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

[kesh]

Sorry for double post, but couldnt resist pointing out the irony of saying most people agree it was offside and few people are salty, right under Kesh post where he has a grid work and what not drawn up to justify his obsession. Atleast one person is still very salty front the looks of it.

If i knew the image size limit i'd show you the exact pixel where it's a try.

 

[All Black]

So we now know that:

>Garces told Lawes he was onside

Um no he didnt. Did Lawes go up to Garces and ask "am I onside?". Why would Garces tell Lawes he was onside?

All credibility is now tarnished.

 

[kesh]

Here, Lawes' foot is off the ground TJ has the ball off it.

 

[Paulo]

Social media gave the inept minority a voice these days.

Very true. And the internet provides them with a platform to build false credibility.

 

[kesh]

Very true. And the internet provides them with a platform to build false credibility.

The internet provides them with a platform to explain it with mathematics and actuality. Actual reality of the try.

 

[Paulo]

Here, Lawes' foot is off the ground TJ has the ball off it.

Either way, his back foot is not behind the hindmost body part from the ruck. Look at the AB foot, that is what he needs to be 'behind', not inline with. He is not onside. That is why ALL the other English players are back where they are.

As fun as this has been. I'm going to bed.

 

[Paulo]

The internet provides them with a platform to explain it with mathematics and actuality. Actual reality of the try.

I suppose you watch infowars too?

 

[Which Tyler]

Here, Lawes' foot is off the ground TJ has the ball off it.

You're picking the offside line from the wrong place - just to the left of Lawes' left leg, you can see an AB sock and boot - which marks the offside line (assuming a ruck - may possibly be different if a tackle as said AB is not "over the ball"... or possibly is, depending on interpretation)

 

[MikeTheNative]

I am one of those people who tend to say 'never say never' but i don't see how you can put Robshaw or Hughes in the back row on performances of the team so far, Robshaw as a squad player maybe but he shouldn't be in a full strength team. I don't want to blow my own horn but I'm going to anyway. I did say before the autumn series that the injuries in the back row will be good for England as they will need to try something new. All the guys have held their hands up for selection, maybe not Sheilds completely yet but he hasn't done anything wrong.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I think after the last two weeks you just have to accept it at this stage lads. It was the correct call, stinks of inconsistency considering had Underhill been tackled and the score was two phases later it wouldn't have been checked but look, we know that's how the game is officiated these days, the phase before the score has to be cleaner than clean while you get away with stuff elsewhere.

One win and one loss seems fair to me after the two weeks you had, potentially it should have been the other way around but those are the breaks. What these two games really show is how important controlling the scoreboard is, it results in decisions going in the leader's favour down the stretch. One thing I didn't understand was that after the disallowed try England got themselves another opportunity, they controlled possession for a few phases along NZ's 22 and that was time for a second drop goal, it was at such a time in the game too that they'd have gotten the ball back had it missed and had they scored they'd have needed a to control the ball for less than a minute to win.

It reminded me a lot of our game in 2013 just a bit dirtier due to conditions, England lost it because they let a needless score in just before HT to give NZ a sniff and failed to score after thirty minutes despite having opportunities. Its not a bad place to be after the 9 months leading up to it though and should be a springboard for next year.

 

[ncurd]

Yeah whilst I was looking at the wrong offside line at the point of the match its quite clear Lawes was way offside, accidentally but still offside. I question if the TMO saw the foot but thats a different can of worms. Ultimately the correct decision was made and that's all I ever ask of other fans. We all move on.

I've got no issue with people wanting to discuss decision its sour grapes and denial of facts that wind me up.

@kesh if you bothered to read you'd know this was already covered but the laws were changed as a direct consequence of that match (because it made the game look stupid).

 

[ncurd]

One thing I didn't understand was that after the disallowed try England got themselves another opportunity, they controlled possession for a few phases along NZ's 22 and that was time for a second drop goal, it was at such a time in the game too that they'd have gotten the ball back had it missed and had they scored they'd have needed a to control the ball for less than a minute to win.

Yup lots of poor decision making by England in the second half. The opportunity to win was available to us,

 

[Which Tyler]

I think after the last two weeks you just have to accept it at this stage lads. It was the correct call, stinks of inconsistency considering had Underhill been tackled and the score was two phases later it wouldn't have been checked but look, we know that's how the game is officiated these days, the phase before the score has to be cleaner than clean while you get away with stuff elsewhere.

