decision has to be completely in favour of one team or the other. An alternative would be to cite Coles and not punish him in game (which seems especially fair given that the TMO and the referee disagreed about the treatment).

What I find a bit ridiculous is that often you see players throw punches that don't connect with anyone and they are then let off. If Coles had kicked out but not connected with anyone, would he have been penalised?

Finally, how do you guys propose that Hartley is punished for his actions? You can't say that he was punished as his team got penalised, because from a practical and sensible point of view that isn't true. His term possibly were going to be punished (though Owens never said that) but at the end of the day the stats will not show any penalty against Hartley. This effectively means that Hartley's actions are rewarded, which is what I said earlier but has not been addressed by anyone.

 

[Eyesack_P]

woah, your avatar..tattooing the All-Blacks logo on a peanut ? That's just...that's just weird dude. I'm sorry, that's just messed up.

Doesn't matter what it's tattooed on mate I'll always be a proud kiwi

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Very interesting summary about how NZ has peeformed this year in matches involving yellow cards: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11356074

To summarise: After losing a player to the sin bin NZ have only conceded more points than they have scored in those ten minutes in two of seven instances (both in the same match, the draw with the Wallabies). The points tally during All Blacks sin bin periods is 27-9.

If we extrapolated this out, that would be one point every 3.9 minutes, approximately 31 points a match - a quarter of a point less than what they have scored on average this year! If you take out the periods where NZ had yellow cards, you'd see that they actually score more points on average with 14 men than with 15. If you remove the USA game the result becomes even more comprehensive (27 points per game, on average, including periods where NZ had only 14 men on the field).

In contrast, when playing against 14 players the All Blacks have outscored their opponents 39-3 (four instances, meaning almost a point a minute!).

Fun facts!

 

[austingtir]

How do you intend to punish Harley? You can't give a penalty to NZ after yellow carding their player and revsersing it. You certainly can't give Hartley a card for that so what do you think he should get as a punsihment?

Jeez id of thought its pretty simple you are just looking at it from some skewed perspective... you give coles the yellow and hartley gives away a penalty. Its pretty simple stuff really!

I honestly cant see why NZ cant get a penalty out of that situation. A yellow is worth more than a penalty imo so Coles intent it dealt to and hartley's provocation is dealt to.... I just dont see how it cant be that simple and how it didnt play out like that is simply because the Ref was swayed by the crowd going bezerk and wasnt thinking straight for most of the game.

 

[austingtir]

Very interesting summary about how NZ has peeformed this year in matches involving yellow cards: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11356074

To summarise: After losing a player to the sin bin NZ have only conceded more points than they have scored in those ten minutes in two of seven instances (both in the same match, the draw with the Wallabies). The points tally during All Blacks sin bin periods is 27-9.

If we extrapolated this out, that would be one point every 3.9 minutes, approximately 31 points a match - a quarter of a point less than what they have scored on average this year! If you take out the periods where NZ had yellow cards, you'd see that they actually score more points on average with 14 men than with 15. If you remove the USA game the result becomes even more comprehensive (27 points per game, on average, including periods where NZ had only 14 men on the field).

In contrast, when playing against 14 players the All Blacks have outscored their opponents 39-3 (four instances, meaning almost a point a minute!).

Fun facts!

This is the difference between the AB' and other teams they CAN step up a gear pretty much at will. Its disappointing though that it comes to that for them to play harder.

Its pretty hard to argue when you look at that statistic.

 

[kovana]

Still a lot of whinging by some AB fans on this thread about the ref.

Tis hilarious.

To me it seems you want it to be that the reason the score was so close was because of the ref.... and not necessarily that the English team actually played well.

See a lot of English posters saying the NZ team played well to get the win... yet nothing from my fellow kiwis saying that the English team actually played well..

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Still a lot of whinging by some AB fans on this thread about the ref.

Tis hilarious.

To me it seems you want it to be that the reason the score was so close was because of the ref.... and not necessarily that the English team actually played well.

See a lot of English posters saying the NZ team played well to get the win... yet nothing from my fellow kiwis saying that the English team actually played well..

Well when your team misses 12 points from the tee but still manages to win whilst also spending 10 minutes with only 14 men (due to their own ill-discipline), that doesn't really imply that the opposition played that well, especially when you consider that the All Blacks weren't spectacular.

I don't see many Kiwis suggesting that the score was so close because of the ref - most have indicated that it was terrible goalkicking which kept the score so close. In fact it seems that most people appear to agree that Whitelock's try should have been awarded but that Cruden's potentially shouldn't have. Most annoyances with the ref are to do with the yellow card (which, as I posted before, have actually helped NZ this year) and his communication with the TMO - which I think everyone will agree was a touch ridiculous.

But alas, I have always been taught not to feed the trolls so I mustn't pay too much attention to what you have to say

Most of the posters on here are reasonable - biased, perhaps, but reasonable nonetheless. It's a shame that can't be said for everyone It's all right @kovana, don't feel the need to conform to the generally high standards we have here.

 

[kovana]

Get off it mate. High standards? I lauff.

All i see incessant whinging because some kiwis expect that they should be blowing every team out of the water. FFS.

The Saffa win was the worst.. Kiwis saying the TV guys have too much power... yadda yadda yadda.

ABs are the best team in the world. No need to say crack like the Opposition are useless and the only way they can keep up with the ABs is if the ref and IRB are bent. Conspiracy theories.

 

[Kapa O Pango]

England played well.

A+ for effort.

Jonny May what a try.

Nigel had a bad day.

Nigel, nigel, nigel.

 

[austingtir]

Still a lot of whinging by some AB fans on this thread about the ref.

Tis hilarious.

To me it seems you want it to be that the reason the score was so close was because of the ref.... and not necessarily that the English team actually played well.

See a lot of English posters saying the NZ team played well to get the win... yet nothing from my fellow kiwis saying that the English team actually played well..

Probably because the English didnt play well. If they'd played well they'd of won the bloody match!

Other than the forwards and that soft try at the start... what did they do?

Everytime NZ scored a try (or didnt) it was a pretty well constructed one and they were very very unlucky imo to not of won it by a canter. Hang id say even most of the English posters on here said NZ dominated the second half.

That all said England has been playing a style which is pretty nice. Gone are the days of wilkinson and kick kick kick kick.

I will also add im glad we're not playing Ireland this time ; ).

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Get off it mate. High standards? I lauff.

All i see incessant whinging because some kiwis expect that they should be blowing every team out of the water. FFS.

The Saffa win was the worst.. Kiwis saying the TV guys have too much power... yadda yadda yadda.

ABs are the best team in the world. No need to say crack like the Opposition are useless and the only way they can keep up with the ABs is if the ref and IRB are bent. Conspiracy theories.

Now you're just making stuff up. How many posters have said England (or South Africa, for that matter) are useless? How many posters have said that the referee or the IRB are conspiring against the All Blacks? [For what it's worth, Nigel Owens is Bent ]

Look, buddy, if you're trying to argue something I would suggest that you don't make absolutely ridiculous assertions by completely exaggerating what has been posted.

I'd also suggest that it's a tad childish to neg rep people just because they disagree with your stupid posts.

England played well.

A+ for effort.

Jonny May what a try.

Nigel had a bad day.

Nigel, nigel, nigel.

Three cheers for Jonny May