[2017 RBS Six Nations] Round 2: Wales vs England (11/02/2017)

[ncurd]

It was worth a second look and after it was clearly short it firmed up the refs decision not to take on board any more review appeals.

No what it did was open the ref to hearing more appeals. I thought both sides after that were pretty badly behaved asking for refferal beyond that point. Sorry but there's a reason I don't watch Football and I'm seeing more and more of creep into the game.

How many times in that match did a player (on both side) kick the ball away after a decision was given to the opposition? That should be 10 yards (or penalty if it were a free kick).

Garces pretty much surrendered all authority in that match.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I don't wish to harp on about it but Wales' constant appealing to the ref for this that or the other really grinds me down. Apart from anything, I don't believe it endears them to the ref much.

I actually like Garces and think he's grown into one of the better officials. His style will suit England for the Ireland game because of the extra time he gives at the breakdown.

 

[dullonien]

It was Youngs, not Ford but considering the number of times Wales killed English ball illegally all over the park, including in the 22 as the clip shows, a yellow for us but not for Wales would be pretty unfair. Also I would venture Youngs wasn't that far offside if at all. If anyone can find a good angle of where youngs is as the pass goes out we could settle it. As for Haskell, he was on the wrong side but the thing was Cole had actually got the turnover legitimately, his actions hurt us more than Wales as a turnover became a penalty to Wales instead.

Different things Imo. I agree that Wales were allowed to do some dubious things at the ruck which many refs would penalise them for, but I don't think England were saints here either (what tram is?), but there were some rather blatant ones missed by Wales I agree. However in their own they'd be penalties' only and I'd assume that if they were pinged early in the game, Wales would have changed their tactics, and possibly never accumulated enough to warrant a yellow for repeat infringements.

On the other hand, Peat has now pointed out the potential for 3 yellows for rather blatant professional fouls very close to their own line. Most refs would have given at least one Imo, some two, but unlikely that many would have given all 3.

Anyway, not trying to be sour grapes here, just a little annoying to see some rather small (in comparison) indiscretions by Wales, the kind that ate missed in every game of rugby highlighted here without a little balance.

 

[Peat]

In fairness, if Garces had been talking about yellows for penalties close to the line (lets not forget Launchbury deciding to have a nice sunbathe over the ball about 5m out under the sticks as well), I think England would have changed tactics too. I reckon both sides made good shouts on what the ref would and wouldn't put up and as a result, got away with some smart criminality. Dull's right to point out both sides did it.

Personally I thought Garces had a good enough game. He was consistent and made no major errors.

 

[dullonien]

In fairness, if Garces had been talking about yellows for penalties close to the line (lets not forget Launchbury deciding to have a nice sunbathe over the ball about 5m out under the sticks as well), I think England would have changed tactics too. I reckon both sides made good shouts on what the ref would and wouldn't put up and as a result, got away with some smart criminality. Dull's right to point out both sides did it.

Personally I thought Garces had a good enough game. He was consistent and made no major errors.

Aye, good point Peat. And I agree that he had a good game on the whole. The game seemed to flow well, with the attacking side given time at the rucks.

 

[valley commando]

News for you and him : Wales lost and England won.

If you want to think Wales were the better side, that's up to you, but wouldn't that make their loss even worse. 'Poor loser' springs to mind.

BTW, Garces is the ref for the Ireland v England game.

I'm not a poor loser, but you are right being the better team and getting beat is worse. that's my point

- - - Updated - - -

News for you and him : Wales lost and England won.

If you want to think Wales were the better side, that's up to you, but wouldn't that make their loss even worse. 'Poor loser' springs to mind.

BTW, Garces is the ref for the Ireland v England game.

My mistake I thought this thread was Wales v England

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

No doubt in my mind that when it comes to individual offences which might have brought more than a penalty, both teams transgressed with England perhaps being the luckier. Haskell might perhaps have been carded as well as launch and for Wales there were several deliberate knock-ons.

Ref didn't miss much else except an early counter-drive at a Wales lineout which bring fair, possibly cost them the chance at an attack. Itoje also rode high on a few tackles, nothing too major though.

