England vs South Africa - 1st Quilter International

First topic message reminder :

Date: Saturday 3rd November 2018
Time: 15:00
Location: Twickenham Stadium

Referee:       Angus Gardiner (Aus)
Assistant 1: Jerome Garces (France)
Assistant 2: Ben Whitehouse (Wales)
TMO:            Olly Hodges (Ireland)




Teams


England

15 Elliot Daly (Wasps, 21 caps), 14 Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 26 caps), 13 Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 13 caps), 12 Ben Te’o (Worcester Warriors, 13 caps), 11 Jonny May (Leicester Tigers, 37 caps), 10 Owen Farrell (Saracens, 61 caps) co-captain, 9 Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 77 caps), 1 Alec Hepburn (Exeter Chiefs, 2 caps), 2 Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints, 93 caps) co-captain, 3 Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins, 13 caps), 4 Maro Itoje (Saracens, 22 caps), 5 George Kruis (Saracens, 25 caps), 6 Brad Shields (Wasps, 2 caps), 7 Tom Curry (Sale Sharks, 4 caps), 8 Mark Wilson (Newcastle Falcons, 4 caps).
 
16 Jamie George (Saracens, 28 caps), 17 Ben Moon (Exeter Chiefs, uncapped), 18 Harry Williams (Exeter Chiefs, 11 caps), 19 Charlie Ewels (Bath Rugby, 6 caps) , 20 Zach Mercer (Bath Rugby, uncapped), 21 Danny Care (Harlequins, 81 caps), 22 George Ford (Leicester Tigers, 47 caps), 23 Manu Tuilagi (Leicester Tigers, 26 caps).




South Africa


15 Damian Willemse, 14 S’bu Nkosi, 13 Jesse Kriel, 12 Damian de Allende, 11 Aphiwe Dyantyi, 10 Handre Pollard, 9 Ivan van Zyl, 8 Warren Whiteley, 7 Duane Vermeulen, 6 Siya Kolisi, 5 Pieter-Steph du Toit, 4 Eben Etzebeth, 3 Frans Malherbe, 2 Malcolm Marx, 1 Steven Kitshoff

Substitutes: 16 Bongi Mbonambi, 17 Thomas du Toit, 18 Wilco Louw, 19 RG Snyman, 20 Lood de Jager, 21 Embrose Papier, 22 Elton Jantjies, 23 André Esterhuizen.

Biltong wrote:I doubt any rugby supporter from anywhere suggested a red card, most comments were a penalty

So if all WR said is it wasn't a red card (which is correct) how do you conflate that to WR deeming it legal and giving a green light etc?

I didn't see the match, but have watched extended highlights and read a lot of the comments on here.

England will be hoping it was a case of bedding in new combinations, especially in the first half. More worrying than the first half however will possibly be when we got some ascendancy in the second half we still couldn't score.

I think we are a better attacking side with Ford at 10, although by all accounts the defence was strong. Eddie will have a choice to make, whether he goes for Ford to start and tries to go toe-to-toe with the All Blacks at their own game, or whether he stays with Farrell and tries to suffocate the All Blacks a bit and keep the game low scoring. It's hard to say which is a better idea against New Zealand, both could see you losing by hefty margins.

If Eddie does try to stick and play a more polished version of this week's game plan, at least the combos will be more settled and Te'o will be fitter. He might also have Manu back for the bench, who could be a gamebreaker coming on.

Curry's injury possibly opens the door for Mercer to start at 8 and Underhill to come back into the squad, while Brown could come back in for Nowell to compensate Daly's weakness under the high ball (I don't think Daly will be dropped). I guess it depends how confident Jones is of Daly being his long term 15.

Could we see a 23 of:

Hepburn, Hartley, Sinckler, Itoje, Kruis, Shields, Wilson, Mercer, Youngs, Farrell, Brown, Te'o, Slade, May, Daly.
George, Moon, Williams, Lawes, Underhill, Care, Ford, Tuilagi

Or will Eddie look to make more changes than that?

Biltong wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:They may start to give some pens away with other refs though. Not sure I agree with you that it's a red card though biltong. I've seen pens given for it but after snyman (I think) got away with similar earlier the match un surprising the ref let it go.

I didn't suggest it was a red card, I just commented that there were no arms in the tackle and it was an illegal shoulder charge.

But like I said, if that type of tackle is deemed legal, then as Rassie Erasmus commented post match, it is very effective and should be used.

