[2014 Mid-Year Tests] New Zealand vs England (1st Test)

[austingtir]

Nonu isn't going to play well if the first five doesn't take the ball to the line. Cruden wasn't fit and shouldn't have been picked. Some of Dagg's mistakes were dropping terrible passes from his insides (Nonu).

Agreed for me a number of Chiefs players have been not performing. Retalick for me has been missing this year. Messam has been about the only forward in that team thats been much good for mine. People had been expecting Cruden to come back after his thumb injury and turn that teams fortunes but I think the Cheifs problems run deeper... much like this AB performance their forwards have been well beaten week on week and its making the backs life very difficult indeed.

 

[tenpm]

Result was the same......an illegal act prevented a try and intent does not come into it!

I know this is from a few pages back, but intent does come into it. It's written in the law books: a player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game. Owens believed that Fekitoa was genuinely trying to effect a turnover and got it wrong, whereas Yarde knew he was infringing but cynically continued to hold onto the ball to kill a try scoring opportunity. You can argue whether or not this was the case, but if it was, Owens was completely justified in penalising Yarde more harshly. Not yellow carding Nonu for jersey holding, now that's a different story.

 

[RoosTah]

It's 'WOULD HAVE'!!!!

I repeat. It's WOULD HAVE!!!!

Once again, and all together now....WOULD HAVE!!!

FFS!!!!!!

Just because 'would've' sounds like 'would of' does not excuse this!!!!!!! ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Ok, rant over. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3y0CD2CoCs&feature=kp

But yes, I agree.

 

[Jaguares]

After to watch the game, I have to say:

1- Good game, England. Good game

2- Wallabies can beat ABs this year

3- Conrad, Conrad and Conrad!

 

[RoosTah]

This England series is going to be very interesting, but I think the English players and papers may be getting a little ahead of themselves here.


The critical point I think they're missing in claiming their 'moral victory' is that England dominated all the stats, but still failed to actually beat the All Blacks, in spite of them also adding to their misery by suffering their usual first test case of dropsies and defensive lapses…


So in a sense I'm not sure who should be more worried – NZ or England. Sure, the poms have some players to come back, but the ABs have now shaken off a few cob-webs and will be tougher and more composed next week. Meanwhile, the Poms will have to rework combinations now that new guys are coming into the side. Sure, they'll bolster the poms at the same time, but the All Blacks can play an awful lot better than the did last night, and you just wonder if England will be able to match them if they couldn't beat them playing as poorly as they did last night.



Can't wait for the second test.

 

[nzlizard]

Good to see people have given Messam some credit from last night, he and Kaino were our best forwards, who to have to 8 if Read is still out is a hard call, but to me that is the least of the forwards problems, every combo would be good and add value.

It's the rest of the forward pack to look at, some really average performances last night and quite a few of them left their rugby presence at home. I feel only our loosies really showed up.

 

[donmcdazzle]

This England series is going to be very interesting, but I think the English players and papers may be getting a little ahead of themselves here.


The critical point I think they're missing in claiming their 'moral victory' is that England dominated all the stats, but still failed to actually beat the All Blacks, in spite of them also adding to their misery by suffering their usual first test case of dropsies and defensive lapses…


So in a sense I'm not sure who should be more worried – NZ or England. Sure, the poms have some players to come back, but the ABs have now shaken off a few cob-webs and will be tougher and more composed next week. Meanwhile, the Poms will have to rework combinations now that new guys are coming into the side. Sure, they'll bolster the poms at the same time, but the All Blacks can play an awful lot better than the did last night, and you just wonder if England will be able to match them if they couldn't beat them playing as poorly as they did last night.



Can't wait for the second test.

I hope like hell the media get ahead of themselves and start bagging us and talking up the English, be nice to be the written off team for a change.

 

[RoosTah]

Hahahaha just go and read some of the English papers online! They're already claiming England are on their way to a RWC win in some cases.

 

[Amobokoboko]

A real nail biter. Game 2 will be even bigger. As I don't see England coming back after losing two in a row.
Massive game.

 

[goodNumber10]

Surely now is the time to finally play the best fullback in the world at fullback.

Folau plays for Australia.

 

[GoTheNaki]

Its just my problem with the British sports media. I've actually lived in both countries for substantial periods of time to realise what both variations of supporters and media are like. But this game was just a cop out, the only losers in this game were New Zealand, it didn't matter the result, it was strictly lose/lose.