Overall my sympathy is limited because I thought Wales were more consistently pushing boundaries at the breakdown. In particular, actually letting go of the tackled player completely was something they were thoroughly unwilling to do.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not a poor loser, but you are right being the better team and getting beat is worse. that's my point

- - - Updated - - -



My mistake I thought this thread was Wales v England

I think his point is that if you're the better side on the day and still lose, maybe your opposition is just better. And that's the point really; matched us on the day you did ; as good as side overall, though, you aren't. This might ultimately account for the result.

 

[The Jones Boy]

England won, away from home, by a clear 5 points.
Wales had their chances, plenty of them. Wales had sustained pressure for long periods of the game and as Brian Moore pointed out, they came away with nothing to show for it on the scoreboard.
You have to acknowledge the English defence, they did a job.
You can say all the might have beens in the world but England were the better side and they won it away from home.
Wales clearly have quality players.
Wales do not have a problem with the player base, their single biggest problem is still Howley.
I don't like Garces. A decent ref would have stamped on the nonsense from both teams at the ruck early on and then not need to deal with it later. Both teams got away with too much.

 

[ALJ]

He is the best in the northern hemisphere, because he has the best bench.
No doubt.
England have a massive advantage over the other 6 Nations teams in their strength in depth and this is highlighted by the quality of their bench. It has been a game winner for them in the first two matches of the 6 Nations.
England have lifted a gear when they're fresh players have come off the bench to add impact.

Then when you look at how Howley used his bench, by taking off his two best performing players at a critical time in the game, he made Eddie look even better...

The bench has been crucial for England in a lot of the games they have won and that includes many more than the last two.
Lancaster had the same bench options as Jones but worked to the same principle that Howley appears to, which (for want of a better phrase) is subbing by numbers rather than on the basis of the match situation. Hence they never had quite the same impact.

As someone has said further up, Jones appears to have excellent sense when it comes to using his subs and that's not just limited to what has happened thus far in the Six Nations.

 

[The5thOfficial]

You say that but! The game was lost with that JD clearance kick in the last 5 minutes. You wouldn't be able to say without that monumental mess up, had Wales gone on to win that the best team lost surely? Sure there were chances and points not taken where there should have been - but even without those Wales were ahead with 5 minutes to go. That one kick did the damage. It lost them the game.

England won, away from home, by a clear 5 points.
Wales had their chances, plenty of them.

 

[johnmac99]

England won, away from home, by a clear 5 points.
Wales had their chances, plenty of them. Wales had sustained pressure for long periods of the game and as Brian Moore pointed out, they came away with nothing to show for it on the scoreboard.
You have to acknowledge the English defence, they did a job.
You can say all the might have beens in the world but England were the better side and they won it away from home.
Wales clearly have quality players.
Wales do not have a problem with the player base, their single biggest problem is still Howley.
I don't like Garces. A decent ref would have stamped on the nonsense from both teams at the ruck early on and then not need to deal with it later. Both teams got away with too much.

+1 Good post

 

[Raggs]

You say that but! The game was lost with that JD clearance kick in the last 5 minutes. You wouldn't be able to say without that monumental mess up, had Wales gone on to win that the best team lost surely? Sure there were chances and points not taken where there should have been - but even without those Wales were ahead with 5 minutes to go. That one kick did the damage. It lost them the game.

What monumental mess up? JD couldn't easily kick to touch because Sinckler was in the way, Sincklers great effort pressured him into making an average clearance. Ford, followed by Farrell, then had the ability to put in 2 perfect long passes giving Daly the space. England's execution was spot on. The only reason JD was in a position to make that kick is because Williams was allowed to play the ball off his feet (yellow card?). It was the Welsh who then chose not to run another ruck to give Biggar time to make the kick. It was GD who chose not to take the pressure on himself and box kick. It wasn't that awful a kick either, from within his own goal line he cleared past the Welsh 10m line. It was the Welsh defence that didn't then work hard enough to get in position, and it was English skill that exploited that.

