RWC Quarter Final: England - France (08-10-2011, 20:30)

[Nobblynick]

Just a quick question : Why did Estebanez get a 3 week ban for his spear tackle (who honestly didn't seem to be nasty at all), and Armitage only one game ?

Armitage 'pleaded guilty' which reduced his ban.

 

[Aristodemus]

I think the game relies on Flood getting the nod at 10, if he does, we will win and win well.

 

[psychic duck]

Just a quick question : Why did Estebanez get a 3 week ban for his spear tackle (who honestly didn't seem to be nasty at all), and Armitage only one game ?

I think the penalty on "spear tackles" are too harsh, it is now almost impossible to execute what used to be known as a dump tackle without getting penalised, although I know it's important to keep the players safe, but now pretty much any tackle which looks a bit erm ... let's say spectacular is now a penalty which I think is harsh

I would much rather they spent time eradicating dirty thugs who eye gouge such as Bakkies Botha and Schalk Burger from the game rather than big hits

 

[Aout]

It looked like a late shoulder charge to the head to me, one week ban is fine.

Only worrying thing for England in this game is France's ability to go from terrible to amazing in the space of 2 minutes.

I doubt this will happen, for 2 reasons.

First because even when we sucked in the past, we still had a dominant pack. Now our front five has been smashed by kiwis, mainly because our 2 main props are injured (Domingo and Mas), and both Servat and Szarweski don't seem to have fully recovered from their injuries. This is a very concerning point, because 4 the 4 last years, we have never ever been dominated in scrums.

The second point is our fly half. Parra is likely to start at 10 once again, and he's just not good enough. He doesn't have that magical spark that Trinh Duc can have and that makes the difference. He can't attack the advantage line and he struggle in defence because of his size. And with our scrum being dominated, it's quite hard for our flankers to do a decent job in order to cover Parra's defending zone.

However if Marc chooses to select TD at ten, we'll probably end up with something like that :

9. Parra
10. TD
11. Clerc
12. Mermoz
13. Marty
14. Palisson
15. Medard.

which means, we'll play with :

- a 9 who played ten over the 2 last games
- a 10 who wasn't in the starting XV over the 3 last games
- a 12 who has been rubbish so far (I do like Mermoz, but he has shown nothing since he returned from injury in August against Ireland)
- a 13 who played 80 mn over the 4 last games
- a winger who played one game (Palisson) since the beginning of the tournament because of his injury
- a fullback who played 3 games on the wing since the beginning of the rwc
- and Vincent Clerc.

Players are probably talented enough, but you can't expect anything from them in such circumstances. And they're going to play a quarter final against England, which is the team we struggle the most against, with a scrum which is likely to be dominated and with a ref... well, not the best ref of the planet.

 

[mustardcharlie]

How's it a ridiculous decision if you haven't seen it? They got it spot on. One match ban and no fuss after that.

What I mean mp, is that I didn't see anything to be fussed about? Armitage was going for the smother tackle, as it was a dangerous situation for England and the two collided. I saw the move and I've watched it several times afterwards, the ref and linesman surely cannot have missed it, none of the Jocks lift an arm in protest and think that if you're going to ban people for stuff like that, you're in the wrong sport. Estebanez is a different issue. He committed a deliberate foul which could have resulted in serious injury. Armitage doesn't like the suits and the suits don't like Armitage. You wouldn't have got a ban for that in Gaelic football, Aussie Rules, Hurling or even Kickball. I've seen worse in women's hockey matches without anybody batting an eyelid.

 

[mustardcharlie]

I think the penalty on "spear tackles" are too harsh, it is now almost impossible to execute what used to be known as a dump tackle without getting penalised, although I know it's important to keep the players safe, but now pretty much any tackle which looks a bit erm ... let's say spectacular is now a penalty which I think is harsh

I would much rather they spent time eradicating dirty thugs who eye gouge such as Bakkies Botha and Schalk Burger from the game rather than big hits

A "dump tackle", pd, was originally was when you met someone head on, came upwards, got your shoulder under their ribcage and drove them onto their back. (legal) A "spear tackle" is when you lift someone's legs higher than their head and smash them into the ground. (illegal and always has been).

