[RWC2023] England vs Argentina (09/09/2023)

[Which Tyler]

Well played England, Ford and Lawes especially, honourable mentions for Itoje, Earl, Mitchel and Tuilagi ().

Red card that early, you have to play low-energy rugby, and you have to execute impeccably - which we mostly did. We kept the score-board ticking over, didn't waste any exertion banging away at the line for phase after phase searching for a try, just get deep into the Arg. half, and take the points.
After the card, we calmed down, and tightened up, actually looked fired up for the first time in 4 years!
Established parity through controlled aggression, established that we could threaten the score board from our own half (even if Daly was missing them - it still changes behaviour), then towards the end of the first half, we knocked Arg. on their arses and left them shell-shocked

3 from a drop goals is a much heavier psychological blow than 3 from a penalty. With a penalty, you can improve your discipline and not give any more chances; with a drop goal, especially from near-enough the halfway line, there's just nothing you can do about it. On the receiving end, it almost feels like cheating (as we remember from 1999). It's a hell of a skill, and he executed perfectly.

Confidence will be riding high throughout the squad off the back of that - whether we can harness that, and continue to play with such cohesion, only time will tell - again, Borthwick seems like the wrong person to try, but this should be Sinfield's bag all the way.
We'll (probably) need to show more than this to get past the QFs, and a LOT more to get past a SF; but it's just about possible that that performance will galvanise us, everything starts clicking in training, we shift from thinking that we can do it, to knowing that we can do it.
I'm personally back to where I was ahead of the warm-ups - QF is par for this England, and we're not very good, but we're better than we've been showing, and we might, just might, be able to outperform our recent past.

In addition, that was far more of an iceman performance than Farrell has ever shown for England.

 

[AngloScotsHybrid]

Given that England seem to play better with 14 men maybe they should just start with 14 against Japan.

 

[BPM]

I think the most important thing to try to bottle is the spirit and intensity.

We had no chance to see our attack last night so it's impossible to gauge where this is. Based upon the warm-ups, it's very poor, but by the same yardstick, I would never have expected last night's defensive performance so who knows?

No one will be fearing England right now, but after last night, I'd be surprised if we haven't earned universal respect.

That said, we can't allow a backs to the wall victory to paper over all of the other cracks.

 

[Crash Hamster]

Re red cards:

Insisting players tackle lower and avoid the head is laudable, but there are always going to be instances where it's a complete accident and the player doesn't 'deserve' a red card. There will also always be incidences where repeat offenders (for instance those whose name is an anagram of Fowen Arrell) show that no learning has taken place.

I think we just have to accept this in the name of player safety.

The mitigation can be applied in assessing the length of ban (nothing for Curry would be fair, I feel).

We also need any player on the receiving end of head contact to be automatically sent for an HIA.

Re England's attack:

There was understandably not much of it, but what there was demonstated a lamentable lack of the drawing and the passing. Much to work on for Uncle Sniff.

 

[Which Tyler]

On the cards, time to put my opinions above the parapet, acknowledging that I'm significantly further to the "player safety" end of the line than average for this board.

For me, "rugby incident" is where a players takes the mitigating action, but it wasn't enough. You did everything right, but **** still happened. Otherwise, even if accidental, it's still illegal - a precedent established 10ish years ago with challenges in the air or being jumped into.
As the aim is to reduce concussive injuries, it doesn't really matter if it was deliberate or not - the brain is getting shaken about inside the skull.

For Curry, specifically:
It's one of those that (for me) is "harsh but fair" accidental, but he had options he chose not to take.
He could have taken a step back / delayed his entry, watching Mallia's foot to judge his landing, which would have allowed him to bend his hips and hit lower, aim for the midriff, bend him in 2 and drive him backwards a couple of metres in the tackle, leaving Daly (I think Daly) was the other tackler) on his feet and able to jackal for the ball.
Alternatively he could have realised that he'd cocked up, and Mallia was closer to him than he expected, and bailed from making the tackle, leaving it to Daly (?), who was also there, and was plenty low enough. I think it was May who did precisely that later in the game, ref and TMO looked at it, and decided no fault or penalty (can't remember now)
But he didn't. He chose to watch Mallia's shoulders, to judge where the ball was, so that he could hit around the ball, and either dislodge it, or wrap it up in the tackle to slow presentation - which meant that when Mallia obeyed the laws of gravity, he was hitting shoulder to shoulder, and head to head.
Curry could have mitigated, but didn't, so whilst accidental, he doesn't get mitigation applied in the review process, and red is the decision that's correct in law (and IMO, needs to be the correct decision if we're trying to get players to make difference decisions).

