[November Tests 2016 EOYT] England vs. Argentina (26/11/2016)

[TRF_Olyy]

https://twitter.com/FR_union/status/802981993805856768

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I was looking at it from a point of view that a Red card after 10 minutes, for an offence that was not dirty play, has the potential to decide who wins the game. We don't turn up to games to applaud the Ref for having the courage of his convictions.

Yeah let's blame the referee for keeping the game safe and booting the ejected player and feel bad for the guy who made a dumb play that resulted in an opponent landing on their neck from 5 feet in the air.

 

[Which Tyler]

Yeah, if we're going to do anything, leave the exemption for genuine contest, and make taking out a layer in the air an automatic yellow, red for intent or landing on head/neck/shoulder. Though I'd also add in an exemption for when jumping couldn't really be anticipated (I can't recall specifics, but I've seen players penalised for being jumped into to take a bouncing ball when it should really be the other way around)

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

https://twitter.com/FR_union/status/802981993805856768

It's the gift that keeps on giving something new on every viewing.

I mean WTF was he doing with Mako's shin!?!?!?!?!?

 

[Groundhog]

It's the gift that keeps on giving something new on every viewing.

I mean WTF was he doing with Mako's shin!?!?!?!?!?

Haha was about to say I've never seen a person misunderstand a scrum more than Johnny May. I've seen people who've never played a rugby game in their life walk up to the scrum and know that their head doesn't belong up a props arse. No ones head belongs near that dark hole.

 

[Immenso]

Haha was about to say I've never seen a person misunderstand a scrum more than Johnny May. I've seen people who've never played a rugby game in their life walk up to the scrum and know that their head doesn't belong up a props arse. No ones head belongs near that dark hole.

Reminded me of Ross Geller on Friends.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Both red cards were warranted.
Brave calls by the ref.

 

[Which Tyler]

Both red cards were warranted.
Brave calls by the ref.

TBH I had the ref as my MotM (with JJ and May joint 2nd choices)

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

TBH I had the ref as my MotM (with JJ and May joint 2nd choices)

With just 14 men I don't think you can underestimate Farrells importance in keeping intensity and pressure in our defence.

 

[Which Tyler]

With just 14 men I don't think you can underestimate Farrells importance in keeping intensity and pressure in our defence.

No, but nor can you for any of the other 13 players still on the pitch; espcailly not the 2 players who were actually trying to plug the hole created. For me, 2 players covering 3 positions, and succeeding, is more admirable than 1 player doing what he always does anyway, but with a little extra discipline.

Fazlet's become a good player, and he had a decent game yesterday; but I didn't see him find an extra gear, or extra commitment from his norm; and don't think he was a MotM contender.

 

[Every Time Ref]

No, but nor can you for any of the other 13 players still on the pitch; espcailly not the 2 players who were actually trying to plug the hole created. For me, 2 players covering 3 positions, and succeeding, is more admirable than 1 player doing what he always does anyway, but with a little extra discipline.

Fazlet's become a good player, and he had a decent game yesterday; but I didn't see him find an extra gear, or extra commitment from his norm; and don't think he was a MotM contender.

Four positions if you include Johnny May playing blindside! That video is absolutely golden, love it

Agree on Faz. He's slowly starting to turn me around, I was dead against him as a 12 (and fairly against him as a 10 TBH) but I'm starting to see Eddie's thinking. Still a lot of gaps in his game for an international inside centre though, I'm still not entirely convinced a non-linebreaking centre is a sustainable option for a team that aspires to be the best in the world

 

[ncurd]

that aspires to be the best in the world

NZ lost to Ireland this year, didn't see us doing that

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

NZ lost to Ireland this year, didn't see us doing that

Try playing us in Chicago where we have a 100% record!!

 

[Every Time Ref]

Try playing us in Chicago where we have a 100% record!!

Big whoop, so do we

 

[ALJ]

I disagree with this approach. When a player who escaped punishment at the time is cited and found guilty, it is effectively saying that the team of officials missed the offence at the time or applied the wrong sanction - a guilty verdict in this scenario means that the player should have been sent off at the time. What you are advocating is effectively giving the referee a remit to bottle decisions and ignore the law book. Personally I applaud him for having the courage of his convictions and applying what according to my understanding was the correct sanction.

The only way I could agree with you is if we were regularly seeing red cards overturned by the citing authorities, which we're not and I don't believe we will in this instance.

