My Dad's bigger than your Dad

First topic message reminder :

Date: Saturday 10th November 2018
Time: 15:00
Location: Twickenham Stadium

Referee:       Jerome Garces (France)
Assistant 1:  Jaco Peyper (SA)
Assistant 2:  Marius Mitrea (Italy)
TMO:            Marius Jonker (SA)




Teams


England

[size=42]15 Elliot Daly (Wasps, 22 caps), 14 Chris Ashton (Sale Sharks, 40 caps), 13 Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 14 caps), 12 Ben Te’o (Worcester Warriors, 14 caps), 11 Jonny May (Leicester Tigers, 38 caps), 10 Owen Farrell (Saracens, 62 caps) co-captain, 9 Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 78 caps), 1 Ben Moon (Exeter Chiefs, 1 cap), 2 Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints, 94 caps) co-captain, 3 Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins, 14 caps), 4 Maro Itoje (Saracens, 23 caps), 5 George Kruis (Saracens, 26 caps), 6 Brad Shields (Wasps, 3 caps), 7 Sam Underhill (Bath Rugby, 6 caps), 8 Mark Wilson (Newcastle Falcons, 5 caps).[/size]
[size=42]Finishers[/size]
[size=42]16 Jamie George (Saracens, 29 caps), 17 Alec Hepburn (Exeter Chiefs, 3 caps), 18 Harry Williams (Exeter Chiefs, 12 caps), 19 Charlie Ewels (Bath Rugby, 7 caps), 20 Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 65 caps), 21 Danny Care (Harlequins, 82 caps), 22 George Ford (Leicester Tigers, 48 caps), 23 Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 27 caps).[/size]




New Zealand

1. Karl Tu'inukuafe (10)
2. Codie Taylor (39)
3. Owen Franks (104)
4. Samuel Whitelock (106)
5. Brodie Retallick (72)
6. Liam Squire (21) 
7. Ardie Savea (32)
8. Kieran Read - captain (115)
9. Aaron Smith (80)
10. Beauden Barrett (70)
11. Rieko Ioane (21)
12. Sonny Bill Williams (50)
13. Jack Goodhue (5)
14. Ben Smith (74)
15. Damian McKenzie (20)

16. Dane Coles (57)
17. Ofa Tuungafasi (23)
18. Nepo Laulala (14)
19. Scott Barrett (26)
20. Matt Todd (15)
21. TJ Perenara (52)
22. Richie Mo'unga (5)
23. Ryan Crotty (42

lostinwales wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:I have just noticed that the ( TMO) Was South African.

Could he be that England beat South Africa last week by 1 point. He decided it was not going to happen this week against New Zealand.

Not being a sore loser you understand. It is just my opinion that in situations like this( Lawes being on/off side) The call all ways seem to go against "ENGLAND" when a Southern Hemisphere TMO is invovled.

Last year the lions change of decision came with a french linesman, oddly adter the tmo and ref had agreed on the penalty. 2007 came with a south african linesman doing nothing on the obvious pass and barnes doing a ghost impression, white as one all match, couldnt make a single decision.

South Africa has been done by refs, as have Scotland under Joubert. England are not alone in this. You just think you are. Everyone only cares when its them. Nature of the beast.

It is absolutely human nature that we tend to remember the things that went against us much more than those which went for us

Yep. We tend get it more than most as things that go against us dont usually matter, because we usually win anyway, which leaves everything that goes for us as everything that gets discussed, and the impression ABs are favoured, even though its more likely everyone gets the same rubs over time.

Its made worse when people like kearns reaction to Latu smacking Taylor twice, albeit mildly, jumping in and saying we got away with it again, when clearly Latu was the more aggressive of the two, ref getting it dead righ5.

There may have been procedural questions about the TMO's influence, but on the decision itself, it was a marginal call that I wouldn't have been surprised to go either way.

I'm far more annoyed at England not electing to kick to goal from the penalty on the 15m line to take the lead back to 5 when NZ were not looking like scoring a try.

And in refereeing terms I was more perturbed by the free rein given to the ABs to lay all over the ball in England's closing attacks after the TMO decision.  Not at all helped by Care over-egging the situation.  His heavy theatrics never help the ref to make the correct call.  Point it out clearly, don't flail around like a footballer.

