Wales v England - 6 February 2015 - Match thread

[BamBam]

First topic message reminder :


Wales v England
6 February 2015
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
Kick off at 20.05

Referee: Jérôme Garcès (FFR)
AR1: Romain Poite (FFR)
AR2: Mathieu Raynal (FFR)
TMO: Simon McDowell (IRFU)

Live on BBC1

Wales

01. Gethin Jenkins
02. Richard Hibbard
03. Samson Lee
04. Alun Wyn Jones
05. Jake Ball
06. Dan Lydiate
07. Sam Warburton (c)
08. Toby Faletau

09. Rhys Webb
10. Dan Biggar
11. George North
12. Jamie Roberts
13. Jonathan Davies
14. Alex Cuthbert
15. Leigh Halfpenny

16. Scott Baldwin
17. Paul James
18. Aaron Jarvis
19. Luke Charteris
20. Justin Tipuric
21. Mike Phillips
22. Rhys Preistland
23. Liam Williams

England

15. Mike Brown
14. Anthony Watson
13. Jonathan Joseph
12. Luther Burrell
11. Jonny May
10. George Ford
09. Ben Youngs  

01. Joe Marler
02. Dylan Hartley
03. Dan Cole
04. David Attwood
05. George Kruis
06. James Haskell
07. Chris Robshaw (captain)
08. Billy Vunipola

16. Tom Youngs
17. Mako Vunipola
18. Kieran Brookes
19. Tom Croft
20. Nick Easter
21. Richard Wigglesworth
22. Danny Cipriani
23. Billy Twelvetrees

[Guest]

Upsets happen in sport. If they didn't, who would bother to watch it?

Having said that, as a Wales supporter for 60 years all credit must go to England for their win. In the second half they dominated Wales.

Quiz question - did England beat Wales in the '70s? Yes at Twickenham in 1974. I rate this performance by them in Cardiff as less surprising, but more important because they're hosting the RWC this year and looked very strong last night.

[VinceWLB]

This loss if for Gatland.

Where was Scott Williams? best Welsh centre this season.
Where was Kristian Dacey? best Welsh Hooker this season.
Where was Rob Evans? best Welsh loosehead this season.
Where was Navidi? best Welsh openside this season.
Where was Adam Jones? second best Welsh tighthead this season and arguably not far behind Samson Lee who is a tad overrated.

At least the better team on the day won and the Welsh and their one dimensional gameplan got badly exposed.

[Nachos Jones]

I suggest you watch it again, he's bound to the scrum and reaches in to take the ball from behind the hookers legs whilst he's on one knee. Even Eddie "one eyed" Butler said it was handling in the scum.

Where was the TMO on that one, making a cup of tea?

Probably at the same place when he missed Attwood accidently kicking North in the head

Are you suggesting that Attwood made North dive at his feet just as he tried to kick a loose ball?

That was nothing more than brave play from North and you know it.

Did you not see the word accidently written there?

I do believe that if the TMO reviewed that then Attwood may have seen a card, not for intent but it did look worse in slow motion. I have seen many an accidental connection (non intentional) get sanctioned.

[Ozzy3213]

I fear referees will determine the outcome of RWC 2015.

I fear you could be right - also putting TMOs into that equation.

So much is down to interpretation that even when watching replays often people can't agree on certain decisions - the obstruction/no obstruction last night being a case in point.

I'd also for my own interest like to understand the current guidelines on the use of the TMO e.g. some questioned how many phases they can go back - is there a fixed number?  and can or can't they intervene without being called on by the ref - I thought they could for foul play but nothing else?  Does anyone actually know the answers to these questions?  We all want consistency from the refs and I think we need the same around how the TMO is used.

That is precisely the issue.

I thought the TMO could intervene of his own volition only if serious fould play was suspected, other than that he was there for if the referee wanted to ask him. That being the case, Garces awarded the try, happy with what he'd seen, and it should therefore never have been reviewed as a result of the TMO piping up. It's irrelevant now. It didn't change the result, but ultimately clarity is needed before the world cup rolls around, otherwise we are going to spend a lot of time watching replays over and over rather than getting on with the game, and in terms of marketing the product, that is far from ideal.

[VinceWLB]

Haskell was immense, fair play, deserved man of the match. Thats what a true blindside does, completely outplayed Lydiate.