Why should the activities of the last 6 minutes be any more significant than those in the first? Or those in the middle? If Farrell had made the correct defensive read and stopped Williams scoring? The game is played over 80 minutes, and over 80 minutes the Welsh team were not the better side.

Wales' team made multiple bad decisions in those last moments, from GD, to JD, to Roberts, to Cuthbert, and many of those decisions/plays were heavily influenced by what England were doing.

And at the end of all of that, even if you just want to put it all on JD's kick, then JD is part of the Welsh team, and if his decision makes the Welsh team worse, then the Welsh team is worse.

 

[The5thOfficial]

What monumental mess up? JD couldn't easily kick to touch because Sinckler was in the way, Sincklers great effort pressured him into making an average clearance. Ford, followed by Farrell, then had the ability to put in 2 perfect long passes giving Daly the space. England's execution was spot on. The only reason JD was in a position to make that kick is because Williams was allowed to play the ball off his feet (yellow card?). It was the Welsh who then chose not to run another ruck to give Biggar time to make the kick. It was GD who chose not to take the pressure on himself and box kick. It wasn't that awful a kick either, from within his own goal line he cleared past the Welsh 10m line. It was the Welsh defence that didn't then work hard enough to get in position, and it was English skill that exploited that.

Why should the activities of the last 6 minutes be any more significant than those in the first? Or those in the middle? If Farrell had made the correct defensive read and stopped Williams scoring? The game is played over 80 minutes, and over 80 minutes the Welsh team were not the better side.

Wales' team made multiple bad decisions in those last moments, from GD, to JD, to Roberts, to Cuthbert, and many of those decisions/plays were heavily influenced by what England were doing.

And at the end of all of that, even if you just want to put it all on JD's kick, then JD is part of the Welsh team, and if his decision makes the Welsh team worse, then the Welsh team is worse.

Its a shame really because I like JD. But you hit the nail on the head with 'average clearance'. Average wasn't good enough! In this instance it WAS the activities in the last 5 or 6 minutes that dictated the result of the game. Otherwise England would have lost! You said it yourself, 'Wales' team made multiple bad decisions in those last moments.' I didn't say or mean that the better team lost, I just said it came down to that last 5 minutes. It was a good game. I'm not technical (its too easy to get bogged down in the technicalities and forget to enjoy the game) I just like a spectacle of a game and that was one of those for sure.

 

[Raggs]

The conversation had taken a turn towards Wales being the better side, and losing, hence my mention of it.

Why aren't the activities in the 3 minutes that England scored with Youngs the ones that dictated the result of the game? If there's no try there, Wales are ahead...

Every game is decided when the final whistle goes, but for me every minute before then counts equally, if a team cannot execute well enough in the final minutes to secure a win, then they simply aren't the winners. Just because something happens at the end, doesn't make it more significant. Just as Ireland lost to Scotland because of their failure to start fast enough.

I'm still not sure it was an average clearance. It was a huge clearing kick, and in the vast majority of cases would have at least reset things, that Ford and Farrell were both capable of running forwards and giving perfect 20 yard+ passes to Daly, who had the pace to take the outside, doesn't make the kick a poor one. If he'd have kicked for touch, it would have been close to the 22 (and that would have been reasonable), but Englands maul had been eating up the yards at that point and would have surely done the same.

 

[ncurd]

If Wales were clearly the better team for the first 75 minuites shouldn't they have been further than 5 points ahead?

 

[johnmac99]

You say that but! The game was lost with that JD clearance kick in the last 5 minutes. You wouldn't be able to say without that monumental mess up, had Wales gone on to win that the best team lost surely? Sure there were chances and points not taken where there should have been - but even without those Wales were ahead with 5 minutes to go. That one kick did the damage. It lost them the game.

Why pick on that one chance? Because it was the last in the game?
England could say that the monumental mess up committed by Youngs when he floated that long pass straight into Biggar's hands and he charged from his own line into Englands' 22, changed the game. Yes, there were chances on both sides, but to say that one kick did the damage and it lost Wales the game, is naive.