Hard to say stub. It certainly doesn't play to our strength within the back 3 and slade. Alan says he's an expert and that wet weather would favour them. If we'd have had Launchbury and Vunipola s who for me are our strongest tight carriers and the resulting strength our bench would have have I'd say it would favour us more. I think allowed our agressive defence to flourish amid a new system though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hard to say stub. It certainly doesn't play to our strength within the back 3 and slade. Alan says he's an expert and that wet weather would favour them. If we'd have had Launchbury and Vunipola s who for me are our strongest tight carriers and the resulting strength our bench would have have I'd say it would favour us more. I think allowed our agressive defence to flourish amid a new system though.

Yep, Id say If Billy was in that match we’d have lost all things otherwise being equal. He woukd have provided that mussing extra go forward ball at the right times.

To answer the question 7.5 the offside line is where the officials say it is, even if it is the rear most foot of the player on his feet. (I think).

Yoda wrote:To answer the question 7.5 the offside line is where the officials say it is, even if it is the rear most foot of the player on his feet. (I think).

Does it say his own player? Or all players? Sometimes these things turn so it would be difficult to tell where the end of one player is

If it's all players then he's definitely as it's about 2 foot away.

Heres stuffs view. Dont know the writer, dont know if its correct

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/108513268/jerome-garces-and-marius-jonker-get-decision-right-but-process-wrong

So straight away it says that there's no ruck as no england player was on their feet. I stopped reading after that....

What comes around goes around.

Last week, Boks should have had a kickable penalty to win the game, this week a dubious offside gives the win to the All Blacks...

Accept it.....

Last week england should have been playing 15 men at that point no 9. Stop being silly and enjoy your win vs aus.

Indeed, congrats to Wales 9.

Thought Lawes was offside before he went for the charge down. He needed to be exactly in line with the rest of the England team who were onside. This law is there to stop the harassment of the scrum half and generate more open play - not sure if it works though. Not sure what the debate is about either but just thought I’d chuck this in there.

Just got in from the game Frak Frak Frak Smeg Frak we woz robbed.

alanmackie6 wrote:The weather was a great leveller and since Ireland played poorly too, next week
is another game that will be very interesting.

Hopefully no controversy over decisions by refs.Aus lost to Wales and it looked
like rubbish.

It was also raining when Ireland won a grand slam in style in Twickers. The weather is a poor excuse. NZ werent great but did just about enough.

England deserved to win. Pity.

Collapse2005 wrote:

alanmackie6 wrote:The weather was a great leveller and since Ireland played poorly too, next week
is another game that will be very interesting.

Hopefully no controversy over decisions by refs.Aus lost to Wales and it looked
like rubbish.

It was also raining when Ireland won a grand slam in style in Twickers. The weather is a poor excuse. NZ werent great but did just about enough.

England deserved to win. Pity.

Ohhh diddims, now I hope your dogs alright guns. Dont want any one hurt now.

Eh?

English press claiming wrong decision yet cant see any specifics other than Garces should have made the decision himself.

Boks probably see a bit of karma from last week, having another suspect decision go against them, and they winning after being down at 80 mins this week. With a smidge diff either way, England and Boks could have both won and lost both matches to date.

mikey_dragon wrote: He needed to be exactly in line with the rest of the England team who were onside.

No he didn't, that's not the law.

Duty281 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote: He needed to be exactly in line with the rest of the England team who were onside.  

No he didn't, that's not the law.

He did though because stepping beyond that was the offside line - look at where the All Black ruck had formed and no its not the tackled player.

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's the old ruck laws though isn't it heaf?

No it's listed as part of the 2018 amendments ...

I thought it was old too. I may have to look at that scene again and double check where the offside line actually was.

Taylorman wrote:English press claiming wrong decision yet cant see any specifics other than Garces should have made the decision himself.

I don't think there is "an angle" to make the case. You described it well when you called it "pedantic". I'll let others argue about whether the TMO was really sure about his decision, or whether it was appropriate for him to make the call with the angles he had. I can't get worked over that aspect.

For me, it feels similar to the way Australia had two tries disallowed at Twickenham last year. There were clear rationales for disallowing both, and I was happy my team was the benificiary then. The rulings were pedantic, however, and could easily have gone the other way for a different referee. It's the same in this case.

The only real reason I can give for suggesting it should have been awarded is that it was such a thing of beauty.

