England v Wales - Part 2, 26 September

First topic message reminder :

  
ENGLAND v WALES
26 September 2015
KO: 20:00
Twickenham, London

Live on ITV1

Referee: Jérôme Garcès (France)
Touch judges: Jaco Peyper (South Africa) & Marius Mitrea (Italy)
Television match official: Shaun Veldsman (South Africa)

A. Head to Head

126 Played 126
58 Won 56
12 Drawn 12
56 Lost 58
1,596 Points 1,456

B. Recent Form

6 February 2015
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
16 – 21 to England

9 March 2014
Twickenham Stadium, London
29 – 18 to England

16 March 2013
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
30 – 3 to Wales

25 February 2012
Twickenham Stadium, London
12 – 19 to Wales

13 August 2011
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
19 – 9 to Wales

6 August 2011
Twickenham, London
23 – 19 to England

4 February 2011
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
19 – 26 to England

6 February 2010
Twickenham, London
30 – 17 to England

14 February 2009
Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
23 – 15 to Wales

2 February 2008
Twickenham, London
19 – 26 to Wales

C. Teams

ENGLAND

M Brown (Harlequins); A Watson (Bath), B Barritt (Saracens), S Burgess (Bath), J May (Gloucester); O Farrell (Saracens), B Youngs (Leicester); J Marler (Harlequins), T Youngs (Leicester), D Cole (Leicester), G Parling (Exeter), C Lawes (Northampton), T Wood (Northampton), C Robshaw (Harlequins, capt), B Vunipola (Saracens)

Replacements: R Webber (Bath), M Vunipola (Saracens), K Brookes (Northampton), J Launchbury (Wasps), J Haskell (Wasps), R Wigglesworth (Saracens), G Ford (Bath), A Goode (Saracens).

WALES

Liam Williams (Scarlets); G North (Northampton), S Williams (Scarlets), J Roberts (Harlequins), H Amos (Newport Gwent Dragons); D Biggar (Ospreys), G Davies (Scarlets); G Jenkins (Cardiff Blues), S Baldwin (Ospreys), T Francis (Exeter), B Davies (Wasps), A-W Jones (Ospreys), D Lydiate (Ospreys), S Warburton (Cardiff Blues, capt), T Faletau (Newport Gwent Dragons)

Replacements: K Owens (Scarlets), A Jarvis (Ospreys), S Lee (Scarlets), L Charteris (Racing 92), J Tipuric (Ospreys), Lloyd Williams (Cardiff Blues), R Priestland (Bath), A Cuthbert (Cardiff Blues).

wrfc1980 wrote:marty - your making a mockery of yourself mate. Go back to watching football which is a non contact sport.

Really? Considering tackling in the air has seen greater enforcement in the last few years, not to mention high and tip tackles now clearing out by the neck. If World Rugby are serious about protecting players maybe you would like to tell me how this is any different?

Maybe you'd like to make a serious counter argument rather than follow your poor attempt at uber machismo

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Seriously though Guns which law? If I'm being biased here it's because of lack of knowledge on this and I'll admit it.

Look it up yourself. Im not google.

I have. It doesn't exist.

We both know it is not legal to jump tackles whether it is explicitally a law or not. Refs would surely justify penalising it one way or another.

You are being ridiculous now.

LondonTiger wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

killer938 wrote:According to the Daily Mail breaking news he has been cleared to play against Australia

Kind of makes a mockery of World Rugbys standards on player safety, if swinging a boot with players on the floor and doing damage isn't dangerous regardless of intent then what is?

He has not been cited as it was deemed not a sending off offence. He has however been given an official warning - which equates to a retrospective yellow card.

I ask the question because of this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/31748216

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Seriously though Guns which law? If I'm being biased here it's because of lack of knowledge on this and I'll admit it.

Look it up yourself. Im not google.

I have. It doesn't exist.

We both know it is not legal to jump tackles whether it is explicitally a law or not. Refs would surely justify penalising it one way or another.

Except they don't unless it is deemed dangerous. But good to see you acknowledge it isn't against the laws.

Did not see the Marshall one, but remember the discussion at the time and was not aware he was trying to kick the ball as Wood was.

Any way decision has been made, we either move on or continue to whine.

Knowing these boards (Myself included) I reckon it will be more whining.