 

[mustardcharlie]

Btw, just in case anybody thinks I am being a bit of a one-eyed Englishman on this, I thought the tackle (on Ashton) which ultimately led to England's try vs Argentine was a damn good hit. I would have been seething if I was an Argentine fan. But I ain't.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I think 'previous' should only be considered when the incident is similar. I mean, Armitage has previous of being generally aggressive and petulant, but it would be unfair if that made us analyse all of his misdemeanors such as high tackles as being deliberate and aggressive; anyone can do them if they get the tackle wrong.

In answer to you Aout, in a spear tackle which lasts a couple of seconds theres plenty of time to get yourself and the opposition player under control or to at least ensure his safety. To be fair, a high tackle is a split second where you go too high. For me, that explains the disparity in the ban lengths.

 

[Teh Mite]

I think 'previous' should only be considered when the incident is similar. I mean, Armitage has previous of being generally aggressive and petulant, but it would be unfair if that made us analyse all of his misdemeanors such as high tackles as being deliberate and aggressive; anyone can do them if they get the tackle wrong.

In answer to you Aout, in a spear tackle which lasts a couple of seconds theres plenty of time to get yourself and the opposition player under control or to at least ensure his safety. To be fair, a high tackle is a split second where you go too high. For me, that explains the disparity in the ban lengths.

So what about repeatedly throwing pinches at other players and assaulting/abusing off-field officials (delete depending on who you listen to)?

 

[Mr.cyclopede]

Personnaly, wouldn' t be surprise to see Traille as 12 instead of Mermoz, especially vs England.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

So what about repeatedly throwing pinches at other players and assaulting/abusing off-field officials (delete depending on who you listen to)?

Neither of which he just did, which is why they're technically not relevant to a, potentially accidental, high tackle


However I do think that it should all be taken into account -

 

[SpanishBob]

I think the game relies on Flood getting the nod at 10, if he does, we will win and win well.

Agree

 

[Seaton]

Neither of which he just did, which is why they're technically not relevant to a, potentially accidental, high tackle


However I do think that it should all be taken into account -

Feel like I'm stoking the flames here, but does anyone remember the grin on Armitage's face whilst Paterson was being treated.

Seemed awful pleased with himself watching it replayed on the big screen.

 

[JW.]

Feel like I'm stoking the flames here, but does anyone remember the grin on Armitage's face whilst Paterson was being treated.

Seemed awful pleased with himself watching it replayed on the big screen.

He thought he made a big hit during the match I geuss. We all know how it feels to see a player stay down a little bit longer if you hit them hard . Might feel a bit bad if its serious but if they're just shaken you can't blame yourself for feeling good.

On a different subject why is it only monday?! 4 days to go!

 

[letaba23]

Go England

I'm South African but fully behind England - this might sound strange to many but arrogance of our South African media make me sick. The smugness of the local analysts is especially annoying. Patronising the Northern Hemisphere teams to within an inch of their lives. Prevailing feeling is one of slight annoyance that a NH team will make it to the final by default. Hope England or Wales win it!

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

You and Icemn can shake hands

 

[Surefire]

Personnaly, wouldn' t be surprise to see Traille as 12 instead of Mermoz, especially vs England.

At this point I am not totally upset with this. Although I don't know how excited Traille would be, he has had a difficult campaign on/off the field. I really would like to see the Parra experiment end, but I think Lievremont has made his choice. Parra is a great player but this is asking too much. Rugbyrama states that Dusautoir should be ready in time which is helpful.

Maybe the England team will stay out all night before the match

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

So what about repeatedly throwing pinches at other players and assaulting/abusing off-field officials (delete depending on who you listen to)?

irrelevant to be honest. My point is that you can't possibly read common misdemeanours of the game such as high tackles as evidence of personality flaws and consequently treat them more severely.

 

[B10]

Tweet from Dan Roan BBC

• Unbelievably another controversy about to hit England's rugby team. Times have story on Manu Tuilagi. Press conference here in Auckland soon@danroan 2 mins ago

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Apparently it's because he wore the mouthguard the Tigers gave him (much like Alesana did) instead of the IRB one....