[Seagultaf]

Just my sober views on the match last night. I actually feel that Wales are over-coached to the point where they have lost that creative factor that only they and the French had. In the second half, England were all over them and Wales seriously lacked a leader, not sure what Warburton was doing but he was not rallying the boys well.

I have seen North's first injury and I still firmly believe that Attwood is a lucky man, had that been reviewed, like England's disallowed try, by the TMO then I believe he may have seen a card. North then should have certainly come off, especially when you have a player like Williams to replace him.

In the end, well done to England.

In the second half all 15 Wales players were poor, they lacked passion and looked tired, maybe the acusations of over training have some credance. But for me England wanted it more.

Its difficult to critisise the backs for lack of creativity when they were behind a well beaten pack. You can critisise Webb for his poor kicking or Biggar for missing the tackle that led to the second try (again), but Phillips proved when he came on that he is no longer up to this level and Priestamd is no better than Biggar. The Williams boys from the Scarlets may come into the reconing, possibly Liam replacing Cuthbert (or North if concussed) and Scott to the bench.

The real issue is the front 5 who didn't even come second! Jenkins is looking past his sell by date and Hibbard is not the player he was, particularly in the set pieces. Samson Lee looked like someone who had not played for a month and was not match fit. Unfortunately Baldwin's lineout play is poor, James is good in the scrums and little else and young Evans is...well young! Maybe Charteis could come in for Ball to improve the lineout, but again he is a player along with; North Jon Davies, Phillips and Hibbard who have lost their edge since leaving the Welsh game.

Regarding North, yes he should have gone off after the clash of heads with Hibbard, and Atwood should have been carded for dangerous play for kicking him in the head.

I am certainly not blaming the ref for the defeat, England although poor in the first half, were far better than Wales in the second half. Garcia was harsh on England at the breakdown in the first half and harsh on Wales in the second (I guess he went with the momentum of the game) and he diddn't have a clue what was going on in the front row. But all in all he ceertainly did not affect the result.

[Guest]

I fear referees will determine the outcome of RWC 2015.

I fear you could be right - also putting TMOs into that equation.

So much is down to interpretation that even when watching replays often people can't agree on certain decisions - the obstruction/no obstruction last night being a case in point.

I'd also for my own interest like to understand the current guidelines on the use of the TMO e.g. some questioned how many phases they can go back - is there a fixed number?  and can or can't they intervene without being called on by the ref - I thought they could for foul play but nothing else?  Does anyone actually know the answers to these questions?  We all want consistency from the refs and I think we need the same around how the TMO is used.

That is precisely the issue.  

I thought the TMO could intervene of his own volition only if serious fould play was suspected, other than that he was there for if the referee wanted to ask him.  That being the case, Garces awarded the try, happy with what he'd seen, and it should therefore never have been reviewed as a result of the TMO piping up.  It's irrelevant now.  It didn't change the result, but ultimately clarity is needed before the world cup rolls around, otherwise we are going to spend a lot of time watching replays over and over rather than getting on with the game, and in terms of marketing the product, that is far from ideal.

I believe Warburton asked him to have a look at it, which is common practice.

[Hood83]

Does anyone know if there are full match highlights anywhere. Couldn't find any on the Beeb.

[Heaf]

I suggest you watch it again, he's bound to the scrum and reaches in to take the ball from behind the hookers legs whilst he's on one knee. Even Eddie "one eyed" Butler said it was handling in the scum.

I suggest you stop making stuff up as you go along as it's really embarrassing for you. Firstly England were 12 points better because of a disallowed try which was the correct decision; when you realise that you come out with this BS. Just give it a rest.

Except he's not making stuff up as he's correct about the handling in the scrum and being on one knee - that was a clear penalty offence missed by the officials.

[VinceWLB]

Is it true that Lydiate carried a grand total of 1 meter? Welsh should have played Coombs or even James Thomas instead who look like the real deal. Gatland would never drop his favourites though.

[Ozzy3213]

I fear referees will determine the outcome of RWC 2015.

I fear you could be right - also putting TMOs into that equation.

So much is down to interpretation that even when watching replays often people can't agree on certain decisions - the obstruction/no obstruction last night being a case in point.