GunsGerms wrote:We both know it is not legal to jump tackles whether it is explicitally a law or not. Refs would surely justify penalising it one way or another.

You are being ridiculous now.

You're being ridiculous. Who jumps from their back foot? His front foot is on the floor, therefore it's not a jump.

You claim no bias, yet you thinking it's the guy getting tackled that is the dangerous one in that hit?

Official caution is probably about right for the Wood incident, bit of a careless strike in a very fast paced and heated game, a ban would be to harsh but a caution does send a bit of a message to the players they need to watch what their doing even in those circumstances.
For me banning any player for something that is most probably accidental is wrong.

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:We both know it is not legal to jump tackles whether it is explicitally a law or not. Refs would surely justify penalising it one way or another.

You are being ridiculous now.

You're being ridiculous. Who jumps from their back foot? His front foot is on the floor, therefore it's not a jump.

You claim no bias, yet you thinking it's the guy getting tackled that is the dangerous one in that hit?

For god sake he tried to hurdle the tackle. Whats the big deal? England lost, it doesnt change the result.

2ndtimeround wrote:Official caution is probably about right for the Wood incident, bit of a careless strike in a very fast paced and heated game, a ban would be to harsh but a caution does send a bit of a message to the players they need to watch what their doing even in those circumstances.
For me banning any player for something that is most probably accidental is wrong.

Then that needs to include tip tackles, etc. as the vast majority of those are accidental too in my opinion. Players very rarely intentionally plan to drive a player head first into the turf. But we do ban players for that and we need to.

GunsGerms wrote:For god sake he tried to hurdle the tackle. Whats the big deal? England lost, it doesnt change the result.

Not important now you can't back up your bluster. If anything it would be safer to jump that kind of tackle, leaving your foot planted for an impact around the knees could cause all sorts of injuries.

Griff wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:Official caution is probably about right for the Wood incident, bit of a careless strike in a very fast paced and heated game, a ban would be to harsh but a caution does send a bit of a message to the players they need to watch what their doing even in those circumstances.
For me banning any player for something that is most probably accidental is wrong.

Then that needs to include tip tackles, etc. as the vast majority of those are accidental too in my opinion.  Players very rarely intentionally plan to drive a player head first into the turf.  But we do ban players for that and we need to.  

I think there is a category of stuff that is deemed accidental but avoidable - (which seems like a long way of saying 'reckless').

lostinwales wrote:

Griff wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:Official caution is probably about right for the Wood incident, bit of a careless strike in a very fast paced and heated game, a ban would be to harsh but a caution does send a bit of a message to the players they need to watch what their doing even in those circumstances.
For me banning any player for something that is most probably accidental is wrong.

Then that needs to include tip tackles, etc. as the vast majority of those are accidental too in my opinion.  Players very rarely intentionally plan to drive a player head first into the turf.  But we do ban players for that and we need to.  

I think there is a category of stuff that is deemed accidental but avoidable - (which seems like a long way of saying 'reckless').

Oh definitely, and the Liam Williams head kick falls squarely into that category. A few of those 'loss of control' tip tackles fall in too. But we've seen them lead to bans plenty. We've seen accidental kicks to the head lead to bans too. The precedent is set. For the sake of consistency we have to maintain that this time too, don't we? After all, consistency is one of the key things we all scream loud about on these boards.

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:For god sake he tried to hurdle the tackle. Whats the big deal? England lost, it doesnt change the result.

Not important now you can't back up your bluster. If anything it would be safer to jump that kind of tackle, leaving your foot planted for an impact around the knees could cause all sorts of injuries.

You arent allowed hurdle tackles though and you will find that you will get penalised for it.

I think there is a difference griff personally. In one you're deliberately playing the man and have a responsibility to do so safely. The other was an attempt to play the ball and contact with the man was accidental/consequential. Not saying it doesnt require looking at, isn't serious etc, but it is different.

I didn't see the Wood/ LW kick. There was some debate over the Parling/North incident in the 6N but in that case it seemed fairly clear that there was a shared responsibility for what happened as North was diving for the ball.

BTW I would say that I feel the ban on the Fijian who upended May was wrong, as he was doing everything he could to bring May down easily after the tackle went wrong.

GunsGerms wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:For god sake he tried to hurdle the tackle. Whats the big deal? England lost, it doesnt change the result.

