London 7's

Only just started watching this as England play Wales. Wales got an early try but England have just edged ahead with two of their own. Still two minutes to play.

Scotland lost to France, so it'll be an uphill climb to match last week's heroics.

Wales scored a try just as the clock ticked into the red so there is no time for a restart.

14-10 to England.

England are 4th in the series standings but we still lose regularly to lower ranked sides and rarely beat New Zealand or South Africa these days. Even Fiji are looking a tougher proposition under our old coach.

That was a pretty poor perfomance by England. They seem to be slow starters at the moment and just seemed a bit dozy.

Still, good to get the win.

Quite a tough group this one. NZ look unstoppable.

In terms of the series they are. Even if they hadn't got out of the pools, they could win the series with a shield win. Another great year for Sir Titch.   

Is it on TV somewhere?

Sky Sports 2

Cheers!

England beat NZ!!!



Slightly controversial forward pass given against NZ but these things even themselves out, don't they?

NZ definitely hard done by on that try but they had a couple of smaller decisions go their way.

Thought England played that yellow card strangely. They got a try straight away but then kicked the ball away when using the overlap looked the better option.

Still, we don't beat NZ too often, so we'll take it. Gives us France instead of South Africa in the quarter-finals.

Yeah, the 'forward' pass was an odd decision.

NZ probably should have received a yellow earlier than they did for repeated infringements though. England bossed the breakdown when it mattered.

France definitely a much easier quarter than SA.

Looking forward to some cracking games tomorrow.

NZ/SA and Samoa/Fiji should be immense.

Which decisions when NZ's way? From the opening passage of play when NZ were penalised for forming a maul that referee may as well have worn an England shirt.

It was a howler of a performance.

Tim mickleson was entirely within his rights to make the tackle. That's not even a penalty let alone a yellow card.

Mickleson was the tackler. He needed to get to his feet before rejoining play.

Nope. He needed to release the tacklee - which he did. Players effecting two consecutive tackles occurs regularly in both the 7 and 15 man form of the game, there is nothing wrong with it.

While we are on it, let's consider the first (of many) england penalise of the gamę. England recover the kick off and the player is held upright. It was a maul (ball not on the ground) therefore should've been a scrum feed NZ, not a penalty England. There couldn't have been a ruck (ball clearly not on the ground) and so logically if anything the only penalty that could've been awarded was the sequence based penalty for the "tackled" England player not releasing.

Scramble, for a 'Welshman' this England win has got you quite riled.



It's almost like another poster that used to be on here. I can't quite remember his username right now...

NZ will face SA in the quarterfinals but already they are guaranteed their 12th series victory out of 15 possible series victories so good luck to whoever wins this tournament but for me it's NZ who take away the real plaudits from this tournament. SA looked really good at the start of the year but NZ came back stronger at key times.

kia, NZ are worthy winners.

Other sides deserve their moment in the sun too which is why England's win today (especially on home soil in front of a huge crowd) is good from my point of view.

I say it to calm down Scramble.   

Of course whoever wins deserves their moment in the spotlight.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:I day it to calm down Scramble.   

Of course whoever wins deserves their moment in the spotlight.

Good plan. He was getting a bit agitated

Cyril wrote:kia, NZ are worthy winners.

Other sides deserve their moment in the sun too which is why England's win today (especially on home soil in front of a huge crowd) is good from my point of view.

If one can "deserve" a "victory" under such blatant circumstances then sobeit. It reminds me of those tours to South Africa back in the dark ages when home referees were de rigeur. If that's what it takes for England to win and that is seen as "good for the game" then who am I to point out the obvious assault on the spirit of sporting integrity.

Scramble wrote:

Cyril wrote:kia, NZ are worthy winners.

Other sides deserve their moment in the sun too which is why England's win today (especially on home soil in front of a huge crowd) is good from my point of view.

If one can "deserve" a "victory" under such blatant circumstances then sobeit. It reminds me of those tours to South Africa back in the dark ages when home referees were de rigeur. If that's what it takes for England to win and that is seen as "good for the game" then who am I to point out the obvious assault on the spirit of sporting integrity.

Who indeed!

Cheer up. It's like you've seen a ghost...

The mockery made of the sport today totally undermined the spectacle created by so many fans turning out.

Shocking.

Scramble wrote:The mockery made of the sport today totally undermined the spectacle created by so many fans turning out.

Shocking.

The day rugby died

It's a betrayal of the money paid by fans of sport.

Matches staged at twickenham are more akin to the WWF wrestling.

Scramble wrote:Matches staged at twickenham are more akin to the WWF wrestling.

Wrestling is fixed? You should go on the 606v2 forum and let those guys know  

Perhaps just merge the forums

Scramble wrote:Perhaps just merge the forums

Hulk Hogan likes this.

There is a wrestling tag team who do a version of the Haka so it does make a certain amount of sense.

In all seriousness, what's the point of thousands of fans paying hard earned money to travel to london and watch what will be the inevitable farce that recent matches staged at twickenham have unrelentingly been?

Is it really hard to find a neutral referee who won't behave in the appalling and offensive manner that the RFU pocketed pay roll boy who presided today did?

Scramble wrote:In all seriousness, what's the point of thousands of fans paying hard earned money to travel to london and watch what will be the inevitable farce that recent matches staged at twickenham have unrelentingly been?

Is it really hard to find a neutral referee who won't behave in the appalling and offensive manner that the RFU pocketed pay roll boy who presided today did?

ghostie,

In all seriousness, do NZ ever lose in a fair contest (in your mind)?

Cyril wrote:

Scramble wrote:In all seriousness, what's the point of thousands of fans paying hard earned money to travel to london and watch what will be the inevitable farce that recent matches staged at twickenham have unrelentingly been?