I'd also for my own interest like to understand the current guidelines on the use of the TMO e.g. some questioned how many phases they can go back - is there a fixed number?  and can or can't they intervene without being called on by the ref - I thought they could for foul play but nothing else?  Does anyone actually know the answers to these questions?  We all want consistency from the refs and I think we need the same around how the TMO is used.

That is precisely the issue.  

I thought the TMO could intervene of his own volition only if serious fould play was suspected, other than that he was there for if the referee wanted to ask him.  That being the case, Garces awarded the try, happy with what he'd seen, and it should therefore never have been reviewed as a result of the TMO piping up.  It's irrelevant now.  It didn't change the result, but ultimately clarity is needed before the world cup rolls around, otherwise we are going to spend a lot of time watching replays over and over rather than getting on with the game, and in terms of marketing the product, that is far from ideal.

I believe Warburton asked him to have a look at it, which is common practice.

But shouldn't be. I see a lot of captains doing it all the time, and don't agree with it as a practice at all. It should be down to the referee to decide that he should go upstairs and the only people who I feel should be able to influence this are his assistants.

[The Saint]

I suggest you watch it again, he's bound to the scrum and reaches in to take the ball from behind the hookers legs whilst he's on one knee. Even Eddie "one eyed" Butler said it was handling in the scum.

I suggest you stop making stuff up as you go along as it's really embarrassing for you. Firstly England were 12 points better because of a disallowed try which was the correct decision; when you realise that you come out with this BS. Just give it a rest.

Except he's not making stuff up as he's correct about the handling in the scrum and being on one knee - that was a clear penalty offence missed by the officials.

I pointed a clear penalty offence by England last night and was told I was incorrect. Hence the Faletau accusation is incorrect. This accusations comes right after another incorrect one, which is silly behaviour IMO. Perhaps you should stop whining about the ref now.

[Heaf]

I fear referees will determine the outcome of RWC 2015.

I fear you could be right - also putting TMOs into that equation.

So much is down to interpretation that even when watching replays often people can't agree on certain decisions - the obstruction/no obstruction last night being a case in point.

I'd also for my own interest like to understand the current guidelines on the use of the TMO e.g. some questioned how many phases they can go back - is there a fixed number?  and can or can't they intervene without being called on by the ref - I thought they could for foul play but nothing else?  Does anyone actually know the answers to these questions?  We all want consistency from the refs and I think we need the same around how the TMO is used.

That is precisely the issue.  

I thought the TMO could intervene of his own volition only if serious fould play was suspected, other than that he was there for if the referee wanted to ask him.  That being the case, Garces awarded the try, happy with what he'd seen, and it should therefore never have been reviewed as a result of the TMO piping up.  It's irrelevant now.  It didn't change the result, but ultimately clarity is needed before the world cup rolls around, otherwise we are going to spend a lot of time watching replays over and over rather than getting on with the game, and in terms of marketing the product, that is far from ideal.

I believe Warburton asked him to have a look at it, which is common practice.

Eventually I think Watburton approached the ref but you can see on the replay he's been contacted by the TMO after he's awarded the try and before Warbs approached him - seems clear the TMO stepped in of his own volition ...

[lostinwales]

Attwood's leg was moving forward to hack the ball before North came flying in. The only thing I'd question is what happened in the split second when North arrived on the ball at the same time as Attwood's foot, as he seems to pull the foot up into the face. It is however difficult to imagine what else he could do.

It is a very unfortunate accident, but I strongly believe it is as much down to North headbutting Attwood's foot as anything else.

Stupid thing is it should have led to a sharper looking Williams playing the rest of the match, which would only have strengthened Wales. That he didnt is one for Gatland and his medical team to explain.

I did say before hand that Wales would play badly, and that a great deal would depend on how well the new England combos would click. Well England clicked and Wales were beaten up.

I know its the same old but Wales are a very muscular team with a great kicker. It is more than enough for many teams and occasionally enough for most teams, but when that approach is nullified there is no plan B

[Steve_rugby]

I suggest you stop making stuff up as you go along as it's really embarrassing for you. Firstly England were 12 points better because of a disallowed try which was the correct decision; when you realise that you come out with this BS. Just give it a rest.

Have you watched the incident I mentioned again ? You're the one who's embarrassing themselves as you are denying something happened when it happened clear as day. As I said, even Eddie Butler said it was handling in the scrum

Are you a moderator ? Thought not, so don't try tell me what I and others on here can and can't type.