Not important now you can't back up your bluster. If anything it would be safer to jump that kind of tackle, leaving your foot planted for an impact around the knees could cause all sorts of injuries.

You arent allowed hurdle tackles though and you will find that you will get penalised for it.

That's not the law though as discussed previously. Should have been a pen to England but really its a very small part of this game.

GunsGerms wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:For god sake he tried to hurdle the tackle. Whats the big deal? England lost, it doesnt change the result.

Not important now you can't back up your bluster. If anything it would be safer to jump that kind of tackle, leaving your foot planted for an impact around the knees could cause all sorts of injuries.

You arent allowed hurdle tackles though and you will find that you will get penalised for it.

Germs. If he had both feet in the air in a stag like manner, we could debate the law/non-law about hurdling tackles. But he didnt.. His foot was planted, he was leaning forward, his other leg was making a normal running motion, he got  flipped when a big lump's shoulder smacked him just above the knee - he didn't jump.

milkyboy wrote:I think there is a difference griff personally. In one you're deliberately playing the man and have a responsibility to do so safely. The other was an attempt to play the ball and contact with the man was accidental/consequential. Not saying it doesnt require looking at, isn't serious etc, but it is different.

Different, but both cause accidental damage to the player which I think is seen as reckless by world rugby. I just don't think putting a player out of the tournament by kicking him in the head, no matter how accidental, should escape sanction. You have a responsibility to player safety in all things you do on the pitch. Kicking should be included in that too. If he gets away with a ban, the equivalent of a yellow as has been rumoured then fine: that's a clear message from World Rugby that kicking someone in the head accidentally is OK or allowable. But it does go against previous bans and so is inconsistent, and it sets a new precedent that it is OK to do that from now on!

LondonTiger wrote:

Any way decision has been made, we either move on or continue to whine.

Knowing these boards (Myself included) I reckon it will be more whining.

Change your username to Nostradamus!

And while we're at it Amos dislocated his shoulder with an attempted tackle after the whistle had gone

Griff wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I think there is a difference griff personally. In one you're deliberately playing the man and have a responsibility to do so safely. The other was an attempt to play the ball and contact with the man was accidental/consequential. Not saying it doesnt require looking at, isn't serious etc, but it is different.

Different, but both cause accidental damage to the player which I think is seen as reckless by world rugby.  I just don't think putting a player out of the tournament by kicking him in the head, no matter how accidental, should escape sanction.  You have a responsibility to player safety in all things you do on the pitch.  Kicking should be included in that too.  If he gets away with a ban, the equivalent of a yellow as has been rumoured then fine: that's a clear message from World Rugby that kicking someone in the head accidentally is OK or allowable.  But it does go against previous bans and so is inconsistent, and it sets a new precedent that it is OK to do that from now on!

Agree with much of that, consistency in application of sanctions is key. Like i said, though, there's accidentally hurting someone when you're consciously tackling them, and hurting them as a consequence of doing something else. It depends on how far you want to push the 'duty of care' envelope

RubyGuby wrote:And while we're at it Amos dislocated his shoulder with an attempted tackle after the whistle had gone

Good point he should have been carded for time-wasting;)

No 7&1/2 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Seriously though Guns which law? If I'm being biased here it's because of lack of knowledge on this and I'll admit it.

Look it up yourself. Im not google.

I have. It doesn't exist.

For goodness sake. There isn't a law that says you can't stuff a chocolate orange up a players right nostril, but I bet if you try you'll be penalised !

The ref will penalise dangerous play all day long, and leaping into a tackle is dangerous.

By the way, I don't happen to think that Wood jumped. If that was what he tried to do, he's a pretty crap jumper.

...crap at jumping, can't kick the ball. Doesn't bring much to the party really.

He can't count either.

Wales have a team of winners
Wales have a good number of winners in their squad, guys that have been up against the weight of expectation and have come out the other end victorious.

They have an experienced coaching team who have been there and done it as players - that is a big advantage coming in to big games, and definitely during games like Saturday's epic, because they know what it takes to win.

Wales looked the fitter team to me.

I read some hilarious player rating for this match. Anyone heard of Julian Bennetts?

