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

[Nudger]

3 improvements
Penalty count
Tackles
Handling

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I don't think anyone here could possibly deny that's true given all the evidence but I still think it's a pretty odd thing to focus on given how England were placed coming into the game and where they found themselves 2 minutes in. The overwhelming evidence coming into this world cup is that England don't have a realistic hope in hell to lift the trophy - that remains unchanged. But I definitely don't see how anyone could claim to have seen even more evidence of this based on the game. Or even frankly to be looking for evidence on the basis of today.

On the multiples of 3, not really sure the point being made either. There have been years especially early under EJ where England were scoring more tries than other teams, performing highly on line breaks and attacking stats etc. The England with their multiples of 3 thing is always pointed out when its the case but rarely noted when it's not.

Trying to find criticism where it's just not there. They're in a competition, comparing them to other teams in the competition is hardly ridiculous.

As for the multiples of three that was more a criticism of Argentina's discipline. England live for keeping the scoreboard ticking over, they were more or less encouraged to do this by Argentina. I'm hardly saying they've never scored a try before.

 

[BPM]

Yeah we won, but we showed 0 improvement in attack. I'm happy they won, but it doesn't change the fact that they don't look like scoring tries.

Edit: Others have said it better. England did what they needed to and fair play. Under the circumstances it's a great win. However, when they did have try scoring opportunities they still looked awful. The 4 on 2 example where May ended off the field showed how bad our backs are.

I agree with you re. the one real example of an attempted attack. However, I think it's more accurate to say we didn't try to attack and fail. We just didn't attack.

I don't doubt the likelihood that our attack is still going to be poor, but yesterday's game gives no evidence either way. We shouldn't have been chasing tries and tactically it was right not to do that. If we had, I'm pretty certain we'd have lost.

 

[BPM]

3 improvements
Penalty count
Tackles
Handling

100% agree. I'd also add intensity to the list.

 

[higgik]

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

Or bring in Lawrence and put Manu at 7

 

[Rosso Verde e Nero]

It's more than consistency though its down right abuse of the rules where 2 identical tackles are policed in two totally different ways.

If that isn't a form of racism then what is it?

The tackles were clearly not identical.

Racism? Go and give your head a wobble...

By the way, laws, not rules.

 

[AlRums]

England's Tom Curry gets hearing date after red card against Pumas

After being red carded in the third minute of England's opening World Cup fixture against Argentina on Saturday, England flanker...

www.rugbypass.com

Two of the committee hearing this are the same who cleared Farrell

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Probably a bad thing after the backlash before,
He should be cleared/red card deemed enough but he'll probably get 6 down to 3 down to 2 now

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

England's Tom Curry gets hearing date after red card against Pumas

After being red carded in the third minute of England's opening World Cup fixture against Argentina on Saturday, England flanker...

www.rugbypass.com

Two of the committee hearing this are the same who cleared Farrell

Unlike the Farrell case, can anyone really say it would be fair if he got a ban?

 

[IT157]

Unlike the Farrell case, can anyone really say it would be fair if he got a ban?

AIRums?

 

[AlRums]

AIRums?

Or anybody not English

 

[munstermuffin]

Unlike the Farrell case, can anyone really say it would be fair if he got a ban?

The duration of game or 1 game will be penalty

 

[Smurfy]

I'm not convinced that the outcome should be the deciding factor in the sanction as it is completely arbitrary and down to luck more than anything else. I think the recklessness of the action is a much fairer way of deciding. For me the Curry incident didn't result from any recklessness on Curry's part, and up until the head contact he has done nothing wrong. Anyone who suggests that he should have made a series of adjustments in the split second he had available to him in that situation is being totally unrealistic. I thought that if either of the cards was going to be upgraded it would be Carreras' because he was completely reckless regardless of where the initial contact with Ford was. Unfortunately there are always going to be bad physical contacts in rugby, and it is absolutely necessary that these be reduced in numbers, but I believe that eliminating recklessness through sanctions is a better way of going about it.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Honestly you read some of the press over the last couple of days and it's ludicrous. Everyone, including players, getting way too carried away by having worked hard and executed the most basic of game plans quite well. Ford being hailed as a "mastermind" by Manu and a "genius" by Genge, the latter also saying he believes we can win the whole thing.

The overreaction reminds me of the 19 semi. It was a good performance, certainly in the context of what had gone before, but no more than that.

Let's see what we're like against a decent team - which we may not find out until the semis.

 

[OldSchoolRugga]

Awful game. However, it was great to see Ford using the drop goal to good effect. Pity it only has real value in World Cups. Argentina were really disappointing.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Apologies if this has already been talked about.

Mental stat.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

That's mad

 

[AngloScotsHybrid]

I'm not convinced that the outcome should be the deciding factor in the sanction as it is completely arbitrary and down to luck more than anything else. I think the recklessness of the action is a much fairer way of deciding. For me the Curry incident didn't result from any recklessness on Curry's part, and up until the head contact he has done nothing wrong. Anyone who suggests that he should have made a series of adjustments in the split second he had available to him in that situation is being totally unrealistic. I thought that if either of the cards was going to be upgraded it would be Carreras' because he was completely reckless regardless of where the initial contact with Ford was. Unfortunately there are always going to be bad physical contacts in rugby, and it is absolutely necessary that these be reduced in numbers, but I believe that eliminating recklessness through sanctions is a better way of going about it.

I totally agree with this. Even with criminal offences the intention is one of the most important factors in whether you are found guilty. You dont get found guilty for things that were an accident.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I totally agree with this. Even with criminal offences the intention is one of the most important factors in whether you are found guilty. You dont get found guilty for things that were an accident.

That's not very accurate. Intent (mens rea) generally has a very low burden of proof once the act (actus rea) is proven.

The way I see it: The offence is contact with the head, the intention is making a tackle and the duty of care tied to this is doing it in a safe manner. Mitigation is considered after.

Curry was upright in that tackle, the duty of care is failed at this point imo. Once you hit a guy in the head with poor body position your only hope is a low force "passive" hit to mitigate.

I'm very ok with the laws like this. There'll be unlucky scenarios like Curry's, because there's not been a prominent incident like this before but players are wise to it now.

 

[AngloScotsHybrid]

Whats the difference between what Stander did here and what Carreras did to Ford?
<iframe ***le="vimeo-player" src="" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>