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

[Mr Ruggleby]

1. Moon
2. Hartley
3. Williams
4. Itoje
5. Kruis
6. Underhill
7. Curry
8. Billy
9. Youngs
10. Farrell
11. May
12. Tuilagi
13. Joseph
14. Watson
15. Daly
16. George
17. Mako
18. Sinckler
19. Lawes
20. Wilson
21. Care
22. Ford
23. Nowell

Perfectly Good 23 alternatives:
Prop: Genge, Hepburn
2nd: Ewels
Back Row: Shields, Robshaw
Backs: teo, Slade, ashton

We're winning the World Cup

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/watc...ka-at-twickenham-with-rendition-of-swing-low/

Lol

 

[Leinster Fan]

i don't think bringing Ritchie on was a good idea, Damo was playing well and Barrett was coming into the game well at 10, with better kicking... sometimes rugby coaches fail to think, Richie really wasn't nessessary sub

Yeah I can see what you mean, sometimes teams make subs for the sake of making sub's and it doesn't help.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/watc...ka-at-twickenham-with-rendition-of-swing-low/

Lol

Thanks, that article gave me a tumour.

 

[Saint Matt]

Brave effort with so many missing, half as many caps as their opposition and they could and arguably should have won.

Outstanding first half. Absolute blueprint. Line speed was outstanding, great contact, great push. Hit hard and often, workrate off the ball was exceptional as well. Fully deserved the lead. I think we lost concentration towards the end of the half, people look at the big moments but there was a drop off in intensity in that period defensively and it came back to bite us. You can't compound errors with errors. Golden rules defensively are a. never make two errors in a row and b. don't lose your hips and lose an inside shoulder on contact. Did both and it cost us.

Second half, I thought we beat ourselves. Poor from George, arguably poor from Borthwick. Retallick is a big bloke and you've got to compensate that with your throws. Couple of times there, Itoje beat his man and the throw was just an inch too low. Should have been highlighted, either it wasn't highlighted or George didn't take it into consideration. To blow so many opportunities in NZ half of the pitch because you can't win your own line out is totally, totally inexcusable. Perhaps they should have changed the call and shifted their movement around the tail. I can't understand what Lawes was thinking offloading the football late on. However, I also think NZ should have been penalised for hands in at the ruck within that period.

Always the same against NZ, it's the same in Rugby League when we play Australia. Sometimes you focus so hard on the opposition that you forget to look in the mirror and get the basics right. Get the basics right today and I think we win the football game this afternoon.

Some good performances, you couldn't have better conditions as a back rower. Thought both flankers contributed well in different ways. There's a thing in sport these days where people enjoy bigging up players on the fringes of teams but I thought there were some good performances from senior players on both sides of the field.

But... credit to NZ. Will be interesting to see what happens when we meet again, hopefully with both teams having a full deck of cards at their disposal.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Honestly - for me, one of the big reasons for our improvement in these two games has been back row balance.

Happy with the group we have here, hopefully it will allow us to use Billy more effectively - within this system, rather than one built around him.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Outstanding first half. Absolute blueprint.

Think the early scores masked quite a lot. The stats flashed up at half time showed us well beaten in both territory and possession and having missed something like 23 tackles.

The key period of the game was the 4 minutes before half time where the ABs scored 10 points. It was a decisive shift in momentum from which we never recovered. 15-0 at the break would have very different.

It was a good effort, but the conditions were a leveller and the ABs did butcher a chance or 2. I don't think this is now a vintage AB side, but despite being short of their best, they've still come over here and found a way to win.

 

[smartcooky]

Best England performance for 2 years. Possibly the first 30 mins was the worst kicking by AB's ever. Players , as always, made far more, and worse, mistakes than ref.

That said .. why do some refs give half a nano-second to roll away and others seem to allow the player to lie around like an Essex tart on a sun lounger in Ibiza?

Materiality and circumstances.

Materiality
Is the player who is not rolling away really preventing the ball from coming back quickly, or preventing a jackler from getting at the ball? In the case where a player may actually interfere it he attempts get up or roll away, I would rather see him stay where he is. Too often I see players making a Hollywood production of getting up and getting themselves in the way to slow down quick ball.