If the ABs beat England by 40+ (example), "second string team, we will see if they can do that next game..", if the ABs beat them by 15 or less, " we can take them, they aren't as unbeatable as the media somehow make them out to be...". Imagine if they lost? The ridiculousness would be unthinkable. After the first game it would be "England: World beaters, favorites for Cup".

I couldn't honestly get excited for this game, in fact I was enjoying the AUS vs FRA game a lot more. Simply for what I stated above.

Biased media is understandable, but you can't help cringe at biased supporters. I actually have critisised NZ a lot more for the way of the win, than England's loss. But, I stick by the fact that NZ were still missing several players who are the best in the world at their positions (or at least voted by the populous in that way) and benefit NZ immensely.

Hahahaha just go and read some of the English papers online! They're already claiming England are on their way to a RWC win in some cases.

Called it :').

 

[Darwin]

Folau plays for Australia.

I know. He will get a chance to play against the best fullback in the world when the Wallabies play the All Blacks

 

[goodNumber10]

I know this is from a few pages back, but intent does come into it. It's written in the law books: a player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game. Owens believed that Fekitoa was genuinely trying to effect a turnover and got it wrong, whereas Yarde knew he was infringing but cynically continued to hold onto the ball to kill a try scoring opportunity. You can argue whether or not this was the case, but if it was, Owens was completely justified in penalising Yarde more harshly. Not yellow carding Nonu for jersey holding, now that's a different story.

Fekitoa was the tackler, it's absolutely no different. you're just saying it is because he was on his feet.

If he'd joined after the tackle had been made it would be different, but he never let go at an stage. He brought him to ground and continued to play the ball - the only difference is he stayed on his feet.

I know. He will get a chance to play against the best fullback in the world when the Wallabies play the All Blacks

is Wales lending you Lee Halfpenny then?

Hahahaha just go and read some of the English papers online! They're already claiming England are on their way to a RWC win in some cases.

which ones?

 

[Darwin]

is Wales lending you Lee Halfpenny then?

They offered, but we declined as we won't need a backup fullback come Rugby Championship time as Charles Piutau will be fit by then. Quite frankly I'm disappointed you suggested Halfpenny ahead of Mike Brown, as Brown is head and shoulders above Halfpenny in my opinion (and I'm not just talking in a literal sense ).

 

[tenpm]

Fekitoa was the tackler, it's absolutely no different. you're just saying it is because he was on his feet.

If he'd joined after the tackle had been made it would be different, but he never let go at an stage. He brought him to ground and continued to play the ball - the only difference is he stayed on his feet.

Yes, and...? I didn't argue whether it was a penalty (I don't think anyone denies it was illegal), or even whether it was cynical - all I said was that if (and it's a big if) it wasn't intentional and if Yarde's offence was intentional, then binning Yarde and keeping Fekitoa on the field is not an inconsistency.

 

[goodNumber10]

Yes, and...? I didn't argue whether it was a penalty (I don't think anyone denies it was illegal), or even whether it was cynical - all I said was that if (and it's a big if) it wasn't intentional and if Yarde's offence was intentional, then binning Yarde and keeping Fekitoa on the field is not an inconsistency.

intent doesn't come into it, it's all about process and end result. The process and outcome is identical and the outcome should have been identical.

Owens is on Talksport every weekend, his main point every week is you cannot sanction on intent.

They offered, but we declined as we won't need a backup fullback come Rugby Championship time as Charles Piutau will be fit by then. Quite frankly I'm disappointed you suggested Halfpenny ahead of Mike Brown, as Brown is head and shoulders above Halfpenny in my opinion (and I'm not just talking in a literal sense ).

Brown had a poor game yesterday in my opinion.

 

[smartcooky]

Fekitoa probably should have been binned, and I think Nonu was damned lucky he wasn't binned either.

In Fekitoa's case, there are two possibilities

1. He may have thought the ball was above the goal-line. He was on his back and may not have precisely known where he was in relation to the goal-line. If it had been, then he would not have to release because a tackle can only take place in the field of play; all the requirements and conditions pertaining to Law 15 i.e. place, pass, push release, get up, roll away and the gate no longer apply.

2. He may have thought it was a maul that collapsed, and therefore no release was required.

I think the second is what he argued to Nigel Owens when he was penalised, and if you listen to what Owens says to him as they go back to the restart after England kicks the penalty goal, he says something to the effect that "..your timing was wrong, that's why you didn't get yellow". This tells me that Owens reasoned it was not intentional so I can understand why he didn't give a yellow card. By the same token, I would not have had a problem with it if he had.