[lostinwales]

Is it true that Lydiate carried a grand total of 1 meter? Welsh should have played Coombs or even James Thomas instead who look like the real deal. Gatland would never drop his favourites though.

He isnt there for his carrying. But he does often appear one dimensional. When it all clicks what he does complements the other 2 very well but yes I have never understood why he is rated so highly.

Haskell did indeed show how a blindside can play. He took some huge hits but never stopped

[Heaf]

I suggest you watch it again, he's bound to the scrum and reaches in to take the ball from behind the hookers legs whilst he's on one knee. Even Eddie "one eyed" Butler said it was handling in the scum.

I suggest you stop making stuff up as you go along as it's really embarrassing for you. Firstly England were 12 points better because of a disallowed try which was the correct decision; when you realise that you come out with this BS. Just give it a rest.

Except he's not making stuff up as he's correct about the handling in the scrum and being on one knee - that was a clear penalty offence missed by the officials.

I pointed a clear penalty offence by England last night and was told I was incorrect. Hence the Faletau accusation is incorrect. This accusations comes right after another incorrect one, which is silly behaviour IMO. Perhaps you should stop whining about the ref now.

I'm not whining - we won.

However just because we won doesn't mean we can't debate officiating decisions - I don't understand your logic that as you were told you were incorrect about something that means everything else is incorrect.

None of this means we're picking on Wales - as much as I know you like to believe everyone is anti-Welsh for some odd reason.

[Steve_rugby]

That is precisely the issue.  

I thought the TMO could intervene of his own volition only if serious fould play was suspected, other than that he was there for if the referee wanted to ask him.  That being the case, Garces awarded the try, happy with what he'd seen, and it should therefore never have been reviewed as a result of the TMO piping up.  It's irrelevant now.  It didn't change the result, but ultimately clarity is needed before the world cup rolls around, otherwise we are going to spend a lot of time watching replays over and over rather than getting on with the game, and in terms of marketing the product, that is far from ideal.

6.A Referee
Before the match

LAW AMENDMENT TRIAL

(b)

A match organiser may appoint an official known as a Television Match Official (TMO) who uses technological devices to clarify situations relating to;

(i)

When there is doubt as to whether a ball has been grounded in in-goal for a score or a touchdown.

(ii)

Where there is doubt as to whether a kick at goal has been successful.

(iii)

Where there is doubt as to whether players were in touch or touch in goal before grounding the ball in in-goal or the ball has been made dead.

(iv)

Where match officials believe an offence or infringement may have occurred in the field of play leading to a try or preventing a try.

(v)

Reviewing situations where match officials believe foul play may have occurred.

(vi)

Clarifying sanctions required for acts of foul play.
(c)
Any of the match officials including the TMO may recommend a review by the TMO. The reviews will take place in accordance with the TMO protocol in place at the time which will be available at laws.worldrugby.org.

[Steve_rugby]

Does anyone know if there are full match highlights anywhere. Couldn't find any on the Beeb.

The full game is available on BBC iPlayer

[Barney McGrew did it]

Let’s hear for the last ditch heroic tackle by the welsh post against a rampaging Hask – saved a certain try and a contender for the tackle of the game imo.

Also of note some quality shouting from Biggar.

[The Saint]

I suggest you stop making stuff up as you go along as it's really embarrassing for you. Firstly England were 12 points better because of a disallowed try which was the correct decision; when you realise that you come out with this BS. Just give it a rest.

Have you watched the incident I mentioned again ? You're the one who's embarrassing themselves as you are denying something happened when it happened clear as day. As I said, even Eddie Butler said it was handling in the scrum

Are you a moderator ? Thought not, so don't try tell me what I and others on here can and can't type.

Yes. Faletau committed no offence. Nick Easter also clearly obstructed later in the game. Using eddie butler to back up your point, now that is embarrassing.

Usual child-like response. Stop whining about the ref.

[Nachos Jones]

Just to clarify my point re Attwood. Personally, I do believe it was an accident but I believe it could be seen as dangerous play. In normal speed it looked ok but in slow motion replay it looked worse and that is what the TMO uses so I do believe that if that went to the TMO then Attwood may have seen a card, however unintentional / accidental it was. Seen them given too many times.

[Poorfour]

I suggest you watch it again, he's bound to the scrum and reaches in to take the ball from behind the hookers legs whilst he's on one knee. Even Eddie "one eyed" Butler said it was handling in the scum.