Circumstances
Is the player who is not rolling away unable to do so? Is he being knelt on, or leaned on or being otherwise held (legally or illegally) in position? We often see players arrive and stand astride a tackler who has fallen in the wrong side - they are almost always trying to buy a penalty - most decent referees aren't selling!

 

[Saint Matt]

Think the early scores masked quite a lot. The stats flashed up at half time showed us well beaten in both territory and possession and having missed something like 23 tackles.

The key period of the game was the 4 minutes before half time where the ABs scored 10 points. It was a decisive shift in momentum from which we never recovered. 15-0 at the break would have very different.

It was a good effort, but the conditions were a leveller and the ABs did butcher a chance or 2. I don't think this is now a vintage AB side, but despite being short of their best, they've still come over here and found a way to win.

Potentially but for me, the thought and ideas behind what we did were good and that's what I mean, probably more so than execution. We went after them, we pressured them, we harried them, we hit hard. You put the Vunipola's, Watson's, Tuilagi's, Joseph's, Launchburry's etc etc in and you'd hope that the execution is better and lasts for longer but I do feel like we can look back on today and take confidence from how we went about things.

 

[Steeler]

Materiality and circumstances.

Materiality
Is the player who is not rolling away really preventing the ball from coming back quickly, or preventing a jackler from getting at the ball? In the case where a player may actually interfere it he attempts get up or roll away, I would rather see him stay where he is. Too often I see players making a Hollywood production of getting up and getting themselves in the way to slow down quick ball.

Circumstances
Is the player who is not rolling away unable to do so? Is he being knelt on, or leaned on or being otherwise held (legally or illegally) in position? We often see players arrive and stand astride a tackler who has fallen in the wrong side - they are almost always trying to buy a penalty - most decent referees aren't selling!

smartcooky, would like to hear your thoughts on England offside constantly, do you agree? i thought their rush defence was offside at nearly every play. i was shocked it was barely policed

 

[smartcooky]

smartcooky, would like to hear your thoughts on England offside constantly, do you agree? i thought their rush defence was offside at nearly every play. i was shocked it was barely policed

I thought they spent most of the game offside at the ruck and breakdown, and it was barely policed at all. You only have to look at who is coaching them to understand where that comes from. The Wallabies of the early 2000s made a tactic of being offside. When it was finally (and correctly) policed in the 75th minute of this game, it came as a bit of a controversial "gotcha" moment.

However, to be fair, the All Blacks weren't actually compliant angels at the breakdown either, both with offside and with slowing the the ball down - sometimes legally, but sometimes not.

As to "that" offside call, its important to remember the Law as regards to when the ball is out of the ruck'

LAW 15: RUCK
ENDING A RUCK
17. When the ball has been clearly won by a team at the ruck, and is available to be played,
the referee calls "use it", after which the ball must be played away from the ruck within
five seconds. Sanction: Scrum.
18. The ruck ends and play continues when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball in the
ruck is on or over the goal line.​

Despite what you might hear from Justin Marshall (who does not know the Laws as well as he thinks he does), the ball is not out of the ruck (and therefore, the ruck has not ended) when the scrum half puts his hands on the ball. The ruck ends when the ball is lifted. Lawes was clearly at least a half-metre offside when the ruck ended, and that means he needed stop where he was until the ball was kicked or the scrum half ran 5m.

LAW 10 OFFSIDE
RETIRING FROM A RUCK, MAUL, SCRUM OR LINEOUT
8. A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the
ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended.
9. The player can be put onside only if:
a. That player immediately retires behind the applicable offside line; or
b. An opposition player carries the ball five metres in any direction; or
c. An opposition player kicks the ball.​

It was that half-metre advantage (illegally gained) that allowed him to charge the ball down and that directly resulted in the try being scored.

The Offside Law is one of the easiest Laws in rugby to comply with, just stay in an onside position and you can't be pinged for it. There is only one person responsible for the disallowng of that try.... Lawes himself.

 

[oj121]

I thought they spent most of the game offside at the ruck and breakdown, and it was barely policed at all. You only have to look at who is coaching them to understand where that comes from. The Wallabies of the early 2000s made a tactic of being offside. When it was finally (and correctly) policed in the 75th minute of this game, it came as a bit of a controversial "gotcha" moment.

However, to be fair, the All Blacks weren't actually compliant angels at the breakdown either, both with offside and with slowing the the ball down - sometimes legally, but sometimes not.