After all, World Rugby just gave the green light.

It would be duplicitous for them to now decide otherwise.

World Rugby did not give the green light for anything. A citing requires an offence that warrants a red card. I cannot see how under World Rugby's guidance to referees a red card could possibly be given. A penalty, yes. A yellow card, possibly. A red card, no way.

Heaf wrote:

Biltong wrote:I doubt any rugby supporter from anywhere suggested a red card, most comments were a penalty

So if all WR said is it wasn't a red card (which is correct) how do you conflate that to WR deeming it legal and giving a green light etc?

There was no criticism of the decision made by Gardner, which basically endorses his decision.

South Africans are a funny lot, you tell them something is legal, they will go out and explore how legal it really is.

And if they get penslised you will hear all about it.

Taylorman wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Citing happen for when the citing officer thinks a red card offence occurred bilt not whether they feel the ref just missed a foul. Like I said I would suspect if sa go ahead with it they get away with a few and get a few pens.

geez what a strawman argument that is. They shouldnt cite a player because its your impression that they get away with other things...

They wont cite a player unless its a red card offense. No contact with head therefore not a red card therefore not a citing.

There is a whole separate argument over shoulders to head that have been done to death, but not really resolved, and there are incidents which are picked up and carded in games where similar incidents are apparently ignored. But that is immaterial in this case, as it was not a red card offense.

We're pretty much all agreed then. It's not a citing. It's at best borderline.
Had a look biltong at the snyman tackle. 66 min ish.

In other news Joe Marchant been called up to the squad. Curry has an ankle injury that will be assessed tomorrow.

Biltong wrote:

Heaf wrote:

Biltong wrote:I doubt any rugby supporter from anywhere suggested a red card, most comments were a penalty

So if all WR said is it wasn't a red card (which is correct) how do you conflate that to WR deeming it legal and giving a green light etc?

There was no criticism of the decision made by Gardner, which basically endorses his decision.

South Africans are a funny lot, you tell them something is legal, they will go out and explore how legal it really is.

And if they get penslised you will hear all about it.

Wow that's a bit of a stretch - WR rarely criticise refs so inferring anything from their lack of comment is somewhat dubious.   All they were ever likely to say was it wasn't red to explain why no citing.  They were hardly likely to say one way or the other what they thought about whether it was a penalty or not.

It was marginally a red card but I thought an obvious yellow. On review the same. He didnt hit his head but came close to his chin.

Fact is Farrell is right about force when you do hit that hard, which he does, then you're going to bounce off the opposing player. He dropped his shoulder into the tackle and set himself and his arm comes up after Bok bounces off so he didnt compete tackle because he was trying to drive him back not tackle him to the ground. That is a fine distinction which could be useful in the future regarding tackle law.

Did the ref get it wrong yes I think he did it ought to have been a pen for a dangerous tackle with no arms. Farrell's mitigation, while totally believable, is irrelevant. Its all about the intent of the tackle - to bounce Bok backwards - v the effect, which was a no arms high shot.

Powell got a yellow for a lot less on the Lions tour and that was back in 2011.

Will Jones be tempted to revert to the triple lock?

Is Ben Morgan injured? or is he just out of the squad?

just wandering who is next in line if Billy V, Natan Huges is not avalible.

Injured.

majesticimperialman wrote:Is Ben Morgan injured? or is he just out of the squad?

just wandering who is next in line if Billy V, Natan Huges is not avalible.

Injured

So, every official on the planet is ok with the Farrell ‘incident’. Just heard that both the Pope and the Queens have also given him their blessing. Let’s hope he can’t be done under the hate crime rap.

In other news, every English no 8 is now on the physio table.

And just heard Manu has got a tummy ache. Ah well.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:So, every official on the planet is ok with the Farrell ‘incident’. Just heard that both the Pope and the Queens have also given him their blessing

That's great news for Rassie, as he is having his troops train that defensive style as of tomorrow.

I find it hard to believe that SA are going to adopt a more physical approach.

You seem intent in ignoring that will get sa more pens biltong. If he thinks the risk is worth continuing with though fair enough.

It was in Rassie's post match interview.

In fact a journalist asked him whether he was being sarcastic and he said no, not at all.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You seem intent in ignoring that will get sa more pens biltong. If he thinks the risk is worth continuing with though fair enough.

Why a risk?

We have been told it was a fair tackle.