Yes, Wales were ahead with a few minutes left, but at the end of the game England were ahead, and that's what counts. To keep saying Wales were the better team is just your opinion. Get over it.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Point in case, the All Blacks have been outplayed by opponents for more than half the game, sometimes as much as 55-60 minutes... but, in short bursts they score enough points to win the game.
So they are the winner but the opposition fans will often bemoan their ill fortune.
Bottom line, score points when you are in the zone. Make sure you get something, even if it's just a drop kick, to keep the board ticking over. Points create pressure, pressure creates doubt which tests mental fortitude.
The ref in this game wasn't dishing out cards so you have to get points because the naughty parties on both sides were not getting punished so the defensive line on both sides was very difficult to breach.
The All Blacks are not shy of collecting points from kicks, especially in the first half where they try to build a lead on the board that affects the psyche of the opposition.
That crucial 8 point buffer zone that allows the side to open up the game and attack more freely.

 

[The5thOfficial]

The conversation had taken a turn towards Wales being the better side, and losing, hence my mention of it.

Why aren't the activities in the 3 minutes that England scored with Youngs the ones that dictated the result of the game? If there's no try there, Wales are ahead...

Every game is decided when the final whistle goes, but for me every minute before then counts equally, if a team cannot execute well enough in the final minutes to secure a win, then they simply aren't the winners. Just because something happens at the end, doesn't make it more significant. Just as Ireland lost to Scotland because of their failure to start fast enough.

I'm still not sure it was an average clearance. It was a huge clearing kick, and in the vast majority of cases would have at least reset things, that Ford and Farrell were both capable of running forwards and giving perfect 20 yard+ passes to Daly, who had the pace to take the outside, doesn't make the kick a poor one. If he'd have kicked for touch, it would have been close to the 22 (and that would have been reasonable), but Englands maul had been eating up the yards at that point and would have surely done the same.

Everything that happens in every minute of the game contributes to the end result. But if a team, or both teams play flawless rugby for 75 minutes and then screw it up in he final 5 minutes, the previous 75 minutes become irrelevant because they lose the game. Wales didn't play flawless rugby (neither did England) but they did screw it up in that final 4, and England capitalised on that. Fair play to them!

You're probably right about it being a huge clearing kick by JD. i think because its more recognisable as that being the moment when Wales lost the game, its considered a rubbish or average kick. Anywayyyyyyyy!

- - - Updated - - -

Why pick on that one chance? Because it was the last in the game?
England could say that the monumental mess up committed by Youngs when he floated that long pass straight into Biggar's hands and he charged from his own line into Englands' 22, changed the game. Yes, there were chances on both sides, but to say that one kick did the damage and it lost Wales the game, is naive.

Yes, Wales were ahead with a few minutes left, but at the end of the game England were ahead, and that's what counts. To keep saying Wales were the better team is just your opinion. Get over it.

But that WAS the point at which they lost the game. Up to then they were 5 points ahead and if it hadn't been for that kick would probably have gone on to win the match. Maybe, maybe not - but quite possibly!

- - - Updated - - -

If Wales were clearly the better team for the first 75 minuites shouldn't they have been further than 5 points ahead?

lol I dunno man! At which point is the better team decided, by points ahead, or not? THEN you get into the debate of the better team losing etc. If a team is ahead at any point in the match, should they not have the right to say that up to that point at least they were the better team? Or if a team is ahead on penalties alone when the other team has X amount of tries to their nil. Its can of worms time!

 

[tsof]

But that WAS the point at which they lost the game. Up to then they were 5 points ahead and if it hadn't been for that kick would probably have gone on to win the match. Maybe, maybe not - but quite possibly!

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but they were only 2 points ahead (16-14) at the time of JD's kick.

Strangely for me, I was comfortably confident that we would win. We were pilling on the pressure at that point, our line out was going well and by that stage our driving maul was eating meters. If JD's kick had gone out for a lineout on the 22, I do think we'd still have come away with 2/3 points min.

 

[jackass11]

England were not 5 points down they were only 2 points down with 5 mins to go so a drop goal would have won it so i would say it was a pretty even game until then?

Cant understand all this welsh confusion about being the better team....its baffaling