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

[The Jones Boy]

As I recall Farrell missed a conversion? in the first half?
and then the mercurial Daly missed with a long range penalty.
England left points out on the pitch and they still won by 5 points away from home.
I'm in no doubt that England deserved the victory.
It was an enjoyable game for the neutral because it was a fiercely contested close match.
However, Wales were hamstrung because Rob Howley is a poor coach. He doesn't have an ounce of instinct about him.
He took off his two best performing players and subbed them and that was the biggest factor in Wales loss by a country mile.
Moriarty was on fire and Webb was electric.
Jones put his subs on when he 'felt' they needed to inject fresh energy. George came on for the captain early. Others later.
Have a look at how Hansen, Cheika, Schmidt, Cotter and Jones time their substitutions. They are not pre-ordained according to a set time.
Those coaches inject their bench when they feel it's necessary and when players are on fire and the contest is close you LEAVE the quality on to show itself and it may well win you the game.
This game wasn't lost by the clearance kick of a ball.
It was lost when the final whistle went and England had 5 more points on the board.
A big factor they were in that position is because Eddie Jones is a MUCH better coach than Rob Howley at using his bench.
Howley reminds me of Lancaster, naive.
Jones is far more astute.

 

[The5thOfficial]

if you follow the line of the grass cuts.

lol

 

[ALJ]

However you choose to phrase it, TJB is right. The ABs regularly kill games in 15 or 20 minute spells, far too often for it to be coincidence. That's what makes them so dangerous, Eng certainly need to learn the art of sealing games much earlier when the opportunities arise.

They can up their game in periods - of course they do (I know that's how the post was intended but it's a tactic and certainly nothing new).

But the suggestion is that they do the equivalent of putting their feet up for the rest of the time and that's just ridiculous.

Their defence doesn't drop, their breakdown work is no less ferocious, they don't run any slower or with any less aggression.

The ABs pride themselves on being the fittest side with the most intensity - why would they need that if they only play for 30 minutes a game?

 

[The5thOfficial]

The ABs pride themselves on being the fittest side with the most intensity - why would they need that if they only play for 30 minutes a game?

Maybe they need to be the fittest so that they can up their intensity for that 30 mins? An averagely fit side would not be able to keep up their defences etc for the whole match AND up that intensity in order to close out the game.

 

[MikeTheNative]

I've never understood 'such and such were the better team but lost' or 'such played better and lost'. The best team was the team that won. I agree about Nathan Hughes he had a great game after being a bit disappointing in the French game.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

Maybe they need to be the fittest so that they can up their intensity for that 30 mins? An averagely fit side would not be able to keep up their defences etc for the whole match AND up that intensity in order to close out the game.

With your last sentence there you show you're agreeing.

Yes they up their intensity, but for the rest of the match they're still defending hard, etc. They wouldn't need the fitness to play hard for 30 minutes- any team can do that.

Remember the 26-26 (I think) draw against the All Blacks in Woodward's first year- with England leading at half time 21-0, then getting shredded in return because they were knackered?

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Amazing the difference in opinion here about Nathan Hughes

 

[Which Tyler]

View attachment 4819

Don't know how to make the picture bigger, but this shows the starting position of Youngs as the ball comes out of the ruck to AWJ

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Maybe they need to be the fittest so that they can up their intensity for that 30 mins? An averagely fit side would not be able to keep up their defences etc for the whole match AND up that intensity in order to close out the game.

Absolutely, you can't go 100% flat out all game. Mo Farah jogs along with the pack most of the way, but he can break people by short mid race surges and then out sprint them when it counts. But I think it's part mental too, confidence in their mates and their patterns.

 

[DozeyPillock]

I've been looking at the Liam Williams turn over, and I think its over to the rule book experts...
The ball goes loose, and Launchbury and Williams both get hands on the ball whilst both are off their feet and both facing England. Launchbury presents the ball to England whilst Williams wrestles to turn and present the ball back to Wales (and wins with a little help). Given both players were off their feet when they grabbed the ball, is this actually illegal, or just a fair contest won by Williams?
[video=vimeo;204206141]https://vimeo.com/204206141[/video]

 

[Raggs]

To suggest that Williams and Launch get hands on at the same time is a bit wrong, you see Williams sat on Launch, then rolling over Launch, then reaches down and pulls it off launch whilst lying on top of him.

 

[ALJ]

Absolutely, you can't go 100% flat out all game. Mo Farah jogs along with the pack most of the way, but he can break people by short mid race surges and then out sprint them when it counts. But I think it's part mental too, confidence in their mates and their patterns.