One win and one loss seems fair to me after the two weeks you had, potentially it should have been the other way around but those are the breaks. What these two games really show is how important controlling the scoreboard is, it results in decisions going in the leader's favour down the stretch. One thing I didn't understand was that after the disallowed try England got themselves another opportunity, they controlled possession for a few phases along NZ's 22 and that was time for a second drop goal, it was at such a time in the game too that they'd have gotten the ball back had it missed and had they scored they'd have needed a to control the ball for less than a minute to win.

It reminded me a lot of our game in 2013 just a bit dirtier due to conditions, England lost it because they let a needless score in just before HT to give NZ a sniff and failed to score after thirty minutes despite having opportunities. Its not a bad place to be after the 9 months leading up to it though and should be a springboard for next year.

Yup - the only ref call that actually annoyed me beyond the moment was taking out Shields' arm at a lineout, where a penalty for England turned into a scrum for New Zealand. The tackle on Care at the scrum was laughably blatant, but immaterial.

More annoying though were Farrell's restart going out on the full; Farrell's decision to go for the corner when easy points were on offer (twice); Farrell sitting back for the drop goal, but not telling anyone; George's lineout throwing (Itoje seemed to be in the right place, and nice and high, collecting the ball at his waist - where Retallick was waiting for it; a foot higher, and it would have still been an easy catch for Itoje, but beyond Retallick's grasp).

Those were all far more pivotal moments than Lawes being correctly called offside - even if those decisions are habitually let go.

 

[Paulo]

While I don't necessarily like the new ruck laws, they are in effect, we don't need at least 2 opposing players bound anymore, just one player 'above' the ball. You see this a lot now where defenses don't commit anyone but the tackler to the rucks. It speeds the recycle up, but also puts more players into defensive line, so think that has helped curtail some of the attacking plays since its come in.

 

[ncurd]

One thing I might change about the ruck laws is change the definition of 'out' to the knee. It would likely stop the stupidity of a ball quite clearly being out in the open but players not being able to just walk up and grab the ball

 

[Which Tyler]

One thing I might change about the ruck laws is change the definition of 'out' to the knee. It would likely stop the stupidity of a ball quite clearly being out in the open but players not being able to just walk up and grab the ball

Meh - I'm fine with that.
First thing I'd change is to call "use it" earlier; and for it to mean more-or-less immediate use, not to get another 2 forwards in and reposition the chaser. Maybe "ball's available" 3 sec "Use it" 2 sec "Free Kick".

The next ruck change I'd make is dangerous clear-outs - specifically shoulder barges that still seem to be allowed just so long as you look like you might have wanted to stayed on your feet if different laws of physics were applied.

Beyond that I don't like these artificially elongated rucks - I'd suggest that if a player has rucked beyond the ball (or the ball moved back beyond them), then they're no longer part of the ruck (or at least, not affecting the offside line).

 

[ncurd]

Meh - I'm fine with that.
First thing I'd change is to call "use it" earlier; and for it to mean more-or-less immediate use, not to get another 2 forwards in and reposition the chaser. Maybe "ball's available" 3 sec "Use it" 2 sec "Free Kick".

It would also force scrum-halves to play better and stop dithering.

Sadly I think the 'use it' call was supposed to fix this and refs seam to have no interest.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

The dithering scrum half at the ruck is in total contrast to the way that mauls are called over the second they stop moving.

 

[MikeTheNative]

When the use it rule come in, refs used to give 5 seconds for the ball to be played or it would be a free kick to the opposition. I'm not sure if they have removed this rule but it doesn't seem to be reffed at all.

 

[Jakedood]

This Page (42) has been much better, I think it's clear most Reasonable English fans can see the call going either way, he was offside, the main reason I wish it stood though is to have Sam Underhill's bamboozling of Barrett going down in History books, was absolutely amazing. I thought his ball carrying was absolutely immense all day too
England also missed a lot of first up tackles in trying to dominate the gain line which could be looked at, New Zealand seemed to be half through gaps every other phase in both Halves.
And in terms of the end, the Lawes pass was almost as stupid as Brad Shields last week, absolutely no sense of where the game was at. Even if England missed a drop goal, they would still have the ball kicked back to them to counter anyway, so they've really only got themselves to blame. How many times have the all blacks won from a similar position in last few minutes?

Also, as a side note, England's back play looked very bog standard and impotent until Ford replaced Te'o, then all of a sudden we were finding gaps