[November Tests 2016 EOYT] England vs. South Africa (12/11/2016)

[TheOvalBall]

Not to burst any English supporter's bubble, i'm sure you are pleased with the win, but South Africa are just downright dreadful.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Not to burst any English supporter's bubble, i'm sure you are pleased with the win, but South Africa are just downright dreadful.

Yep, but still ends a run of losing to the Springboks which has stretched 10 years and 12 games. SA were England's bogey team for so long.

 

[McTallshort]

Not to burst any English supporter's bubble, i'm sure you are pleased with the win, but South Africa are just downright dreadful.

And they have been for a while to be fair. Still a Grand Slam, series win in Aus and now ending a 10 year drought against the Bokke is reason enough to be optimistic.

 

[Zed]

What a load of cock!



There is nothing to consider. Nothing you have said counteracts the guidance referees receive from WR via their unions.

What the receiver had to do is irrelevant; the receiver is not mentioned in Law 12

(In fact, I will be adding that clip to my collection of examples of passes that look forward but aren't for the next time I hold a training session on Law 12.)

Not sure about the exact definition of the rules, but from a rugby player/supporters perspective it looked forward. Marginal, but forward. Immaterial really, it didn't have an outcome on the game. One of those calls, like Laws's try, where you'd accept the refs decision either way.

 

[The Jones Boy]

I thought the Boks looked alright. There were times when they bossed the game in the first half and England were conceding a pile of penalties, some quite cynical.
Johnny May took his try very well, the poor lads been out for a long time with injury too, good to see Eddie give him a chance.
The English backs are starting to come together and although as expected they were a bit rusty they put some good moves together.
The Boks are still tough but until the politics of revenge back home relent so the best players can be chosen the Boks will continue to struggle a bit at the top level, however, a good coach would still make them a very competitive outfit at the highest level. Trouble is, they don't have a good coach.

 

[Peat]

I thought the Boks looked alright. There were times when they bossed the game in the first half and England were conceding a pile of penalties, some quite cynical.
Johnny May took his try very well, the poor lads been out for a long time with injury too, good to see Eddie give him a chance.
The English backs are starting to come together and although as expected they were a bit rusty they put some good moves together.
The Boks are still tough but until the politics of revenge back home relent so the best players can be chosen the Boks will continue to struggle a bit at the top level, however, a good coach would still make them a very competitive outfit at the highest level. Trouble is, they don't have a good coach.

When SA were shovelling it sideways in the second half, that was my main thought.

Jones would love coaching this SA side. They could play his attacking pattern of crash crash crash and give it to the speedsters really well. But we have Jones and they have Coetzee and I thought that was a big difference. SA had us in trouble at times but there was no structure and there was no deliberate attempt to target England's weaknesses. Not sending a jumper up against Launchbury at the front every time for instance.

And Colombia is right that Etzebeth going off caused an immediate and noticeable drop in SA's performance, particularly at scrum time. I don't think SA were winning the match with him there but it helped.

Saying it was caused by a Vunipola headbutt is ridiculous though.

As too is ignoring the difference Itoje makes to our pack - he is irreplaceable, everything Kruis does can be replaced.


Anyway. England's performance.

Standard EJ game it feels like. We hustled and were clinical. Defence held up mostly although SA didn't pose the threat of Australia. Didn't really dominate up front but we didn't get dominated either and we made some great inroads in the forwards at times.

No one had a bad game. Some guys were quiet or made mistakes to go with the good stuff, some guys were only okay, but no one had a bad game.

Uhm. Yeah. Doesn't feel like there's a lot to say. Good game, keep on trucking.

 

[BakkiesBokke]

The Boks are still tough but until the politics of revenge back home relent so the best players can be chosen the Boks will continue to struggle a bit at the top level, however, a good coach would still make them a very competitive outfit at the highest level. Trouble is, they don't have a good coach.

I personally don't think the current Bok woes are related to politics. The team is not playing as a cohesive unit in defence or attack mode. There are obviously some serious coaching and leadership issues.

I don't think Coetzee was unqualified for the job, but the defensive qualities of his Stormers side a few years ago certainly don't seem to have found their way into this Bok team.