Taylorman wrote:Heres stuffs view. Dont know the writer, dont know if its correct

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/108513268/jerome-garces-and-marius-jonker-get-decision-right-but-process-wrong

The law interpretation is correct and it's what I've been saying in previous posts - the offside line is the hindmost part of Ford who was part of the tackle and is on the ground ...

However during the post match analysis they superimposed a line on the pitch parallel to the actual lines showing where Ford was and for me Lawes was behind that line - just.  As I've mentioned before I believe the TMO got it wrong as I believe the guidance for disallowing a try in these types of situations is it has to be 'clear and obvious', which clearly this wasn't.  The TMO saying "from the pictures I have ..." sounded to me like he wasn't sure himself and Garces pushed him into making a decision.

For reference - May 2018 amendments:

Offside lines created after tackle

Add new 14.10:

Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.
Consequential renumbering: 14.10 becomes 14.11

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:English press claiming wrong decision yet cant see any specifics other than Garces should have made the decision himself.

I don't think there is "an angle" to make the case. You described it well when you called it "pedantic". I'll let others argue about whether the TMO was really sure about his decision, or whether it was appropriate for him to make the call with the angles he had. I can't get worked over that aspect.

For me, it feels similar to the way Australia had two tries disallowed at Twickenham last year. There were clear rationales for disallowing both, and I was happy my team was the benificiary then. The rulings were pedantic, however, and could easily have gone the other way for a different referee. It's the same in this case.

The only real reason I can give for suggesting it should have been awarded is that it was such a thing of beauty

This post sums up my feelings on the matter perfectly !

And as others have said ultimately England just failed to get a win they arguably deserved through lineout errors and a couple of poor tactical choices in the dying minutes.  Let 's just salute a damned exciting match , eh ?

Missed tackles:

AB starting XV: 10
Owen Farrell: 11

For me lawes starts in an onside position, the ruck us then pushed forward by the all blacks but when this happens the ball is now behind the back foot meaning it's out. So the try should of stood.

It certainly wasn't clear and obvious he was offside.

Taylorman wrote:
In all honesty if ABs win by 7 with this side, and against this England side, we wont win next years world cup. Fir one, England will be stronger than this next year, we wont be a much better side. We might play better with the prep but we wont have different players. This is probably 19- 20 of our best 23, the only ones that may come back in Cane, Moody, and I think George Bridge will force his way in somewhere, hes stunned with every outing and came on vs Japan as one of the best of the day.

So who are you tipping for the WC now?
Proud of England's performance, the pack were awesome. I watched the 2012 game beforehand and thought there was  no way yesterday's England pack could live up to that but they did. Shields had his best game yet, I thought subbing him with Lawes was a mistake (should have come on for Kruis). Hartley's early sub was an odd call, sore thumb or not. Underhill was outstanding and Otoje back to near his best other than the lineout. Negatives, we could do with more power in the centre, Slade was ok but you need more than ok at this level. I still haven't seen anything to convince me that Daley is a better FB than Brown, he's wasted at FB. Not sure you can put all the blame for the lineout on George, Retallik should shoulder most of the blame
As for the try that wasn't to be, personally I thought the TMO got it wrong but I'm seeing it through biased eyes and my blinkers are glued on Did I imagine it or did the TMO try to leave it to the ref to decide (thought I heard the words 'You're the ref'), seemed like neither wanted to make a call.
We should have won that game, regardless of the disallowed try - bad decision making at the end but on the plus side we did outscore the ABs on tries and matched them upfront even without Launch, Billy and dare I say Robshaw? But let's not get carried away, we were at home in front of a very supportive crowd playing in wet conditions, it will take a lot more to beat NZ in Japan.

I have New Zealand as 15 missed tackles.

nathan wrote:I have New Zealand as 15 missed tackles.

Starting side 10, rest were the subs, but hardly the point, Farrell has a history of mega missed tackles.

Hoonercat wrote:

Taylorman wrote:
In all honesty if ABs win by 7 with this side, and against this England side, we wont win next years world cup. Fir one, England will be stronger than this next year, we wont be a much better side. We might play better with the prep but we wont have different players. This is probably 19- 20 of our best 23, the only ones that may come back in Cane, Moody, and I think George Bridge will force his way in somewhere, hes stunned with every outing and came on vs Japan as one of the best of the day.