By 1 ref. Another will see things differently I have no doubt. We've seen tackle like snymans and Farrells be penalised before and we will again. It's close to the line so if raise wants to continue to play close to the line he'll have no complaint of someone does pick it up I'm sure.

Oh I am sure he will question the decision, ask clarity of interpretaion from World Rugby.

They would have to supply him with difinitive answers, it would be in their best interest to provide clarity.

If supporters have different opinions in regards to the "legality" of Farrells tackle imagine how confused the players must be.

If anything a couple of bone crunching crashes by a couple of big boks will hasten the clarity we all seek, don't you think?

We already saw Farrell copy the sa in the match. If anything it's sa who don't like living by the sword.

No 7&1/2 wrote:We already saw Farrell copy the sa in the match. If anything it's sa who don't like living by the sword.

Lot of copying going on up there huh? One day they'll bring their own stuff to this game... hopefully. At the moment it just seems like what we used to do a couple of decades ago.

Taylorman wrote:At the moment it just seems like what we used to do a couple of decades ago.

A couple of decades ago, New Zealand got knocked out of the 1999 World Cup by France, and went into the next tournament with a coach who had been part of the England coaching team. Not sure that period is one you want to cite when tryiing to establish how New Zealand rugby is ahead of the curve.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:At the moment it just seems like what we used to do a couple of decades ago.

A couple of decades ago, New Zealand got knocked out of the 1999 World Cup by France, and went into the next tournament with a coach who had been part of the England coaching team. Not sure that period is one you want to cite when tryiing to establish how New Zealand rugby is ahead of the curve.

Perhaps not but it sure is familiar with what we are seeing now. Teams going out, coaches from other sides, very reminiscent indeed.

Biltong wrote:World Rugby officials have decided Farrell won't be cited, so I suspect Rassie Erasmus will instruct his players to taxkle the shyte out of players with a leading shoulder.

World rugby has basically set the standard for legal shoulder charges now

It takes years of practice to be able to tackle with no arms Biltong, you can't just teach this kind of stuff in a week.

There is no correct answer on Farrell's tackle. All the lack of citation tells us is that the citing officer didn't think it deserved a red card. While some think it did cross that threshold, I'd wager most supporters don't.

I fully expected to see a penalty but can understand the way Angus Gardner was thinking. However, I think a majority of referees would have penalised Farrell. It sounded like the TMO believed it was a penalty but he had to defer to the onfield officials.

Interesting to see BOD, Tom Shanklin, Lewis Moody and Jim Hamilton support Gardner. Brian Moore qualified his support by saying it would have been inconsistent to penalize Farrell when Snyman's tackle on Kruis earlier in the game went unsanctioned (and uncited).

Tom Shanklin also drew attention to Te'o's tackle on De Allende just before the 43rd minute, which looks very similar to Farrell's. The key difference is that it was Te'o who bounced backward, and De Allende looked untroubled.

Of course, there are a lot of former players who do think Farrell's tackle deserved a penalty. Jacques Burger, an old teamate of his at Saracens, is one of them. Andy Powell another.

I hope Farrell realises that he can't reliably expect to go unpunished for that kind of challenge in future, so avoids raising the question in the first place.

Also, although World Rugby has no obligation to make any formal announcement on this incident, I argued in another thead that this is exactly the kind of circumstance where they should want players, officials and spectators to understand what their expectations are.

I don't think it would hang Gardner out to dry if they said what they thought of the tackle, and also the one by Snyman.

Rugby Fan wrote:There is no correct answer on Farrell's tackle. All the lack of citation tells us is that the citing officer didn't think it deserved a red card. While some think it did cross that threshold, I'd wager most supporters don't.

I fully expected to see a penalty but can understand the way Angus Gardner was thinking. However, I think a majority of referees would have penalised Farrell. It sounded like the TMO believed it was a penalty but he had to defer to the onfield officials.

Interesting to see BOD, Tom Shanklin, Lewis Moody and Jim Hamilton support Gardner. Brian Moore qualified his support by saying it would have been inconsistent to penalize Farrell when Snyman's tackle on Kruis earlier in the game went unsanctioned (and uncited).

Tom Shanklin also drew attention to Te'o's tackle on De Allende just before the 43rd minute, which looks very similar to Farrell's. The key difference is that it was Te'o who bounced backward, and De Allende looked untroubled.