If we perform poorly in the next few games, he should resign. Hey, sometimes things don't work out, like Mourinho at Manchester United, and Mickey Arthur with Australia's cricket team (he was great with SA beforehand and is doing a great job with Pakistan in Tests)

 

[TheOvalBall]

I personally don't think the current Bok woes are related to politics. The team is not playing as a cohesive unit in defence or attack mode. There are obviously some serious coaching and leadership issues.

I don't think Coetzee was unqualified for the job, but the defensive qualities of his Stormers side a few years ago certainly don't seem to have found their way into this Bok team.

If we perform poorly in the next few games, he should resign. Hey, sometimes things don't work out, like Mourinho at Manchester United, and Mickey Arthur with Australia's cricket team (he was great with SA beforehand and is doing a great job with Pakistan in Tests)

You cannot be serious ? Even Heineke was more qualified and he was out of his depth.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

As soon as I hear people say the ball went (insert distance here​) forwards, I know immediately that they don't understand either the forward throw Law or the guidance to referees.

I presume you are talking about this try?

https://youtu.be/kdPNu_TlEX0?t=126

There is nothing wrong with the pass.

1. It was made to look worse because the passer was falling and slowing, thereby exaggerating the apparent forward travel of the ball.

2. The forward travel of the ball was purely down to momentum of the passer. If the passer was standing still and he executed the exact same passing action, the ball would not have gone forward from him.

The issue is, and has been ever since 1948 (when the RFU issued a Case Law Ruling), whether the ball was thrown in a forward direction, NOT whether the ball traveled forwards.

[TEXTAREA]Case Law: "If a player passes to one of his own team who is in line with him parallel to the dead ball line, both players running towards the opponents goal line, must not the pass be a forward pass in relation to the ground, owing to their forward movement?"

R.F.U. Ruling: "Yes, but it is pointed out that the definition of a throw-forward is not decided on relation to the ground, but on the direction of the propulsion of the ball by the hand or arm of the player passing the ball"
- as published in Royds, 1948[/TEXTAREA]

Saying that the ball traveled x metres forwards has no relevance to Law 12.

I do understand the law, I don't think the pass was in a backwards direction and I think the distance it went forward simply reinforces that, I think he offloaded forwards.

 

[smartcooky]

I do understand the law, I don't think the pass was in a backwards direction and I think the distance it went forward simply reinforces that, I think he offloaded forwards.

Firstly, a throw does not have to be backwards, it only has to be not forwards, so flat is not forwards

Secondly, I maintain that the ball keeps the momentum of the passer, in other words it travels forwards at the same speed that the passer is traveling forwards (ignore the ball relative to the ground and watch only the ball and the passers head)

Note that the ball keeps pace with the passer. A ball thrown forwards will have the forward momentum of the passer PLUS the additional momentum given by the passer as he throws the ball in the direction he is traveling. This is not rocket science, it is simple physics that any year 12 science pupil understands.

This clip proves that the passer did not impart any additional forward momentum over and above his own. If he had, the ball would have got ahead of him. It didn't.... QED!

 

[BakkiesBokke]

You cannot be serious ? Even Heineke was more qualified and he was out of his depth.

At the time of appointment, Coetzee was the only SOUTH AFRICAN coach who looked qualified to take the job, with the exception of Ackermann (who was my preference, although he hadn't yet had his 2016 Super 18 runner-up season.)

The Stormers made the Super Rugby final in Coetzee's first year in charge, losing to the Bulls, and the Stormers made the Super Rugby play-offs in four of the six seasons they had under Coetzee. Since the introduction of the conference format, the Stormers were SA conference champions for three of the five years they had under Coetzee.

Whilst I think he has been a disastrous, "out of his depth" Bok coach (who should resign), I think it is hard to argue that he was not at least among the most qualified to take on the
job (at the time), alongside Ackermann, assuming SARU wanted a South African coach.

I would like to see him resign and for either Ackermann or a foreign coach to take over (unlikely I know).

 

[spartan32]

Why does anyone care about either the comical England try (no knock on by the way) and the SA try (I have no opinion). It wouldn't have made a difference and SA still would have looked a shadow of their former selves and England still would have looked like the team in the ascendancy within World Rugby.