I suggest you stop making stuff up as you go along as it's really embarrassing for you. Firstly England were 12 points better because of a disallowed try which was the correct decision; when you realise that you come out with this BS. Just give it a rest.

Getting much buoyancy from that straw, are you?

Faletau clearly reached into the scrum to take the ball, which he's not allowed to do. If it had been at his feet, he could reach down and pick it up, but he had to reach past at least one pair of legs to get it. Butler called it out on the replay, and Moore said, in his usual acerbic way, "Doesn't matter, because the ref hasn't given it." It happened.

For the Easter obstruction, I have no problem with it being called, but it could equally have been called the other way. Easter had slightly overrun Ford, but he was facing towards him, arms open to receive the pass. Then Biggar tackled him without the ball. Garces decided that Easter had intended to obstruct, but it would have been hard to object if he'd decided that Easter was tackled illegally. The overrun tipped it in Wales's favour.

Two debatable decisions, one at either end, each related to a try, and both went Wales's way. On another night, either or both could have been called differently. Wales won't always be so lucky, nor England so unlucky.

The margin of victory doesn't really matter. But if I were Welsh I would be seriously worried that a fully fit squad, home advantage and a brilliant opening 10 minutes weren't enough to contain an England side with some very inexperienced combinations. Aside from the first and last 10 minutes of the second half, England didn't actually play that well. They made a fair number of mistakes, gave away a number of turnovers that will concern Lancaster (especially with Ireland coming up), and failed to take several chances.

The main concerns from a Welsh perspective would seem to me to be:
- The scrum: one of the commentators made the point that Wales still like to bind short, but referees are now looking for long binds. I expect Samson Lee will improve with experience, but the 2015 front row looks very fragile
- Attacking patterns: teams have learned that if they hunt in packs, the first tackler only has to disrupt the ball carrier's momentum and the second tackler can close him down. That seriously limits the effectiveness of "big men running straight at the defence". On the few occasions Wales looked to offload, they were far more dangerous.
- Intensity: Fell off dramatically in the second half. There was a moment near the end of the sin bin period where Wales looked like they could get back into it, but England upped their tempo and Wales had no response.
- Player welfare. I have long thought that Gatland conditons his players to such a high state of tune that they break too easily. To that it seems we can now add blatant disregard for concussion protocols. Wales' worst enemies may be inside their own camp. England have their problems with injured players but at least they don't put them on the pitch.

[The Saint]

I'm not whining - we won.

However just because we won doesn't mean we can't debate officiating decisions - I don't understand your logic that as you were told you were incorrect about something that means everything else is incorrect.

None of this means we're picking on Wales - as much as I know you like to believe everyone is anti-Welsh for some odd reason.

Your compatriots haven't stopped whining about the ref since the opening minute of the game. Apologies if I assumed you were too when you weren't. It's not really my logic, as I can clearly see Faletau didn't offend so was able to assist in the try. That 'logic' was sarcasm, just trying to make some English folk see how one-eyed they are.

I don't think Wales are being picked on here. Though I do believe penned out rules are not being enforced for some odd reason. In the past it's always been a zero tolerance policy if Wales fans chirp up. I guess it is exactly that which leads some to believe (not me) that Wales are being picked on.

[Steve_rugby]

There's no point arguing with an idiot he beats us with experience and he's bringing us down to his level.

[The Saint]

There's no point arguing with an idiot he beats us with experience and he's bringing us down to his level.

Is that the nottins philosophy? He was a unique poster, to say the least.

[Guest]

I wasn't convinced by Watson's try either. Think there's a fairly good chance he's in front of the kicker.

That said, I'm not bothered particularly. England were better than us. For Wales to lose to nil second half, is unforgivable. I can't believe that we left players like Tipuric on the bench yesterday that are potential game changers. Lydiate was a luxury again last night. Wasn't even chopping effectively.

[Sgt_Pooly]

I wasn't convinced by Watson's try either. Think there's a fairly good chance he's in front of the kicker.

That said, I'm not bothered particularly. England were better than us. For Wales to lose to nil second half, is unforgivable. I can't believe that we left players like Tipuric on the bench yesterday that are potential game changers. Lydiate was a luxury again last night. Wasn't even chopping effectively.