Of course, there are a lot of former players who do think Farrell's tackle deserved a penalty. Jacques Burger, an old teamate of his at Saracens, is one of them. Andy Powell another.

I hope Farrell realises that he can't reliably expect to go unpunished for that kind of challenge in future, so avoids raising the question in the first place.

Also, although World Rugby has no obligation to make any formal announcement on this incident, I argued in another thead that this is exactly the kind of circumstance where they should want players, officials and spectators to understand what their expectations are.

I don't think it would hang Gardner out to dry if they said what they thought of the tackle, and also the one by Snyman.

It is all about clarity of interpretation, with the way this went we can all assume this is legal, hence Erasmus saying they will practice that.

It will be hypocritical to now start penalising players.

Biltong wrote:It is all about clarity of interpretation, with the way this went we can all assume this is legal, hence Erasmus saying they will practice that.

It will be hypocritical to now start penalising players.

It's precisely because we can't draw this conclusion, that I want clarification.

The lack of any citing says nothing about whether World Rugby think the tackle deserved a penalty. The elite referees panel will have an opinion, however, and it is bonkers that we don't get to hear what it is.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Biltong wrote:It is all about clarity of interpretation, with the way this went we can all assume this is legal, hence Erasmus saying they will practice that.

It will be hypocritical to now start penalising players.

It's precisely because we can't draw this conclusion, that I want clarification.

The lack of any citing says nothing about whether World Rugby think the tackle deserved a penalty. The elite referees panel will have an opinion, however, and it is bonkers that we don't get to hear what it is.

WR threw Gardner under the bus when they thought he incorrectly sent a Frenchman off against the ABs. Happy to back the French on that one after an outcry.  Where are they now? Silence. Just like they were too chicken sh*t to offer an opinion of an appalling decision made by an incompetent French referee in the Lions series. Did they wade in on Joubert in the RWC? They did didn’t they. Do WR only get involved when an NH side is aggrieved?

It seems erasmus already has you guys doing hide tackles anyway though.

Is that what it’s called, a hide tackle? Very good. WR know all about hiding so it’s a very apt name on multiple levels. And what was with Farrell playing fox on the ground afterwards. What a joker.

Seriously, leave the navigators boy alone. He's been programmed since entering the womb to tackle like a leagie. Cripps when will you people lay off!

No 7&1/2 wrote:It seems erasmus already has you guys doing hide tackles anyway though.

Do you realise what a stupid comment that is?

We are discussing the type of tackles interpreted as legal and you accuse an international coach of deliberately training his guys to commit fouls?

I think it is time you stop your click bait crap and contribute to a constructive debate.

Biltong, you’ve not really got the hang of this moderator stuff, have you? Insulting other posters is not really the mark of a good mod. You don’t see the other mods doing this.

Think it might be time for you to step down and let someone a little less agitated have a go? You’ve been wound up, wumming and throwing out insults before, during and after the defeat.

Cyril, your criticism is nothing more than interference from a bored poster.

Nothing in that post insults 7&1/2

I said his post is a stupid comment.

I said he must stop his clickbait crap and contribute positively.

As for being a mod, I have requested to be removed from being a mod years ago.

As it isn't happening I will comment as I wish.

You are welcome to report that post, anytime.

ebop wrote:WR threw Gardner under the bus when they thought he incorrectly sent a Frenchman off against the ABs. Where are they now?

Where they usually are, ebop. It's no secret how the disciplinary process works.

A citing only occurs if the citing commissioner suspects a red card offence took place. If he doesn't cite, then the only safe conclusion you can draw is that he didn't see anything which looked like a red card incident. You can't make any judgement on whether he thought it warranted a yellow card, or indeed, whether there he thought there was anything illegal at all.

In the case where a red card is issued, there is a mandatory disiplinary hearing. At that hearing, the panel might support the on-field decision, and issue a ban, or rescind the card. That's what happened in Fall's case, and also what happened to George Smith in a recent European Cup match. A similar review found Damian de Allende should have received only a yellow card, not a red card, for an incident against New Zealand. The red card awarded to Bismarck Du Plessis in 2013 was also struck from the record when a hearing decided that one of his two yellow cards was not deserved.

Sometimes, however, a representative of World Rugby does step in. Paddy O'Brien once apologized to New Zealand for the refereeing of scrums in a match against New Zealand. World Rugby also said Craig Joubert got it wrong in the Scotland-Australia World Cup quarter final.