Arguably we have the best coach in the world at the moment and a catchment of excellent players who are slowly getting better. That game doesn't demonstrate that we are world class, but it is another win over a SH team. We would be expected to easily dispatch Fiji and The Argies , and the the Aussies will certainly be very worried. When was the last time an Englishman could say that?

 

[jomjom]

Why does anyone care about either the comical England try (no knock on by the way) and the SA try (I have no opinion). It wouldn't have made a difference and SA still would have looked a shadow of their former selves and England still would have looked like the team in the ascendancy within World Rugby.

Arguably we have the best coach in the world at the moment and a catchment of excellent players who are slowly getting better. That game doesn't demonstrate that we are world class, but it is another win over a SH team. We would be expected to easily dispatch Fiji and The Argies , and the the Aussies will certainly be very worried. When was the last time an Englishman could say that?

It's great to see England so competitive again. Not that they truly dipped that much in quality under SL (I think the WC fiasco was unlucky (in addition to some poor out of position player selection)), but they certainly weren't reaching their full potential. Eddie Jones is helping them realise it and he's done a mighty fine job so far. It's a pity Eng vs NZ is not until 2018. Anyways, Ireland and England will both be unbeaten until the end of the 6N, so the final match on the final weekend will certainly be the one to see who's the real king in the North

PS seeing South Africa play like this is sad. It must be even more frustrating as a Bok fan, knowing that there are some quality players in the squad. Is AC really the only viable coach right now for the Boks?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Firstly, a throw does not have to be backwards, it only has to be not forwards, so flat is not forwards

Secondly, I maintain that the ball keeps the momentum of the passer, in other words it travels forwards at the same speed that the passer is traveling forwards (ignore the ball relative to the ground and watch only the ball and the passers head)

Note that the ball keeps pace with the passer. A ball thrown forwards will have the forward momentum of the passer PLUS the additional momentum given by the passer as he throws the ball in the direction he is traveling. This is not rocket science, it is simple physics that any year 12 science pupil understands.

This clip proves that the passer did not impart any additional forward momentum over and above his own. If he had, the ball would have got ahead of him. It didn't.... QED!

Well looking at it again carefully it does seem flat, however you really should stop being such a condescending prick. I have a masters in engineering so know about this stuff a "12 year old science pupil" would understand.

 

[smartcooky]

Well looking at it again carefully it does seem flat, however you really should stop being such a condescending prick. I have a masters in engineering so know about this stuff a "12 year old science pupil" would understand.

Its your choice to interpret my comments "condescending". I think of them as educational

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Note that the ball keeps pace with the passer.

Speaking of 12 year old science pupils, if you are running at full speed and throw the ball flat, the ball would not keep up with the passer when watched from the side.
Friction would make the ball appear to slow down vs the passer. Friction would affect the passer too but he keeps putting energy to keep up the speed, the ball does not.
As someone who likes to educate you'd appreciate getting the science right, i assume.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Its your choice to interpret my comments "condescending". I think of them as educational

Implying someone has less knowledge than a 12 year old is being condescending. You weren't being educational as I already knew the rule.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Implying someone has less knowledge than a 12 year old is being condescending. You weren't being educational as I already knew the rule.

Tbf, he didn't say a 12 year old, he said a year 12, so lower 6th Former, or 16/17 year old, so someone who if they still did science would be learning it to quite a high standard.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Tbf, he didn't say a 12 year old, he said a year 12, so lower 6th Former, or 16/17 year old, so someone who if they still did science would be learning it to quite a high standard.

Thank you for clearing that up, I grew up in forms not years.
Ragerancher, can you take your one man crusade to private mail please, your constant desire to get into a battle with cooky over semantics and nit picking rules etc either needs it's own thread or a PM. It's getting rather dull having another thread filling up with your private war. Go ahead and have it by all means as it's obviously pretty important to you but please don't clog up the interesting threads with it mate.

 

[Ospervat]

Spot on.

http://www.planetrugby.com/news/decline-of-the-springboks-is-bad-for-rugby-not-just-south-africa/

And to make matters worse AC is blaming the players 100%.

Time for the IRB to step up, demand an explanation and get some clarity on what is going to change within SARU to prevent the decline of SA rugby beyond the point of no return.