For Carreras, specifically:
Did Ford's shoulder absorb most of the impact before reaching the head, or not - I didn't see enough during the match to make that call, so have to trust that the bunker TMO did. If the full(ish) force went into Ford's head, then it really should have been a red as well. It was certainly more reckless but a less dangerous contact in terms of concussion (but not in terms of whiplash).

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I think the most important thing to try to bottle is the spirit and intensity.

We had no chance to see our attack last night so it's impossible to gauge where this is. Based upon the warm-ups, it's very poor, but by the same yardstick, I would never have expected last night's defensive performance so who knows?

No one will be fearing England right now, but after last night, I'd be surprised if we haven't earned universal respect.

That said, we can't allow a backs to the wall victory to paper over all of the other cracks.

Universal respect might be over stating the case a tad

But we were committed, our defenders looked like they'd met each other before and we took our scoring opportunities. These should be the bare minimum, but from where we've been they're a cause for celebration.

Did we make Argentina look worse than they are? Probably a bit.

Did Argentina make Argentina look worse than they are? Yep, with knobs on. They'll be furious and embarrassed by that.

We probably won't get an idea of where we're really at until the QF. And even the likely opponent there is likely to be moderate, although being knocked out by either Wal or Jones Aus are both unpalatable in the extreme.

 

[BPM]

On the cards, time to put my opinions above the parapet, acknowledging that I'm significantly further to the "player safety" end of the line than average for this board.

For me, "rugby incident" is where a players takes the mitigating action, but it wasn't enough. You did everything right, but **** still happened. Otherwise, even if accidental, it's still illegal - a precedent established 10ish years ago with challenges in the air or being jumped into.
As the aim is to reduce concussive injuries, it doesn't really matter if it was deliberate or not - the brain is getting shaken about inside the skull.

For Curry, specifically:
It's one of those that (for me) is "harsh but fair" accidental, but he had options he chose not to take.
He could have taken a step back / delayed his entry, watching Mallia's foot to judge his landing, which would have allowed him to bend his hips and hit lower, aim for the midriff, bend him in 2 and drive him backwards a couple of metres in the tackle, leaving Daly (I think Daly) was the other tackler) on his feet and able to jackal for the ball.
Alternatively he could have realised that he'd cocked up, and Mallia was closer to him than he expected, and bailed from making the tackle, leaving it to Daly (?), who was also there, and was plenty low enough. I think it was May who did precisely that later in the game, ref and TMO looked at it, and decided no fault or penalty (can't remember now)
But he didn't. He chose to watch Mallia's shoulders, to judge where the ball was, so that he could hit around the ball, and either dislodge it, or wrap it up in the tackle to slow presentation - which meant that when Mallia obeyed the laws of gravity, he was hitting shoulder to shoulder, and head to head.
Curry could have mitigated, but didn't, so whilst accidental, he doesn't get mitigation applied in the review process, and red is the decision that's correct in law (and IMO, needs to be the correct decision if we're trying to get players to make difference decisions).

For Carreras, specifically:
Did Ford's shoulder absorb most of the impact before reaching the head, or not - I didn't see enough during the match to make that call, so have to trust that the bunker TMO did. If the full(ish) force went into Ford's head, then it really should have been a red as well. It was certainly more reckless but a less dangerous contact in terms of concussion (but not in terms of whiplash).

In an ideal world, I totally agree. However, in this kind of situation, is it genuinely realistic for to the tackler to make all these adjustments in milliseconds though?

Even if Curry had realised he had 'cocked up', I think he was committed to colliding with Mallia. I'm not sure he could have changed that much? Perhaps he could have made more effort to absorb Mallia's momentum as opposed to matching it with his own, but even then I'm not sure that split second is enough time to make the adjustment.

The Sigren incident in the Chile vs. Japan game is way worse IMO and only got a yellow

 

[BPM]

Universal respect might be over stating the case a tad

But we were committed, our defenders looked like they'd met each other before and we took our scoring opportunities. These should be the bare minimum, but from where we've been they're a cause for celebration.