Is it really hard to find a neutral referee who won't behave in the appalling and offensive manner that the RFU pocketed pay roll boy who presided today did?

ghostie,

In all seriousness, do NZ ever lose in a fair contest (in your mind)?

don't be silly! no such thing.

Did you see it? I mean did you SEE IT?

Scramble wrote:Did you see it? I mean did you SEE IT?

Yep, I saw England beat NZ.

Let's all look forward to a brilliant day of 7s tomorrow

Cyril wrote:

Scramble wrote:Did you see it? I mean did you SEE IT?

Yep, I saw England beat NZ.

Let's all look forward to a brilliant day of 7s tomorrow

I saw a referee go out to ensure a result to please a home crowd. As a member of that crowd I feel ripped off.

Scramble wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Scramble wrote:Did you see it? I mean did you SEE IT?

Yep, I saw England beat NZ.

Let's all look forward to a brilliant day of 7s tomorrow

I saw a referee go out to ensure a result to please a home crowd.  As a member of that crowd I feel ripped off.

What a shame  

The rest of the world will get over it I'm sure.

Are you still Welsh or are you back to NZ?

Where is the Irish 7s? Do they not enter a side?

i watched the 2011 RWC final. surely for a kiwi that should prevent any complaints about "home advantage" in refereeing, ever. for all time. no?

I watched the England v Nz game the Yellow wasn't a matter of dispute BUT the
Ref.Ruling a forward pass when Nz looked to be making the winning score certainly
was.
Nz are more than capable of still making the final when we may see an action replay
of that one.
NZ have already done the business but another final win would be nice.

Scramble wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Scramble wrote:Did you see it? I mean did you SEE IT?

Yep, I saw England beat NZ.

Let's all look forward to a brilliant day of 7s tomorrow

I saw a referee go out to ensure a result to please a home crowd.  As a member of that crowd I feel ripped off.

welcome to the forum, and congrats on attending your first rugby match. might i recommend the 15 a side game to you as a next step?

quinsforever wrote:i watched the 2011 RWC final. surely for a kiwi that should prevent any complaints about "home advantage" in refereeing, ever. for all time. no?

Don't recall France having a try disallowed because of a not forward pass or being on the end of a 14-1 penalty ratio.

I guess England need more help than most?

Scramble wrote:While we are on it, let's consider the first (of many) england penalise of the gamę. England recover the kick off and the player is held upright. It was a maul (ball not on the ground)

It's almost like you are acting the stooge, displaying your misunderstandings for instructional purposes.

This is the way the same passage of play has been refereed throughout the series. You would have seen NZ penalized for the same offence last week in Scotland - I even described it in a thread you were watching

https://www.606v2.com/t53527-glasgow-7-s#2633452

Sevens coaches worked out some time ago that the laws governing a maul don't apply if defenders don't engage. You can still drive an opposition player backwards, but if you stop, the tackle laws apply and you have to release the player.

Scramble wrote:

quinsforever wrote:i watched the 2011 RWC final. surely for a kiwi that should prevent any complaints about "home advantage" in refereeing, ever. for all time. no?

Don't recall France having a try disallowed because of a not forward pass or being on the end of a 14-1 penalty ratio.

I guess England need more help than most?

Normally you take a while before you reveal your true colours. This must be a record!

Nonsense. The laws are clear that the tackled player must release the ball in sequence before the tackled player is released. If that's the way it's being called, then the adjudication and interpretation is in clear contravention of the written laws. If the "tackled" player did release the ball then there would be no penalty for holding. Where else in the game is a player penalised for holding if the ball hasnt been released? It's a nonsense and contradictory call.

doesn't understand the laws

What's with the ghost icon?

Scramble wrote:What's with the ghost icon?

What indeed

Welcome back mate.

Saying "nonsense", and then making up your own interpretations of the laws, is rarely the approach of a reasonable man.

Rugby Fan wrote:Saying "nonsense", and then making up your own interpretations of the laws, is rarely the approach of a reasonable man.

The law says (direct quote):

1.A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.

2.Opposition players who hold the ball carrier and do not go to ground are not tacklers.

Where brought to ground is defined as:
(a)
If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been ‘brought to ground’.
(b)
If the ball carrier is sitting on the ground, or on top of another player on the ground the ball carrier has been ‘brought to ground’.


There is absolutely no way to interpret that as meaning a player held up by two opposition players has been tackled.

The release of the player rule is defined literally as:

When a player tackles an opponent and they both go to ground, the tackler must immediately release the tackled player.

You see AND is a boolean logical operator, it requires both operands to evaluate to TRUE before the statement is TRUE.  Since TACKLED is defined as BROUGHT TO GROUND earlier then the left hand side is logically redundant.  

However as it stands it conveniently says TWICE that a player must be BROUGHT TO GROUND before a TACKLER is required to RELEASE.

THEREFORE I CONCLUDE THAT I am being ENTIRELY REASONABLE in ASSERTING that the REFEREE WAS WRONG and ANY INTERPRETATION that SUPPORTS his OPINION is CONTRARY TO THE ENTIRELY UNAMBIGUOUS LAWS.

Furthermore there are NO sevens laws variations published by the IRB and NO clarifications of tackled ball laws in an active state that relate to this issue.

First minute England v France qf - France hold up and England player and it's called a maul - turn over scrum - interesting. Perhaps the referees have had a talking to overnight.

But still it's an other embarrassment of penalties awarded to England that even the commentary team are questioning as "very rough calls against France".

At what point will this nonsense stop?

England squeak by again by 2 points after France are denied a penalty for a deliberate knock on by dan norton.