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

[spartan32]

Whether we think its right or not, its clear that Roko does not feature in Jones plans. Having reached that conclusion its totally logical that Jones concentrates on those that do. Harsh, but that's international sport.

Jones results allow him a lot of latitude, but some of his selections have been downright mystifying. But he's only a year in and is still in the period of having a good look to see who he really wants.

The wired thing is that neither Jones nor Gustard will openly write him off. They keep acting like his omission is tactical, and that he isn't right for this game but may be right for the next one. That's what's confusing. I also don't see what they are seeing that no one else is?

 

[spartan32]

You'll boviously be suirprised to hear this - but I have watched the game, a copule of times actually - I simply disagree with you.
This may seem shocking, but ithappens all the time that different people can see the same thing and come to different conclusions.

Saucer of cream anyone

 

[Every Time Ref]

FWIW just watching the highlights again, tries only so not a lot of opportunity to look at positioning but Roko has fallen off a couple of tackles he should have made. However I've confirmed my belief that he was in no way responsible for Nadolo's try (not sure that was at issue anyway), and has only I would say secondary responsibility at most for Nakarawa's try - it's Ben Youngs who really messes up, watch it back and you'll see him completely miss him first up, which puts both Roko and Coles in an awkward position to make the follow up tackle

 

[FLOBALOB]

That's just circular logic though, he's fifth choice now therefore he won't be first choice in future therefore he should stay fifth choice now etc. etc. etc.

Not sure what you mean.

To put it simply, Roko is 29 and 4/5 th choice and highly unlikely to improve with age come WC in 3 years time. Conversely, all those in competition for a wing place are much younger and can be expected to improve and become better players over the next 5 years. Therefore investing time in Roko now at the expense of the others is a waste.
Its probably why Daly has kept his place instead of Roko.

 

[kesh]

How can Launch get a greater ban for his offence!! If I were England I'd be putting in a serious complaint. If Fakatowa gets one week, Launch should get one week and be available for the Aus game.

Was looking forward to seeing a Launch / Kruis partnership too.

 

[kesh]

Cane cited but not banned for a high tackle resulting in a serious injury to another player, and Fakitowa given one week ban for his terrible high tackle on Zebo also resulting in injury, and apparently should have been shown red on the day. I am getting sick and tired of NZ being let off the hook for foul and dangerous play. Recent stat suggests the most international teams average 12 penalties to one yellow, where as NZ it's 47!! It seems refs and world rugby have been caught up in the AB aura. I wonder how many results would have changed had they been punished in line with everyone else.

Nah, Matt William isn't right about recent history.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Seriously? What a joke... How the hell can Launchbury with a clean record and a guilty plea get a harsher penalty than Fakatowa who was every bit as reckless in a game full of questionable acts.

It's pretty simple really and the principle has been explained many times before. The low end sanction for a dangerous tackle is 2 weeks. It was assessed as low end and with mitigation, 2 weeks was reduced to 1. The low end sanction for kicking an opponent is 4 weeks. Again there was mitigation, so the ban was reduced to 2 weeks.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

It's pretty simple really and the principle has been explained many times before. The low end sanction for a dangerous tackle is 2 weeks. It was assessed as low end and with mitigation, 2 weeks was reduced to 1. The low end sanction for kicking an opponent is 4 weeks. Again there was mitigation, so the ban was reduced to 2 weeks.

My question is whether accidental contact with the head comes under "kicking".

 

[ncurd]

My question is whether accidental contact with the head comes under "kicking".

Yes it does the only mitigating circumstance is usually if your foot has any right to be there in the first place. Which is how Mike Brown got away with it earlier this year combined by the illegal play of the Irish player.

 

[RedruthRFC]

My question is whether accidental contact with the head comes under "kicking".

Neither the laws or the sanctions make any mention of whether the kick is accidental or intentional. The fact that the panel agreed that it was reckless rather than malicious (coupled with his good record and conduct) was the mitigation that turned what would have been a 4 week ban into a 2 week ban, but it didn't affect the fact that he was guilty.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

Aye, I suppose I've no real objection to the letter of the law. It seems strange that an accidental high tackle gets a shorter ban than an accidental kick, especially as the high tackles cited for this week had a far greater chance to cause injury.

It's pretty common that citing's have this element of "eh?" to them, normally because the incidents are so wide ranging that it's hard to produce a definitive scale of punishment. Some will always be disproportionate I suppose.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

It's pretty simple really and the principle has been explained many times before. The low end sanction for a dangerous tackle is 2 weeks. It was assessed as low end and with mitigation, 2 weeks was reduced to 1. The low end sanction for kicking an opponent is 4 weeks. Again there was mitigation, so the ban was reduced to 2 weeks.