My view is that, since World Rugby wants to change tackle behaviour, they need to be explicit about how they think officials should be ruling incidents. In the South Africa match, we'd want a view on the challenges by Snyman, Farrell and even Te'o. If officials feel undermined, then that's a small price to pay for establishing clarity and consistency much faster.

Biltong wrote:
It is all about clarity of interpretation, with the way this went we can all assume this is legal, hence Erasmus saying they will practice that.

It will be hypocritical to now start penalising players.

That would be an appalling assumption. Not that you are actually listening to anyone else, but as has been pointed out the only assumption you can make is that the ref deemed it ok and the citing officer did not seem it to be a red card. Plenty of refs would have penalised the challenge, as has happened to Farrell in the past.

If WR are to give a public explanation on this decision, then they about have to do it for every decision and non-decision not just pick and choose as suits a vocal lynch party.

What is stupid about the post biltong? Bar the autocorrect that is! You seem intent on ignoring the fact that erasmus is simply having a little moan while trying to say he accepts the refs decisions. Having his cake and eating it. You also seem intent to focus purely on Farrell at the end and not the consistency in ruling for the match.

You accuse an international coach of encouraging foul play and you don't get that is defamitory or at least stupid to suggest?

Simply pointing out those tackles are being committed by sa already. He seems pretty stupid if he thinks sa will.consistently get away with it though. Realistically like I said it's his way of having a little moan while also stating we fully accept the decision.

Hmm, you are a master at deflection, turning words and committing to nothing, I think it is time for me to walk away, debating anything with you is impossible as you cannot stick to your convictions, but rather clickbait and derail threads.

See you in another year, perhaps then you have come to your senses and manage constructive debate.

See ya.

I actually try to answer all questions bilt. It's you who is dancing around the topic deliberately misunderstanding or ignoring pretty much everyone's points. Think cyril is right on this one you seem to be on the wum and not taking the defeat well. Best you walk away before you get yourself banned!

7.5, do you have footage of SA ‘already’ performing these no-arm rugby league style tackles? The type that Farrell is renowned for. I don’t recall seeing any so I think you need to show some actual footage otherwise you are just making stuff up.

Well biltong asked me when it happened before ignoring it altogether...66 min ish of the match ebop.
They commented at the time and the ref and tmo had a very brief talk.

was away over weekend so not read through all 9 pages ive missed but few thoughts.

thought teo looked really short of match fitness. he was way off the pace, made even more apparent by the great game his opposition number had. will also add shields to that category. if manu injury isnt too bad can see him starting at 12 against the AB

daly under the high ball was a worry but id stick with him. never minded brown personally but think its time to find a long term replacement and you dont do that by swapping said replacement out after one shaky game

very impressed with moon when he came on, would start him on Saturday.

thought the farrell tackle was fine, the first thing you teach kids is to hit with the shoulder then wrap the arms. i saw shields trying to tackle all arms and we lost 20 metres because of it. it was a very big hit and thats what caused the problem. he put him on arse before the arm could fully wrap. you'll never take risk out of rugby no matter what stupid laws are brought in but personally id applaud tackles like that if it were my team mate. could see why a ref might give a pen but lets not forget the kick was hardly a sitter, very tough under the circumstances.

going to twickenham on Saturday, not holding out much hope as i feel the AB's will be a lot more clinical than SA were. but i doubt it will matter to be by that point as i'll be having a spiffing good time either way

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well biltong asked me when it happened before ignoring it altogether...66 min ish of the match ebop.
They commented at the time and the ref and tmo had a very brief talk.

You can see it here.

https://twitter.com/pommieP1/status/1059064292375445506

Jacques Henning of yellowcap.com, a South Africa sports site, was on the Maul Over Rugby Podcast today. He was extremely frustrated with the Farrell call but, when he saw that clip, did concede that Snyman 's tackle might have been worse.

No way that one was worse. Farrell knew it himself, his body language after the tackle totally gave it away. Also look at his face just before he makes the tackle he was so pumped up he os a red card waiting to happen.

The decision from the citing committee implies it was not a red card offence - nor was it a "clear" yellow as they give a warning for those. No way to assess from the citing committee whether it was a penalty, which is the moot point. I suspect in the current climate it was erring on the side of a justifiable penalty - not a definite but no-one could criticise if it was given as a penalty. I would warrant if the same situation occurred again it might be given - as someone further up said - it would be interesting to hear what the ref panel analysis would say.