[2018 November Tests] England vs New Zealand 10/11/18

[Nudger]

Ref called it a try as well, he changed his mind a few minutes later

That's what gets me the tmo said himself this is the best camera angle which was a bad camera angle and the ref was in line
Then the tmo overrules the ref
England had that game there to win several things they could have done or the ref could have given for us to win it
But we didn't next time will do me in the semis

 

[mania]

On balance, I would observe that New Zealand were a little off their pace during the first half ...

ABs weren't off their pace, they were out played , out-muscled and outsmarted as England were tougher, better defenders and more tenacious.
wasnt till ABs straightened their attack and went with the pikNgo game (best counter for a rush defense and best B plan) that ABs started a bit of getting ascendancy and more importantly some breathing space to play past the advantage line.

 

[mania]

WTF has happened to aaronSmith? his passes were sluggish and he was making wrong decisions. he's a real liability at the moment.

pikNgoes was when aSmith was taken out of the equation and we started getting ascendancy.

def not the best HB in the world at the moment

and SBW better get his **** together. with ngani and crotty knocking on that door its only a matter of time before SBW has to give way to better centres

 

[smartcooky]

Yeah, I didn't mean 20 was off side but that the offside line would be where he is rather than where Lawes is (Which I then revised to: isn't the ruck over if he's not bound?)

However if he is technically bound that's all irrelevant

Someone on the match thread mentioned that since no England player was on their feet involved it was a tackle situation not a ruck therefore no offside line - I know that law was changed after the England-Italy match but I don't know the detail of the new law, is it relevant here?

For what it's worth I think on balance it was marginally the right decision given the ruck moved slightly ... but Jesus it's harsh on Lawes and it would never have been picked up on if it didn't result in a try. But them's the rules, fair enough.

Well that is a point.

There were no England players on their feet so it wasn't a ruck, it was a tackle with offside lines. That means there is no requirement to bind. The guidance for Offside lines at a tackle is as follows;

Law 14: TACKLE
Player responsibilities
Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team's offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.​

If you look carefully, you will see England's offside line is not the back of the England player on the ground; its the foot of the All Black (Tu'ungafasi ?)

 

[ratsapprentice]

Each offside line can only be created by their own player though, surely?

That's the way I interpret that wording - although it is unclear.

 

[TommiG88]

Well that is a point.

There were no England players on their feet so it wasn't a ruck, it was a tackle with offside lines. That means there is no requirement to bind. The guidance for Offside lines at a tackle is as follows;

Law 14: TACKLE
Player responsibilities
Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team's offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.​

If you look carefully, you will see England's offside line is not the back of the England player on the ground; its the foot of the All Black (Tu'ungafasi ?)

Smart, only pipes up when a decision goes for NZ.

Although I agree it was offside, a freeze frame makes it obvious. What you fail to do is show that your player had taken that leading step only a fraction before that frame.

It's an interesting tactic though, players joining the ruck to extend the off side line.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Smart, only pipes up when a decision goes for NZ.

I specifically asked him his opinion on it

Well that is a point.

There were no England players on their feet so it wasn't a ruck, it was a tackle with offside lines. That means there is no requirement to bind. The guidance for Offside lines at a tackle is as follows;

Law 14: TACKLE
Player responsibilities
Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team's offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.​

If you look carefully, you will see England's offside line is not the back of the England player on the ground; its the foot of the All Black (Tu'ungafasi ?)

Makes a lot of sense, thanks.

I think the screen grab I posted was misleading/not the best - I just took it from the front page of the rugbyunion subreddit.
Your screengrab shows the full picture i.e. the All Black foot putting Lawes offside.
The one I posted shows Lawes onside (or at least, can be interpreted as such - it's tough to be 100% sure because of the angle of the camera). As soon as that AB foot steps forward it puts Lawes offside.
It's just unfortunate for Lawes (from an England perspective) that the foot hit the floor a split second before the ball was picked up.

 

[Scotty]

Has any one got a video of the end where danny care was taken out by platers in the scrum? Im curious about that. Dont want to make abig thing saying we would have won or any of that i just want to see for myself what happened.

 

[Which Tyler]

Has any one got a video of the end where danny care was taken out by platers in the scrum? Im curious about that. Dont want to make abig thing saying we would have won or any of that i just want to see for myself what happened.

49 min here:

 

[Bean]

[

 

[Bean]

Your getting funnier

You're*
Funnyer*

 

[Bean]

Maybe no one has called you out before but I do care and other people viewing this forum might. I don't think you should be so openly hateful towards anyone's nationality.

No, literally no one cares. Take that virtue signaling elsewhere.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

49 min here:

 

[smartcooky]

Each offside line can only be created by their own player though, surely?

That's the way I interpret that wording - although it is unclear.

Nope....."any player in the tackle" means exactly what it says, unlike a ruck where it is your own player

Not only is it that way in the Law book, but there is a drawing on WR's guidance online that actually shows it.

The red offside line is created by the hindmost part of the gold player, and the gold offside line is created by the hindmost foot of the gold player.

All this was brought in after England complained about the tactics used by Italy in surrounding the tackle with players because there were no offside lines.... some might see a delicious irony in that!

 

[ncurd]

I don't think it was bought in because we complained it was bought in cause the sport looked stupid for it.

 

[Which Tyler]

Nope....."any player in the tackle" means exactly what it says, unlike a ruck where it is your own player

Not only is it that way in the Law book, but there is a drawing on WR's guidance online that actually shows it.

The red offside line is created by the hindmost part of the gold player, and the gold offside line is created by the hindmost foot of the gold player.

All this was brought in after England complained about the tactics used by Italy in surrounding the tackle with players because there were no offside lines.... some might see a delicious irony in that!

what about "over the ball"?
In that illustration, all 3 players are over the ball; in the pic from yesterday, only Black 20 is on the same part of the pitch as the ball, whilst everyone else is way ahead of it?
If that's a ruck, then those other players are bound, and relevant; but if it's just a tackle, then Tu'ungafasi could be considered "over the ball" that's 2m+ behind him?

Genuine questions by the way, as its brought my own ignorance to my attention.

 

[Steeler]

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Ashton was living offside all game, haha

Would've thought someone from a league background would be used to getting back in a line

 

[Jashay]

Is Ashton actually offside in this picture? There's a line on the pitch that you can use to gauge it; the offside line looks to be a foot or so past the grass line, Ashton appears to also be a foot or so past the same line. I think he's still offside there, but not so far out as to deserve a 'LOL'. I'm assuming the touch judge there is in a perfect position to check, too.

Separately, with the 'hindmost part' wording, could a player stick a leg/arm out whilst on the ground to shift the offside line back a couple of feet? (Assuming they don't mind getting a bit of 'accidental' trampling on said limb!)

 

[ratsapprentice]

Aye, if he's offside there, it's by a few inches.