The point is why is Fekitoa on the low end? If running full tilt at a player, grabbing them round the head and pulling it round is deemed low end then what is high end?

 

[RedruthRFC]

The point is why is Fekitoa on the low end? If running full tilt at a player, grabbing them round the head and pulling it round is deemed low end then what is high end?

That's a much better point / question. The only logic I can see behind it being low end is that it didn't look bad enough at the time for the referee to consider it to be a red card offence. It's hard to imagine that any player ever sets out to tackle an opponent illegally high, therefore that's pretty much an irrelevance. The tackle itself wasn't totally heinous, but was pretty ugly. That being the case, I suspect that this is one of those stupid instances of results oriented thinking - had the tackle caused an injury, I suspect that it would have been dealt with more harshly, irrespective of the fact that there would have been the same level of intent / clumsiness.

 

[spartan32]

That's a much better point / question. The only logic I can see behind it being low end is that it didn't look bad enough at the time for the referee to consider it to be a red card offence. It's hard to imagine that any player ever sets out to tackle an opponent illegally high, therefore that's pretty much an irrelevance. The tackle itself wasn't totally heinous, but was pretty ugly. That being the case, I suspect that this is one of those stupid instances of results oriented thinking - had the tackle caused an injury, I suspect that it would have been dealt with more harshly, irrespective of the fact that there would have been the same level of intent / clumsiness.

It did cause an injury and Zebo is currently a doubt for the next match because of it. And the citing officer stated that the ref made a mistake and the card should have been red. Like I said, another example of NZ getting lenient treatment. It's about time this issue was addressed. I would love to know how many critical NZ plays in either defence or attack, stemmed from foul play that was not dealt with. Are they really the unbeatable machines they are portrayed to be, or are they simply very good a breaking the rules and getting away with it that provides them with a significant advantage over every other nation?

 

[RedruthRFC]

It did cause an injury and Zebo is currently a doubt for the next match because of it. And the citing officer stated that the ref made a mistake and the card should have been red. Like I said, another example of NZ getting lenient treatment. It's about time this issue was addressed. I would love to know how many critical NZ plays in either defence or attack, stemmed from foul play that was not dealt with. Are they really the unbeatable machines they are portrayed to be, or are they simply very good a breaking the rules and getting away with it that provides them with a significant advantage over every other nation?

How did a high tackle leave him doubtful due to the aftereffects of cramping (as per the RTE website)? The fact that a ban was given to Fekitoa means that it's implicit that a straight red should have been issued. My point was that it wasn't blatantly obvious to the referee / TMO that this was the case at the time.

 

[spartan32]

How did a high tackle leave him doubtful due to the aftereffects of cramping (as per the RTE website)? The fact that a ban was given to Fekitoa means that it's implicit that a straight red should have been issued. My point was that it wasn't blatantly obvious to the referee / TMO that this was the case at the time.

Fair point. I thought Zebo had a head injury. In any event I stand by my leniency comments

 

[spartan32]

It would seem the team has been announced. Wood back in, as is Brown Kruis and May. So starting team.

1.Cole 2. Hartley 3. Mako
4. Laws 5. Kruis
6. Robshaw 7. Wood 8. Billy
9. Youngs
10. Ford
11. Daly
12. Faz
13. JJ
14. May
15. Brown

Harrison apparently dropped to the bench (surely nearing last chance saloon for him) Teo and Slade also sitting in the bench.

Nothing too surprising there, apart form Kruis's miraculous recovery.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Not surprised by Harrison's ommission, was very underwhelming last week and we know Eddie isn't his biggest fan.

Roko issue has been done to death, but ... one winger in the 23? A bit worried.

Nice to see Kruis back, wonder how fit he is.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Last we'll see of Hughes? Or is he injured?

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Nice to see Kruis back, wonder how fit he is.

As far as I can see he last played on 18th Oct and at the time said recovery time would be 4 - 7 weeks. And yet here he is waltzing straight back in, albeit no doubt he's had 24 hr treatment from top medics. At the very best he'll be ring rusty and blowing far earlier then usual, but I'm more concerned whether his injury has been allowed to heal properly. He's one of our top guys and I would really hope that he isn't being unnecessarily risked. Wonder what the view behind closed doors at Sarries is.