Watson was a good yard behind Brown when he kicked

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zfJqfBf4IQ&html5=1

[Steve_rugby]

I wasn't convinced by Watson's try either. Think there's a fairly good chance he's in front of the kicker.

It wasn't even close, he was miles behind Brown.

[HammerofThunor]

Over a thousand posts. Time to close?

[The Saint]

Over a thousand posts. Time to close?

I'll set up two threads.

1. Wales vs England post match discussion

2. Wales vs England ref-whinging post for England fans.

Then we can have some decent debate and separate the real fans from the pretend ones.

[milkyboy]

Let’s hear for the last ditch heroic tackle by the welsh post against a rampaging Hask – saved a certain try and a contender for the tackle of the game imo.

Also of note some quality shouting from Biggar.

Can't agree barney. No attempt to use the arms. Blatant check. Penalty try and yellow card for the post.

[Guest]

I'll stand corrected. Was just an initial thought of the possibility and then I don't recall seeing many replays at the time (and I didn't watch the highlights at HT).

[englandglory4ever]

Great win for England. All players did very well. Special mention to kruis, Haskell and Brown but they all played very well. The only slight criticism is Bill Vs performance in the first half. He went better in the second half. Wales pretty much dominated in the second half. They should be pretty upset this morning.

[SecretFly]

Ok...what happened Haskell when he made a play for the point four feet above the bottom of the post he was looking for???

There - that's a non moan topic.

Woz that lad concussed when doing that?

[Guest]

Great win for England. All players did very well. Special mention to kruis, Haskell and Brown but they all played very well. The only slight criticism is Bill Vs performance in the first half. He went better in the second half. Wales pretty much dominated in the second half. They should be pretty upset this morning.

Sure Wales will be hurting, but at least they know they'll get the chance to "put things right" next week (i.e. the usual no changes from Cement Head).

[doctor_grey]

Over a thousand posts. Time to close?

I'll set up two threads.

1. Wales vs England post match discussion

2. Wales vs England ref-whinging post for England fans.

Then we can have some decent debate and separate the real fans from the pretend ones.

Sorry, mate. But I think Garces is beating you to it. I overheard him talking in French over the ref-microphone and he said he was going to go on a forum and set up a thread to complain about the fans complaining about him.

[doctor_grey]

Ok...what happened Haskell when he made a play for the point four feet above the bottom of the post he was looking for???

There - that's a non moan topic.

Woz that lad concussed when doing that?

I think the post was..........

[Hood83]

Does anyone know if there are full match highlights anywhere. Couldn't find any on the Beeb.

The full game is available on BBC iPlayer

Thanks Steve, found it, I was being an idiot

[Ozzy3213]

That is precisely the issue.  

I thought the TMO could intervene of his own volition only if serious fould play was suspected, other than that he was there for if the referee wanted to ask him.  That being the case, Garces awarded the try, happy with what he'd seen, and it should therefore never have been reviewed as a result of the TMO piping up.  It's irrelevant now.  It didn't change the result, but ultimately clarity is needed before the world cup rolls around, otherwise we are going to spend a lot of time watching replays over and over rather than getting on with the game, and in terms of marketing the product, that is far from ideal.

6.A Referee
Before the match

LAW AMENDMENT TRIAL

(b)

A match organiser may appoint an official known as a Television Match Official (TMO) who uses technological devices to clarify situations relating to;

(i)

When there is doubt as to whether a ball has been grounded in in-goal for a score or a touchdown.

(ii)

Where there is doubt as to whether a kick at goal has been successful.

(iii)

Where there is doubt as to whether players were in touch or touch in goal before grounding the ball in in-goal or the ball has been made dead.

(iv)

Where match officials believe an offence or infringement may have occurred in the field of play leading to a try or preventing a try.

(v)

Reviewing situations where match officials believe foul play may have occurred.

(vi)

Clarifying sanctions required for acts of foul play.
(c)
Any of the match officials including the TMO may recommend a review by the TMO. The reviews will take place in accordance with the TMO protocol in place at the time which will be available at laws.worldrugby.org.

So the TMO can intercede of his own account. I was unaware that was now the case, I stand corrected.

[SecretFly]

Ok...what happened Haskell when he made a play for the point four feet above the bottom of the post he was looking for???

There - that's a non moan topic.

Woz that lad concussed when doing that?