Now you sound like you're agreeing with me

- - - Updated - - -

I've been looking at the Liam Williams turn over, and I think its over to the rule book experts...
The ball goes loose, and Launchbury and Williams both get hands on the ball whilst both are off their feet and both facing England. Launchbury presents the ball to England whilst Williams wrestles to turn and present the ball back to Wales (and wins with a little help). Given both players were off their feet when they grabbed the ball, is this actually illegal, or just a fair contest won by Williams?
[video=vimeo;204206141]https://vimeo.com/204206141[/video]

I might be wrong but I think Launchbury is fine to dive on the ball as it's loose.
Anyone who wants to take the ball from him has to be on their feet - i.e. they can't just dive in next to him and start grappling, just as Launchbury couldn't hold onto the ball once he'd gained possession.

Looks like Launchbury did the right thing by letting the ball go.
Williams was off his feet so should have been penalised.

I think.


Happily that's not how it turned out (upon such small things, eh).

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I believe the only ball you can play from the floor is a loose one (ie you can dive on it then present it, throw it, get up etc) but if a player is already in possession, you can't. Launchbury definitely had possession of the ball first and then Liam williams took it out of his hands when he presented it, completely illegal imo...

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

there is no tackle so law 15 is not applicable, since it's open play the only law that applies to playing the ball is law 7(mode of play)

law 7 states that a player may fall onto the ball, so williams makes a legal play at the ball

i'll leave my original post to show what i missed even though i have come to same conclusion

law 14 applies since the english player had possession

all this prohibits is a welsh player intentionally falling onto the ball and i don't believe the welsh player intentionally left his feet after england had the ball but before the possession

still no tackle, so there is no gate or requirement for him to be on his feet to play the ball

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Law 14.1(c) states

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]"A player without the ball must not lie on, over, or near the ball to prevent opponents getting possession of it."

[/FONT]Surely this would also cover a player on the ground not in possession may not grab the ball from the player on the ground in possession themselves to prevent the ball being presented?

 

[DozeyPillock]

all this prohibits is a welsh player intentionally falling onto the ball and i don't believe the welsh player intentionally left his feet after england had the ball but before the possession

That's the bit I was unsure about as this to me was a 50/50 ball that Launchbury only got to fractionally ahead of Williams. Annoyingly the crucial second all occurs while the action is hidden from the camera by Brown. One second later and both Williams and Launchbury have hands on the ball.
Anyone seen a better angle?

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Law 14.1(c) states

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]"A player without the ball must not lie on, over, or near the ball to prevent opponents getting possession of it."

[/FONT]Surely this would also cover a player on the ground not in possession may not grab the ball from the player on the ground in possession themselves to prevent the ball being presented?

nowhere does it say anything about playing the ball

the law is there to prevent someone from falling to the ground and not playing the ball... in practice blocking the opposing team from the ball

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

nowhere does it say anything about playing the ball

Yet it also doesn't say it is allowed, it's a possible oversight in the rules because everything indicates a player on the ground is not allowed to interfere with play. They can't tackle, can't prevent release and can't obstruct other players, it would seem the only thing they are allowed to do would be to grab the ball off another player. It also states

"The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue."

To me this sounds more like they didn't think it likely that a player on the ground would be trying to take the ball from another player on the ground. When you also consider players are not allowed to dive on players who themselves dived on a loose ball, I find it extremely bizarre that they would be allowed to play the ball.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

There was nothing close about it, having watched again today - Launchbury had the ball well ahead of Williams. The only possibility is whether he had completely lost it and we just can't see but I don't think that's the case from the angles I've seen. If he's lost it then Williams can fall upon it but Im 99% sure this is not what's happening. From the main TV angle Williams was ripping it - now admittedly ir doesn't look like he had to try too hard, Launch can't have had a very solid grip, but that's irrelevant.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Yet it also doesn't say it is allowed, it's a possible oversight in the rules because everything indicates a player on the ground is not allowed to interfere with play. They can't tackle, can't prevent release and can't obstruct other players, it would seem the only thing they are allowed to do would be to grab the ball off another player. It also states

"The Game is to be played by players who are on their feet. A player must not make the ball unplayable by falling down. Unplayable means that the ball is not immediately available to either team so that play may continue."

To me this sounds more like they didn't think it likely that a player on the ground would be trying to take the ball from another player on the ground. When you also consider players are not allowed to dive on players who themselves dived on a loose ball, I find it extremely bizarre that they would be allowed to play the ball.

i'm not saying that the law is clear, but i think to blow that up would be against the spirit of the game... everything you mentioned is as applicable to launch as it is to williams

williams didn't make the ball unplayable, he won the ball for his team in a position where it wasn't illegal for him to play the ball, if he would have just placed his arms on it an didn't move then maybe he would be killing the ball but that isn't what he did

- - - Updated - - -

There was nothing close about it, having watched again today - Launchbury had the ball well ahead of Williams. The only possibility is whether he had completely lost it and we just can't see but I don't think that's the case from the angles I've seen. If he's lost it then Williams can fall upon it but Im 99% sure this is not what's happening. From the main TV angle Williams was ripping it - now admittedly ir doesn't look like he had to try too hard, Launch can't have had a very solid grip, but that's irrelevant.

why would williams not be able to play the ball?