I'm thinking this thread has run its useful course now. All I see is WUMming and counter-WUMming. In conclusion, I would humbly offer:

Lydiate - looked possibly dodgy in the moment, but rightly no further action on further look;
Wood - looks like he connected with his shin, not boot (so NOT a 'kick' in the head as such) but very clumsy at best. Warning/retrospective yellow probably right, refs may not be so lenient again if he's involved in a similar incident - so the warning is effective, he'll have to be careful
England 25 Wales 28 - fair reflection of the game as a whole, the cannier side nicked it.

Jumping into tacklers and jumping over tackles again?

SimonofSurrey wrote:I'm thinking this thread has run its useful course now. All I see is WUMming and counter-WUMming. In conclusion, I would humbly offer:

Lydiate - looked possibly dodgy in the moment, but rightly no further action on further look;
Wood - looks like he connected with his shin, not boot (so NOT a 'kick' in the head as such) but very clumsy at best. Warning/retrospective yellow probably right, refs may not be so lenient again if he's involved in a similar incident - so the warning is effective, he'll have to be careful
England 25 Wales 28 - fair reflection of the game as a whole, the cannier side nicked it.  

I can go with that. Mods, let's lock the thread!

mikey_dragon wrote:I read some hilarious player rating for this match. Anyone heard of Julian Bennetts?

I saw that on Twitter earlier. You'd swear England had won by a street!

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:I read some hilarious player rating for this match. Anyone heard of Julian Bennetts?

I saw that on Twitter earlier. You'd swear England had won by a street!

On the surface it seemed ludicrous but it wasn't that far off if you really considered it. The only rating I totally disagreed with was Bigger's, and maybe Farell Barritt and Burgess who I think were the reason England weren't out of sight.

Didn't he say that Faletau came off second best to his cousins? Not in the game I was watching, he didn't. And his comments about Liam Williams were uncalled for.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Didn't he say that Faletau came off second best to his cousins? Not in the game I was watching, he didn't. And his comments about Liam Williams were uncalled for.

Vunipola was stand out with the work and platform the tight 5 gave him, so i'd say Falatau lost out to Vunipola until he went off, Falatau came out the big winner after all but in the 'head to head' you see why he thinks that.

I have heard that because of the late kick-off they needed to file their reports / scores on 60 minutes, which begs the question: why bother with the scores?

Many of the Sothern Hemisphere papers had Faletau as their MOM - People seem to confuse 80 minutes of all round graft with the odd minute cameo



also liked this pre-match from the Telegraph:

England need to be very disciplined, rolling away at every tackle and making good decisions regarding when to try to attack and turnover the football. If you give Wales free ball, they will go through the phases until they get a penalty.

Wales each had pretty low ratings Fanster, England's were a bit too high for the most part IMO. Clearly Julian isn't a regular viewer of rugby, nor does he know the rules... In fact let's just assume he is way out of touch reality. I can just imagine the outcry though, if it was the other way around, England win and a Wales journalist writes that trash. It wouldn't be lived down forever in a century. I was tempted to post it for that reason but concluded it was unnecessary.

What he wrote about Liam Williams was poor form. He also conveniently glossed over the fact that Marler should've been penalised during most scrums, as well as other things.

Griff wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I think there is a difference griff personally. In one you're deliberately playing the man and have a responsibility to do so safely. The other was an attempt to play the ball and contact with the man was accidental/consequential. Not saying it doesnt require looking at, isn't serious etc, but it is different.

Different, but both cause accidental damage to the player which I think is seen as reckless by world rugby.  I just don't think putting a player out of the tournament by kicking him in the head, no matter how accidental, should escape sanction.  You have a responsibility to player safety in all things you do on the pitch.  Kicking should be included in that too.  If he gets away with a ban, the equivalent of a yellow as has been rumoured then fine: that's a clear message from World Rugby that kicking someone in the head accidentally is OK or allowable.  But it does go against previous bans and so is inconsistent, and it sets a new precedent that it is OK to do that from now on!

Is it inconsistent? POC did worse previously and didn't get banned.

Can we please:
1/ accept there's a difference between a kick to the head, ie contact twixt boot and head, and a clumsy blow to the head from the shin?
2/ Mods - put this thread out of its misery.

LondonTiger wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

killer938 wrote:According to the Daily Mail breaking news he has been cleared to play against Australia

Kind of makes a mockery of World Rugbys standards on player safety, if swinging a boot with players on the floor and doing damage isn't dangerous regardless of intent then what is?

He has not been cited as it was deemed not a sending off offence. He has however been given an official warning - which equates to a retrospective yellow card.