So who are you tipping for the WC now?
Proud of England's performance, the pack were awesome. I watched the 2012 game beforehand and thought there was  no way yesterday's England pack could live up to that but they did. Shields had his best game yet, I thought subbing him with Lawes was a mistake (should have come on for Kruis). Hartley's early sub was an odd call, sore thumb or not. Underhill was outstanding and Otoje back to near his best other than the lineout. Negatives, we could do with more power in the centre, Slade was ok but you need more than ok at this level. I still haven't seen anything to convince me that Daley is a better FB than Brown, he's wasted at FB. Not sure you can put all the blame for the lineout on George, Retallik should shoulder most of the blame
As for the try that wasn't to be, personally I thought the TMO got it wrong but I'm seeing it through biased eyes and my blinkers are glued on Did I imagine it or did the TMO try to leave it to the ref to decide (thought I heard the words 'You're the ref'), seemed like neither wanted to make a call.
We should have won that game, regardless of the disallowed try - bad decision making at the end but on the plus side we did outscore the ABs on tries and matched them upfront even without Launch, Billy and dare I say Robshaw? But let's not get carried away, we were at home in front of a very supportive crowd playing in wet conditions, it will take a lot more to beat NZ in Japan.

Very concerned, especially if its as wet as that, which, in Japan at that time it probably wont be.

Our inability to change to a wet weather game, or at least move to it more quickly is concerning.

We were also way out passioned by England who brought a real fire to the start. We got monstered at the start and took half an hour to get rolling.

And with England missing five or six players? We arent. No way six more will come i to this side by world cup time, 4 at most.

Next week we need a dry track and we need to be more aggressive, a la Dublin a couple of years ago. Englands done us a favour for the Ireland match, Hansen will be under pressure to lose two straight, cant remember when the last time that was, 2009 so the team will be looking to make amends, big time.

But still very much a concern.

https://goo.gl/images/3BRyLx

The point is they didn't lose,it was a perfect leadup to the RWC in appalling conditions.
NZ will have available hopefully a fully fit Read he has an op on his back scheduled,Cane,
Moody,etc.The Nz set piece went well they played knock out rugby to perfection Crotty
should have started with Perenara better for this kind of dog fight.
Who`s going on about officials robbing England of victory?"ET TU BRUTE",15 points
up in the first thirty then unable to score again.
To beat NZ you have to do it for 85 plus minutes,SCW wittering on as always how
He`d win it.They could`nt set up a penalty/drop attempt because of Nz`s great
defence.

The point is they didn't lose,it was a perfect leadup to the RWC in appalling conditions.
NZ will have available hopefully a fully fit Read he has an op on his back scheduled,Cane,
Moody,etc.The Nz set piece went well they played knock out rugby to perfection Crotty
should have started with Perenara better for this kind of dog fight.
Who`s going on about officials robbing England of victory?"ET TU BRUTE",15 points
up in the first thirty then unable to score again.
To beat NZ you have to do it for 85 plus minutes,SCW wittering on as always how
He`d win it.They could`nt set up a penalty/drop attempt because of Nz`s great
defence.

alanmackie6 wrote:Who`s going on about officials robbing England of victory?

When you have a perfectly legitimate try chalked off four minutes from the end, I think it's a fair complaint.

I think it was more a rush of blood from cole in terms of setting up a drop goal attempt.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think it was more a rush of blood from cole in terms of setting up a drop goal attempt.

Cole?

Care even. Dont type while doing something else kids.

alanmackie6 wrote:The point is they didn't lose,it was a perfect leadup to the RWC in appalling conditions.
NZ will have available hopefully a fully fit Read he has an op on his back scheduled,Cane,
Moody,etc.The Nz set piece went well they played knock out rugby to perfection Crotty
should have started with Perenara better for this kind of dog fight.
Who`s going on about officials robbing England of victory?"ET TU BRUTE",15 points
up in the first thirty then unable to score again.
To beat NZ you have to do it for 85 plus minutes,SCW wittering on as always how
He`d win it.They could`nt set up a penalty/drop attempt because of Nz`s great
defence.

Or maybe because the ref then decided to let NZ 'accidentally' fall over on the wrong side of every ruck and get in the 9's way? Don't get me wrong England should still have managed the situation better but the ref didn't help.

You're right though heaf Care didn't help himself by ensuring the ref saw it by elaborately falling everytime. I think I'd have ignored it as well!