Marlon Yarde however went down on the wrong side of the tackle and then grabbed the ball after the tackle was made, held onto the ball, and continued to do so after he was told twice by Owens to release it. Much more clear cut IMO.

 

[smartcooky]

intent doesn't come into it, it's all about process and end result.

Sorry, but with respect, that its utter rubbish, and is certainly not a part of any referee coaching or assessment that I have been involved with in the last 30 years.

All it will take is a basic example to show that what you say simply is not true

1. Knock on (accidental) = scrum

2. Knock on (intentional) = penalty

3. Knock on (intentional) when a try might have been been scored = Yellow Card and possible Penalty Try

If intent didn't come into it, then every knock on would be a penalty.

 

[goodNumber10]

Fekitoa probably should have been binned, and I think Nonu was damned lucky he wasn't binned either.

In Fekitoa's case, there are two possibilities

1. He may have thought the ball was above the goal-line. He was on his back and may not have precisely known where he was in relation to the goal-line. If it had been, then he would not have to release because a tackle can only take place in the field of play; all the requirements and conditions pertaining to Law 15 i.e. place, pass, push release, get up, roll away and the gate no longer apply.

2. He may have thought it was a maul that collapsed, and therefore no release was required.

I think the second is what he argued to Nigel Owens when he was penalised, and if you listen to what Owens says to him as they go back to the restart after England kicks the penalty goal, he says something to the effect that "..your timing was wrong, that's why you didn't get yellow". This tells me that Owens reasoned it was not intentional so I can understand why he didn't give a yellow card. By the same token, I would not have had a problem with it if he had.

Marlon Yarde however went down on the wrong side of the tackle and then grabbed the ball after the tackle was made, held onto the ball, and continued to do so after he was told twice by Owens to release it. Much more clear cut IMO.

Unless i've misunderstood what you're saying about point 1 Fekitoa was on his feet over the ball, he was holding the ball up. He was the tackler and May was on his back, he was trying to rip the ball after making the tackle and not releasing - (tackle assist counts no?).

Owens says to him, "i understand why you thought you were ok, but..."

I dont' really care about the calls, they were poor but i don't think they influenced the game the way people are making out.

Sorry, but with respect, that its utter rubbish, and is certainly not a part of any referee coaching or assessment that I have been involved with in the last 30 years.

All it will take is a basic example to show that what you say simply is not true

1. Knock on (accidental) = scrum

2. Knock on (intentional) = penalty

3. Knock on (intentional) when a try might have been been scored = Yellow Card and possible Penalty Try

If intent didn't come into it, then every knock on would be a penalty.

Take it up with Nigel Owens mate.

***EDIT: sorry that last bit comes across wrong... i'm just relaying what owens says every week about you cannot judge on intent.

 

[Peat]

Through lack of use, I guess? I can't remember who - you? Peat? - someone put up a comparison in the way Youngs played between two times, a modern Youngs, and a 2010 Youngs. It showed a very noticeable increase in kicks, with a decrease in passing and a big decrease in the number of runs, IIRC. The stats confirm what seems pretty apparent to be honest. As time has gone on, the Tigers have turned Youngs into a fairly risk-averse box kicker.

I can remember quite clearly that in the 2011 World Cup cycle, it was precisely because at some point Care became ponderous and inaccurate in the pass, that he lost his place to Youngs. How times change! The sad thing is, that the 2010 Youngs was the best scrum-half we have had in years. He was not far off Genia.

I stuck 'em up.

Youngs has always been an iffy passer. Previously he was so quick to get the ball away that it didn't matter and while there was the odd bouncing bomb, on the whole it was a big positive. I actually think he's improved his passing - but not enough to mitigate the big drop in speed in his delivery that often occurs, particularly when he has to go digging for the ball. I thought Youngs actually had a rather decent spell after half-time - when England were able to present good ball. But a lot of the match we didn't.

The biggest problem with Youngs for me is he no longer seems to be playing instinctively. When he hit the scene, he did everything without thinking, while Care seemed like a badly programmed robot. Now its the reverse. Youngs spends too much time thinking and it kills things. My optimistic take on that is that he's undergoing the process that Care has - learning to add some instinctive game management and that in time he will smooth out. I wouldn't put any bets on it though.