I think that this is a typo by the BBC, he obviously has been cited for foul play and the ruling was a retrospective Yellow card.

I personally think that this is a very poor reflection on the need for players to be protected, especially from dangerous and damaging head injuries. If the game is serious about protecting players from head industries this should have been a ban at least and instruction to referees to red card this type of reckless play in future.

SimonofSurrey wrote:Can we please:
1/ accept there's a difference between a kick to the head, ie contact twixt boot and head, and a clumsy blow to the head from the shin?
2/ Mods - put this thread out of its misery.  

You are allowed to stop reading and leave other's to carry on bickering if they want. That's the joy of a public forum.

Seagultaf wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

killer938 wrote:According to the Daily Mail breaking news he has been cleared to play against Australia

Kind of makes a mockery of World Rugbys standards on player safety, if swinging a boot with players on the floor and doing damage isn't dangerous regardless of intent then what is?

He has not been cited as it was deemed not a sending off offence. He has however been given an official warning - which equates to a retrospective yellow card.

I think that this is a typo by the BBC, he obviously has been cited for foul play and the ruling was a retrospective Yellow card.

I personally think that this is a very poor reflection on the need for players to be protected, especially from dangerous and damaging head injuries. If the game is serious about protecting players from head industries this should have been a ban at least and instruction to referees to red card this type of reckless play in future.

I agree with your sentiments on player safety being of paramount importance but this was an accidental incident and as such I believe the yellow would have been sufficient. Had this been another more notorious player that had a bad record for indiscipline I may have thought differently.

But Tom wood is a clean player with a great track record, who apologised to Williams after the match.

Thank you Maes

Thank you Maes

gregortree wrote:Thank you Maes

Thanks but, as i said above it is relative to the player. If it had been a nasty little thug like Hartley I would have wanted a life ban.

There are two very different types of player, Wood, so far as I have ever seen, plays the game gets on with his performance and his contribution to the team. Players like Hartley get far too excited with their opposition, "getting in their faces" as people often say. In Hartleys case literally as well as metaphorically.

The problem in rugby is that it is so hard to adjudicate a difference during the match. If the camera had shown Hartley absolutely accidentally kicking a trapped/felled player in the head whilst looking in that players direction he would have seen a red card and another lengthy ban. For Wood the benefit of doubt is on the other foot.

Is this right or wrong? Well I'm afraid you make your bed and have to lie in it. If you get banned for over a year of your career doubt will always go against you.

We judge intent on evidence and record, rightly or wrongly, we don't as yet have the computing power to calculate another's thought process from video.

Thing with Hartley most of his bans have been pretty 50 50 but it always goes against him now because of previous. Personally I'd prefer to see judgments on the actual decisions as neutral and then if found guilty have the ban/fine upped for previous.

maestegmafia wrote:But Tom wood is a clean player with a great track record, who apologised to Williams after the match.

Really ?

This is the same player who got away with grabbing Nakarawa around the neck from behind and lifting him up and throwing him to the ground in the first game.

He has been very lucky, on two occasions already during this world cup.

LordDowlais wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:But Tom wood is a clean player with a great track record, who apologised to Williams after the match.

Really ?

This is the same player who got away with grabbing Nakarawa around the neck from behind and lifting him up and throwing him to the ground in the first game.

He has been very lucky, on two occasions already during this world cup.

a bit of an overstatement LD. More of a judo throw on a descending player. He didn't pick him up by his neck in a chokeslam ala the undertaker in WWE.

It was a standing tackle, neither player was in motion. You see those in every game. Penalty yes, yellow no, citing no.

fa0019 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:But Tom wood is a clean player with a great track record, who apologised to Williams after the match.

Really ?

This is the same player who got away with grabbing Nakarawa around the neck from behind and lifting him up and throwing him to the ground in the first game.

He has been very lucky, on two occasions already during this world cup.

a bit of an overstatement LD. More of a judo throw on a descending player. He didn't pick him up by his neck in a chokeslam ala the undertaker in WWE.

It was a standing tackle, neither player was in motion. You see those in every game. Penalty yes, yellow no, citing no.

The thing is, that it was not in play. Play had stopped. With the new safety protocols world rugby are trying to bring in, it was a yellow at the very least.

Same player, TWO different clumsy instances that were dangerous. Just saying. That's all.