Taylorman wrote:Missed tackles:

AB starting XV: 10
Owen Farrell: 11

Wow - given those stats I'm surprised the ABs didn't walk it ... you can't normally miss that many tackles against them and not get punished.

By half time hadn't england missed you 27 with new zealand a good deal less than 10. Watching the first half you knew who had had the better of it though.

nathan wrote:For me lawes starts in an onside position, the ruck us then pushed forward by the all blacks but when this happens the ball is now behind the back foot meaning it's out. So the try should of stood.

It certainly wasn't clear and obvious he was offside.

Good spot Nathan - there was a lot of debate in the post match analysis about 'hands on ball' versus 'ball lifted' etc (which I believe is now 'ball lifted') but that was all irrelevant as you're correct that the last AB took a step forward beyond the ball so it was out whether the SH had hands on/lifted etc or not ... although to me it still looked like Lawes was onside even when the SH lifted the ball, albeit close.

With the missed tackle stat the new system has players flying up and throwing themselves towards ball carriers who side step reducing speed so the next in line who's also flying up ends up hitting them going forward. Saracens are good at that by attacking space rather than individual players as long as the line holds firm and no dog legs occur this can be very effective. Farrell used to tackle low now he tackles high and he misses about five tackles in one phase of play. He was everywhere yesterday and throwing himself around in the second half probably through exhaustion. Dmac (love that Nick name thanks Taylor man) probably accounted for half the missed tackle count as he is an exceptional talented runner.

Reading the Torygraph report, the Sky team apparently drew a line parallel to the try line through some wizardry and they concluded that at worst Lawes was a toe length offside. Definitely not an obvious and conclusive mistake by the Garces and therefore not open to a reversal and a legit try, not withstanding that the SH stood over the ball for a couple of seconds after it was out and Lawes was definitely on-side when it became playable.

Garces bottled it and neither him nor the 4th official seem to understand the directives issued this year about who makes the decisions and on what grounds they can be made.

On an incidental matter, When Beauden Barrett took his drop goal, New Zealand had penalty advantage. It's almost a given these days for teams on penalty advantage to do something speculative to get a try, knowing that referees will come back for the kick if it fails.

Years before, however, you would often see drop goal attempts on penalty advantage. That was mainly because referees tended to call advantage over much earlier, even with no try scored. An attempted drop goal was one way to crystallise the advantage without losing it. Also, as Wilkinson used to say, it gave you two chances to score three points.

I wonder in part whether Barrett elected to go for the drop on penalty advantage because he wanted to test his technique with the knowledge that he'd get a chance to place kick if he failed.

Over use of TMOs runs the risk of spoiling the game – bit like in RL when the ref is literally 1 m from the try scorer and yet still calls for a video decision (more for show than anything). Might as well ref the whole game from the studio. Where a degree of accuracy akin to using an electron microscope or a NASA cosmic telescope is required, with 5 mins of replays to show whether a toe-nail length is at one position or another, you’ve kind of lost it IMO. Pretty sure Garces called other offside decisions and he was right there. I think refs should be encouraged to tell the TMO to butt out in such ridiculously close calls, especially when the ref is staring right at them. Else eventually we won’t need refs anymore, just multi camera angles, perhaps backed-up with real time viewer voting.

I do get the delicious irony of using a SA TMO tho. Someone’s got a sense of humour.

Rugby Fan wrote:On an incidental matter, When Beauden Barrett took his drop goal, New Zealand had penalty advantage. It's almost a given these days for teams on penalty advantage to do something speculative to get a try, knowing that referees will come back for the kick if it fails.

Years before, however, you would often see drop goal attempts on penalty advantage. That was mainly because referees tended to call advantage over much earlier, even with no try scored. An attempted drop goal was one way to crystallise the advantage without losing it. Also, as Wilkinson used to say, it gave you two chances to score three points.

I wonder in part whether Barrett elected to go for the drop on penalty advantage because he wanted to test his technique with the knowledge that he'd get a chance to place kick if he failed.

He went for it because it was a tight game and he didnt want to get a pasting for not going for one again. He also knew if he missed he would get the pen anyway.

Even if it was ultimately disallowed it was nice to see Sam Underhill skin Barrett to the try line. Fair deuce.

Farrell cost England the game not keeping the score board ticking going for 7 instead
of 3.