I think the post was..........

I felt the impact here!  Timber!...which would have been funny if they had to re-erect the posts in a game already buzzing with incident.

[englandglory4ever]

What a great atmosphere the Cardiff stadium produced last night. Unforgettable. Even Gatgob's antics in the tunnel before kick off raised the anti. England's response was emphatically brutal. Great drama. Great night.

[TJ]

I suggest you watch it again, he's bound to the scrum and reaches in to take the ball from behind the hookers legs whilst he's on one knee. Even Eddie "one eyed" Butler said it was handling in the scum.

Where was the TMO on that one, making a cup of tea?

Probably at the same place when he missed Attwood accidently kicking North in the head

Are you suggesting that Attwood made North dive at his feet just as he tried to kick a loose ball?

That was nothing more than brave play from North and you know it.

Did you not see the word accidently written there?

I do believe that if the TMO reviewed that then Attwood may have seen a card, not for intent but it did look worse in slow motion. I have seen many an accidental connection (non intentional) get sanctioned.

Sorry - no way on earth was it worth a card. its a complete accident unlike many " accidental" things that get cards which are actually reckless.

[doctor_grey]

Ok...what happened Haskell when he made a play for the point four feet above the bottom of the post he was looking for???

There - that's a non moan topic.

Woz that lad concussed when doing that?

I think the post was..........

I felt the impact here!  Timber!...which would have been funny if they had to re-erect the posts in a game already buzzing with incident.

That would have been hysterical.
And, after all, it was Haskell. His head is harder than those of mere mortals.

[Alex_Germany]

There's a touch of ref whinging here.

I thought the ref had a good game overall, but there are always decisions which are open to debate.

Three years ago, the decisions went Wales' way, and the better team won by 27 points. This time, the decisions went Wales' way, and the better team won by 5 points.

Faletau's pick up from the scrum and Easter's obstruction were both marginal decisions that could have gone either way. And quite how Haskell managed to get tackled by the post I don't know. A touch more luck and England would have ended the game an extra 21 points ahead.

In the end, England didn't need that luck. Against Ireland, they might.

[TJ]

There's no point arguing with an idiot he beats us with experience and he's bringing us down to his level.

Indeed.

[Alex_Germany]

Ok...what happened Haskell when he made a play for the point four feet above the bottom of the post he was looking for???

There - that's a non moan topic.

Woz that lad concussed when doing that?

He might have been a bit dazed. I didn't see what Cuthbert did to get his yellow card, but question arises, did he prevent the try?

If Haskell had slid in, he was there. I think also he bounced back and instinctively turned to lay the ball back. If he'd landed the other way, it would have been a simple push to the base of the post.

I do wonder whether the posts should be suspended / cantilevered out in rugby. I think American football does that.

[milkyboy]

Is debating key decisions ref whinging? Garces isnt the best in my view but he tries to be even handed. Yesterday the rub of the green, only in terms of the tries/non-tries went to wales, in my opinion.  Another ref lets the easter one go and pings faletau. That's a 14 point swing. But that's the game, sometime it goes your way sometimes it doesn't. Yesterday it didn't impact on the result. England were more than 5 points better in my view yesterday, but really would only have had themselves to blame for leaving points out there, had they conceded a late try.

I will happily whinge about steve walsh all day long though.

On a positive note, what a pleasure to watch a rugby game unspoiled by Stuart barnes.

[HammerofThunor]

Ok...what happened Haskell when he made a play for the point four feet above the bottom of the post he was looking for???

There - that's a non moan topic.

Woz that lad concussed when doing that?

He might have been a bit dazed. I didn't see what Cuthbert did to get his yellow card, but question arises, did he prevent the try?

If Haskell had slid in, he was there. I think also he bounced back and instinctively turned to lay the ball back. If he'd landed the other way, it would have been a simple push to the base of the post.

I do wonder whether the posts should be suspended / cantilevered out in rugby. I think American football does that.

Cuthbert held onto the ball after the ruck had been formed. Stopping England playing it quickly. I wondered whether Cuthbert had pushed Haskell onto the post, but he really should had scored it. As should that guy for Toulouse against Bath. But Ford put in the try saving tackle. They do happen

[Notch]

I'm going to lock this thread in half an hour, purely because of its length. If anyone wants to start a new thread and post a link in here be my guest.

[Sponsored content]