[2018 November Tests] England v South Africa (3/10/18)

[TommiG88]

Just gone through the highlights to get a second look. I feel the ref had a good game overall.

South Africa were by far the better side in the first half and put us a lot of pressure through their forwards. But lacked the clinical edge.

Second half was nearly a total opposite. England were a threat went wide but made a few bad decisions.

Farrell was my MotM. Once Youngs actually passed to him, he was big threat.

 

[Which Tyler]

Choosing the biggest guys at underage level rather than the best rugby players?

Someone obviously hasn't watched any age-grade rugby in the last decade orm so

 

[ncurd]

Aye

"I was always taught to lassoo tackle"

Good luck with trying to lassoo a 110kg bloke running directly at you, pal.

C'mon we all know as England fans we've seen that given at least a penalty in the past. Whether you agree those should be penalties or not lets not pretend it would not of been given in different circumstances. One thing we constantly bemoan in these situations is consistency.

As it hit his throat it can already be defined as a high tackle although there are some mitigating circumstances.



I cut out the commentary because its some idiot Scot but I'm interested in visual. As far as I'm concerned Farrell just barges into him and because his arm is beside him it naturally does some level of wrapping but I don't think he actually attempted to wrap him.

Now other will read that differently and thats fair but lets not pretend this was a 'clean' tackle and call. I'm glad Gardner went upstairs for it I still think he made the wrong call but at least its better than bottling it altogether and just blowing the whistle.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Now other will read that differently and thats fair but lets not pretend this was a 'clean' tackle and call.

I'm not pretending anything, I think it's fair to say I'm fairly consistent in what I deem to be fair and not.

I think it's a fair tackle, and the right call was made.

 

[ncurd]

I've also seen Farrell make these on the line tackles before some where hes been cited and cautioned (essentially a retroactive YC). I do think he is going to do something monumentally stupid like SBW one day and cost his team a game one day..

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

C'mon we all know as England fans we've seen that given at least a penalty in the past. Whether you agree those should be penalties or not lets not pretend it would not of been given in different circumstances. One thing we constantly bemoan in these situations is consistency.

As it hit his throat it can already be defined as a high tackle although there are some mitigating circumstances.



I cut out the commentary because its some idiot Scot but I'm interested in visual. As far as I'm concerned Farrell just barges into him and because his arm is beside him it naturally does some level of wrapping but I don't think he actually attempted to wrap him.

Now other will read that differently and thats fair but lets not pretend this was a 'clean' tackle and call. I'm glad Gardner went upstairs for it I still think he made the wrong call but at least its better than bottling it altogether and just blowing the whistle.

Bang on!

I think when people say "leading with the shoulder" what they mean is the position Farrell is at 1.34 in that vid. That's not a textbook position by any means because that right arm is not prepared to wrap in any way, it's a result of the tackler not setting his feet right and getting low for a dominant collision. I think it always results in an illegal tackle because even if there is an attempt to wrap afterward it's not going to happen.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

This "tackle" by Faz is also kicking off on Twitter. BOD coming down on the side on it was a fair tackle, as do other injured members of the England squad (not surprising really). But former members like Andy Goode, Dawson saying he got away with it. My immediate reaction was it was stone wall penalty and yellow card.

 

[Reiser99]

As it hit his throat it can already be defined as a high tackle although there are some mitigating circumstances.

Now see this is where I have an issue, because I think the contact is with the top of Esterhuizen's chest and it's looks worse by the way his head moves and the fact that he leans in. However even if you can argue that contact is with the throat, it is only because Esterhuizen leans forward. This is where the high tackle rules have an issue, because players commit to a tackle and then the attacker moves their body resulting in a different contact point, sometimes with the head. Cipriani fell foul to that when Rapava-Ruskin's seat belt tackle pulled the attackers head down. Therefore the safest way to negate this is to go low and tackle legs, but that risks the offload and also usually means the player gets over the gainline, where as if you can tackle the body you can stop the offload and if you win the collision push the player back.

 

[Ospervat]

What Rassie Erasmus had to say about Owen Farrell's controversial tackle on André Esterhuizen.

"We'll have to practice that...it's legal"

https://www.sarugbymag.co.za/watch-rassie-farrell-tackle/

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think it was 50/50 but I think more of it is because any time England are on the better side of a decision, people think it's fine to complain like crazy. Remember when Wales had that try disallowed and WR came out and said it should have been a try because Wales whinged, when has that ever happened before? Tries are disallowed all the time but people don't go running to WR, unless it is England who benefit it seems.