As to "that" offside call, its important to remember the Law as regards to when the ball is out of the ruck'

LAW 15: RUCK
ENDING A RUCK
17. When the ball has been clearly won by a team at the ruck, and is available to be played,
the referee calls "use it", after which the ball must be played away from the ruck within
five seconds. Sanction: Scrum.
18. The ruck ends and play continues when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball in the
ruck is on or over the goal line.​

Despite what you might hear from Justin Marshall (who does not know the Laws as well as he thinks he does), the ball is not out of the ruck (and therefore, the ruck has not ended) when the scrum half puts his hands on the ball. The ruck ends when the ball is lifted. Lawes was clearly at least a half-metre offside when the ruck ended, and that means he needed stop where he was until the ball was kicked or the scrum half ran 5m.

LAW 10 OFFSIDE
RETIRING FROM A RUCK, MAUL, SCRUM OR LINEOUT
8. A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the
ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended.
9. The player can be put onside only if:
a. That player immediately retires behind the applicable offside line; or
b. An opposition player carries the ball five metres in any direction; or
c. An opposition player kicks the ball.​

It was that half-metre advantage (illegally gained) that allowed him to charge the ball down and that directly resulted in the try being scored.

The Offside Law is one of the easiest Laws in rugby to comply with, just stay in an onside position and you can't be pinged for it. There is only one person responsible for the disallowng of that try.... Lawes himself.

What a decent well written post!

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Regardless of whether Lawes was offside or not, the AB player crawling out of the scrum, grabbing Care and taking him to ground when he was waiting for the AB 9 to get the ball out was ridiculously blatant. The ABs then lying on the wrong side twice and being a mile offside in at least one of the plays after, it was just a stream of penalty offenses at the end of the game that all went unpunished. Saying Lawes was offside was passable but turning a blind eye to everything the ABs did after was inexcusable. It wasn't just one extra incident but multiple ones.

 

[bushytop]

Regardless of whether Lawes was offside or not, the AB player crawling out of the scrum, grabbing Care and taking him to ground when he was waiting for the AB 9 to get the ball out was ridiculously blatant. The ABs then lying on the wrong side twice and being a mile offside in at least one of the plays after, it was just a stream of penalty offenses at the end of the game that all went unpunished. Saying Lawes was offside was passable but turning a blind eye to everything the ABs did after was inexcusable. It wasn't just one extra incident but multiple ones.

After every Englishmen this side of, well... the Sun really, has been the embodiment of righteous indignation every time the men in white gets a dubious decision, try not to show your hypocrisy if you can!

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

After every Englishmen this side of, well... the Sun really, has been the embodiment of righteous indignation every time the men in white gets a dubious decision, try not to show your hypocrisy if you can!

Remind me what Wales did when they had a dubious decision? Went crying straight to the WR wasn't it? You are missing the point that it wasn't a single dubious decision, it was ignoring a rapid stream of penalty infringements that followed on.

 

[bushytop]

Remind me what Wales did when they had a dubious decision? Went crying straight to the WR wasn't it? You are missing the point that it wasn't a single dubious decision, it was ignoring a rapid stream of penalty infringements that followed on.

Check my posts... I said my thoughts at the time (which was a try for me) and left it at that. You guys (Angles) made out we were the only peeps that would do such a thing... guess not!

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Thoughts on how DmAc played? I'm torn, rand some great lone with ball in hand and made some awesome breaks...but thought he looked bad hen kicking and just his positioning in general

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Check my posts... I said my thoughts at the time (which was a try for me) and left it at that. You guys (Angles) made out we were the only peeps that would do such a thing... guess not!

It's spelt angels

 

[bushytop]

It's spelt angels

Hence the worlds evacuation from any religion that involves heralds.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Check my posts... I said my thoughts at the time (which was a try for me) and left it at that. You guys (Angles) made out we were the only peeps that would do such a thing... guess not!

The only people that would go an whinge to the WR? Yes. At the time you were the only people who whinged to the WR about a try decision outside a world cup. Also last week you will find most people were getting indignant at the idea of complaining to the WR and how the whole thing was being blown out of proportion whilst ignoring a worse incident against England earlier. In the grand scheme of things the tackle was no where near as bad as people were making out.

Here the offside of Lawes is not the issue, it's the ignoring of everything NZ did after that is the issue.