I agree and there's also the idea that a player can essentially 'fake' being clumsy, take out a player and be back on in ten minutes.
I don't think Daly meant it but there's no getting away from what he did.

My guess would be six weeks on the basis that it's mid range - there was intent, which must bump it up from a Launchbury type low end incident but they will allow themselves to be swayed by the fact that it didn't cause any injury. Eight weeks is the recommended sanction, no doubt this will be reduced on the basis that he sends his mother flowers and once stroked a dog!

You think it was mid-range? You could clearly see him taking aim and then falling back to cover it up - To my mind he is bloody lucky he didn't cause a worse injury.
Much as he was provoked to an extent, I can't see any justification for less than a full term on that one tbh.

 

[Which Tyler]

You think it was mid-range? You could clearly see him taking aim and then falling back to cover it up - To my mind he is bloody lucky he didn't cause a worse injury.
Much as he was provoked to an extent, I can't see any justification for less than a full term on that one tbh.

What if he apologizes and wears a nice suit?

 

[ncurd]

I spent my morning walk into work contemplating tackling in the air. I think importantly the player must be allowed to compete for the ball in the air admittidly some of these guys jump unnatural heights for us mere mortals but we need to be able to attempt to ctch the ball mid-air if we need to get it.

So I think we need to move to a tip tackle type situation where the automatic sanction is a red card and we move ourselves down. Not based on injury cause but the actions made. Take a player over the horizontal, red. Otherwise yellow much like a tip tackle if you show a duty of care to the player by bringing him down to ground safely you can get away with just a penalty, as noted with the May incident do you think the player would of stayed on had May twisted his ankle?

However I also look at the Finn Russell a few seasons back, here a player was occupying the landing are before the opposing player launched himself in the air. I still maintain the fault there lies with player jumping into the space rather than the player occupying it.

So some level of discretion is needed, the player on the ground has the duty of care to the player in the air however if the player on the ground is occupying the space the opposing player is entering before he enter the air he is charging and therefore commiting the penalty. Regardless of who actually comes off worse.



Still don't understand why Marler got yellow unless it was for repeat infringements, not normally a straight yellow for that except preventing a try scoring oppertunity.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Big whoop, so do we

Tier 1 games only mate!

 

[ALJ]

What if he apologizes and wears a nice suit?

Then it's a slap on the wrist and he has to wear a silly hat in his next TV interview.

- - - Updated - - -

I spent my morning walk into work contemplating tackling in the air. I think importantly the player must be allowed to compete for the ball in the air admittidly some of these guys jump unnatural heights for us mere mortals but we need to be able to attempt to ctch the ball mid-air if we need to get it.

So I think we need to move to a tip tackle type situation where the automatic sanction is a red card and we move ourselves down. Not based on injury cause but the actions made. Take a player over the horizontal, red. Otherwise yellow much like a tip tackle if you show a duty of care to the player by bringing him down to ground safely you can get away with just a penalty, as noted with the May incident do you think the player would of stayed on had May twisted his ankle?

However I also look at the Finn Russell a few seasons back, here a player was occupying the landing are before the opposing player launched himself in the air. I still maintain the fault there lies with player jumping into the space rather than the player occupying it.

So some level of discretion is needed, the player on the ground has the duty of care to the player in the air however if the player on the ground is occupying the space the opposing player is entering before he enter the air he is charging and therefore commiting the penalty. Regardless of who actually comes off worse.

I'm assuming (although don't know for sure) that the principle now would be that if the player is already there then he's not obliged to move out of the way.
That said, I still don't really understand how so many can't judge it/time it properly.

Still don't understand why Marler got yellow unless it was for repeat infringements, not normally a straight yellow for that except preventing a try scoring oppertunity.

It did seem like the ref was almost admonishing him for provocation.
By the letter I guess its a professional foul but had the stamp not come, I don't see any way he'd have got a card for it.

 

[ncurd]

I'm assuming (although don't know for sure) that the principle now would be that if the player is already there then he's not obliged to move out of the way.
That said, I still don't really understand how so many can't judge it/time it properly.

If we go by what happened with Finn Russell nope if a player competes for the ball in the air its currently totally on you to get out their way. Its slightly greyer in that one incident as Russell was moving into that space but he barely moves after the opposing player (whom I can't remember who it was) enters the air.