Did we make Argentina look worse than they are? Probably a bit.

Did Argentina make Argentina look worse than they are? Yep, with knobs on. They'll be furious and embarrassed by that.

We probably won't get an idea of where we're really at until the QF. And even the likely opponent there is likely to be moderate, although being knocked out by either Wal or Jones Aus are both unpalatable in the extreme.

I'll clarify by saying that I meant 'universal respect' amongst the other players. I'm not talking about folks on the internet.

Any player is going to look at that game and say 'fair play to England' I reckon.

 

[Which Tyler]

In an ideal world, I totally agree. However, in this kind of situation, is it genuinely realistic for to the tackler to make all these adjustments in milliseconds though?

Even if Curry had realised he had 'cocked up', I think he was committed to colliding with Mallia. I'm not sure he could have changed that much? Perhaps he could have made more effort to absorb Mallia's momentum as opposed to matching it with his own, but even then I'm not sure that split second is enough time to make the adjustment.

The Sigren incident in the Chile vs. Japan game is way worse IMO and only got a yellow

TBH - if you've left it milliseconds, then you've left it too late already, and you're just f***ed. I think he had a clear view, and had more than milliseconds; the milliseconds was how much Mallia dipped on landing - which IMO is something he should have taken into account before putting himself into that position (as Daly[?] did) - I really must look up if it was actually Daly...
To bail out, he'd have needed to be more passive, and at least trying to take evasive action - it would probably have still been a head contact, but with less force, and with mitigation, which ought to be enough to lower it to a yellow, or even a nothing if bailed well enough.




ETA: Sorry, I forgot to mention this, I fully agree with CH that Mallia, Curry and Ford should all have gone off for HIAs. If there's an illegal head contact, then by definition there's a potentially concussive event, and by definition, an HIA should be done.

 

[Zed]

Universal respect might be over stating the case a tad

A few people definitely surprised by their discipline and clinical play. It's enough to get them to the semis. They'll need something else to get to the final.

 

[Astrodragon]

Oddly both Japan and Chile seem perfectly happy at playing attacking rugby while down a man.

 

[TommiG88]

Oddly both Japan and Chile seem perfectly happy at playing attacking rugby while down a man.

 

[BPM]

A few people definitely surprised by their discipline and clinical play. It's enough to get them to the semis. They'll need something else to get to the final.

I totally agree. One defiant performance doesn't make us a good team or indeed solve a lot of our problems. However, it might well be the catalyst to getting closer to being one.

I don't think anyone is getting carried away.

 

[BPM]

Oddly both Japan and Chile seem perfectly happy at playing attacking rugby while down a man.

Very different with a yellow than a red though … you can do it for 10mins. Not 77.

 

[Which Tyler]

Oddly both Japan and Chile seem perfectly happy at playing attacking rugby while down a man.

Because being a man down for 10 minutes is exactly the same as being a man down for 78 minutes

 

[ncurd]

Because being a man down for 10 minutes is exactly the same as being a man down for 78 minutes

And the quality of the opposition is exactly the same.

I swear in this thread people have never seen what usually happens to a team that spend the game a man down before. I ******* love running rugby there's a reason I want France to win this tournament so teams know they can focus on attack again instead of what SA, Wales and England plan.

But being a down for 70 minuites and the other 7 14 v 14. You simply can't do it. That was the only way to win yesterday and England excuted brilliantly.

Sure they'll go out in the semis but that's alway been the case. If we can at least put in some performances like that along the way we cam hopefully have something to build on.

 

[top prop]

I'd have to say that the red to curry and all the other yellows staying yellow stinks of official racism, the head contact in Japan vs Chile today was an almost carbon copy yet the Chile capt stayed at a yellow card...



What a farce

 

[TommiG88]

 

[BPM]

I'd have to say that the red to curry and all the other yellows staying yellow stinks of official racism, the head contact in Japan vs Chile today was an almost carbon copy yet the Chile capt stayed at a yellow card...



What a farce

OK pal … it would be nice to see more consistency but to call it 'official racism' is a big leap. Perhaps talk to someone who has actually experienced racism before you say stuff like that …

 

[TommiG88]

OK pal … it would be nice to see more consistency but to call it 'official racism' is a big leap. Perhaps talk to someone who has actually experienced racism before you say stuff like that …

I do love these World Cup forum newcomers. They bring a form of entertainment