Guarantee if any other team had got away with that, this would be much less of an issue. There seems to be a pretty toxic attitude among some towards England that really shouldn't be in rugby but is ignored (booing the team onto the pitch, trying to make them wait in the cold, not showing the English flag), other teams just aren't subjected to this. Then you have the Loz ban arbitrarily extended so he is kept out of another international...

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Citing officer has until 5pm to cite Farrell with a yellow card warning. If nothing then it was a fair tackle and we move on.

 

[spartan32]

Has everyone lost their bloody minds?!! Faz's challenge was legal by the rule of law. It wasn't high, the arm wrapped, granted not a lot, but it wrapped. There is nothing in the laws that stipulates how far the arm need wrap, just that it does, and it did.

The contest in the tackle was fair, in fact it was a cracking tackle. The simple fact is that there was nothing dangerous about it. Sure it probably hurt like hell, for both of them, but rugby is a tough game, and people get hurt.

The SBW example is total trash. He had his arm wrapped in front of him like it was in a sling, and then he aimed his shoulder directly at the head of a prone and helpless defender. This was both dangerous and clearly intentional. There is no comparison.

If people's issue with the Faz challenge is that in the past refs have judged such things as illegal, then those refs were wrong pure and simple and need some input about how to judge the contact area. But unless they change the laws to say that the arms must be wrapped around the entire body and end up in a big lovely bear hug while the tackler whispers sweet nothings in the attackers ears telling him it's all going to be ok, that challenge, and those like them, are legal. End of.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

All I'll say is that sitting on my sofa yesterday, my immediate reaction was "bloody hell Faz, what have you done....?"

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

On yesterday's midfield defensive issues, I guess we have to give Te'o and Slade another chance as we're only just starting to bed in the thinking of a new defensive coach.

Or am I being charitable?

 

[Yoshimitsu]

All I'll say is that sitting on my sofa yesterday, my immediate reaction was "bloody hell Faz, what have you done....?"

I thought exactly the same thing. Regardless of whether the ref calls it illegal or not, that's an extremely risky tackle to deploy at that juncture. On this occasion in my view the referee has called it correctly. It's not a great technique, but there's an attempt to wrap and Farrell can't complete the tackle as he's effectively been bounced off. If it had been called a pen I doubt I'd have cried too much about it. Though there are a lot of prescient commentators who are 100% guaranteeing that Pollard definitely makes the kick.......

I've watched it several times in slow motion and the initial contact by Farrell is to the centre point of Esterhuizen's chest. It's a massive collision and Esterhuizen's chin actually makes contact with Farrell's back. But what it isn't is a shoulder charge to the head. Which is squarely what SBW on Watson was. Another day and another ref, a different outcome.

Fwiw T'eo totally shoulder hit someone earlier in the match. No attempt to wrap whatever. Single shoulder deployed to stop a bok..........

 

[All Black]

I'm glad Gardner went upstairs for it I still think he made the wrong call but at least its better than bottling it altogether and just blowing the whistle.

'Upstairs' intervened through to Gardner via headphones. Gardner initially never saw anything wrong with it and after viewing the replay, he saw it as ok.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Farrell clear to play with the usual claims of corruption from certain elements...

 

[ncurd]

Farrell clear to play with the usual claims of corruption from certain elements...

Well thats just nonsense, when has the citing commissioner ever gone against the one field call when it has been reviewed? Regardless of outcome it was very unlikely he'd be called up on it unless it was egregious mistake. Its also very unlikely unless it was deemed a possible red card offence he'd be called up either. Doesn't mean it shouldn't of been a penalty.

I imagine this will rumble on, I've said my peace on my views and most on here with an opposing one are people who's opinions I agree with 99% of the time. So I'll shut up (I'll fail probably) unless someone bring in new evidence.

 

[Which Tyler]

There was no particular reason to cite it IMO.
I feel that it was one of those where I'd have given a penalty, and anything from yellow card to play-on is absolutely fair.
In no way wasn't even close to a red card offence, or deserving of a ban (not that I'd have complained if he'd been banned long enough to give Ford a few matches with a brace of actual centers)

 

[Reiser99]

Well to be cited it needed to be deemed a red card and yellow would have been extremely unlucky for Faz, let alone a red. There was no contact with the head and he hits his chest with Esterhuizen's chin going over his shoulder, as has been pointed out by Yoshimitsu, making it look like it is contact with the throat. Esterhuizen also leans forward just before the tackle lowering his body height in the tackle.