My Dad's bigger than your Dad

Heaf wrote:Possibly but difficult to be sure in these types of cases as if they kick the pen then the game takes a different path from that point onwards ...

majesticimperialman wrote:Mike Brown. Is he not in the squad because he is injured?

Or as he been dropped from the squad?

Collapse2005 wrote:

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.

alcoombe wrote: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.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

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.

He also went for it because it seems the worlds media wants to have a say in our great tens not going for dropped goals. Right or wrong its not a favourite of ours as we dont tend to need them as much as others and in 70 tests barretts never bothered wirh it. With the tight NH game it will probably come out more as less tries are scored, and the world cup around the corner.
Hes got the monkey off now, so everyones happy.

Taylorman wrote:

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.

Collapse2005 wrote:Even if it was ultimately disallowed it was nice to see Sam Underhill skin Barrett to the try line. Fair deuce.

Taylorman wrote:

alcoombe wrote: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.

Interesting that the crowd cheered when he decided to attack. Is it hindsight that its the wrong decision or are people genuinely split on it? No point joining in on the thrill of seeing your team going for it then mocking them later for not scoring which I think some do.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

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.

He also went for it because it seems the worlds media wants to have a say in our great tens not going for dropped goals. Right or wrong its not a favourite of ours as we dont tend to need them as much as others and in 70 tests barretts never bothered wirh it. With the tight NH game it will probably come out more as less tries are scored, and the world cup around the corner.
Hes got the monkey off now, so everyones happy.

Barrett doesnt score that many tries v NH sides so he needs to adapt when he faces the tougher challenge of six nations sides.

robbo277 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

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.

Farrell is the type of defender who tries to make defensive plays that force turnovers. In the last two weeks alone, he stripped a South African lock (can't remember which, apologies) in the 79th minute, put in a huge borderline-illegal hit on a South African centre to force a turnover and win the game, smashed Kieran Reid back south of the river and made a cover tackle on Mckenzie that dislodged the ball and led to an England scrum.

He makes these defensive plays because he plays right on the edge. The much discussed hit last week could have been given the other way and he got a yellow for a similar tackle against Australia in 2015. Stripping possession from a Springbok lock is no mean feat, but he tried to do the same against a Scotland runner in the 6 Nations in the phase after after "that" Finn Russell pass, conceded 5m and next phase Scotland were in the corner. He also often returns poor tackle completion stats.

For my money, despite the missed tackles, Farrell is a good defender, not a great defender. What would make him a great defender would possibly be the decision making aspect of when to try to make a defensive play and when to just tick over, make your tackle and reload, but I think within the systems he plays he's not letting anyone down.

robbo277 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

alcoombe wrote: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.

Interesting that the crowd cheered when he decided to attack. Is it hindsight that its the wrong decision or are people genuinely split on it? No point joining in on the thrill of seeing your team going for it then mocking them later for not scoring which I think some do.

Some obviously will do. For my part, I was there and I was cheered the decision to go to the corner the first time. From the second penalty on the 15 I was less sure, but it's hard for a captain to go from "go to the corner" to "settle for 3", even if the angle becomes more favourable.

Similar to Robshaw the stick he got for "going to the corner" in 2015, it wasn't the decision that was wrong for me, it was the execution. Even after our maul didn't get us over, that Itoje/Sinckler combination on the try line fluffed its lines. I still think our ball handling skills, especially in the forwards, can be much improved. See also Lawes ridiculous offload that cannoned off Slade's face into touch in the 79th minute.

I think Farrell's biggest mistake as mentioned above was the kick out on the fall. He was aiming for the man parked on the touchline just outside the 22 all day (I think this is so that the receiving team can't kick directly out, and either have to risk playing from deep or kick to our back three). He didn't just miss him, the ball missed the pitch by a mile. I get the strategy in general play, but with the match situation I don't know why you wouldn't aim to land the ball deeper in the 22 and let them kick it out to end the half 8 points up. I guess if he had executed his drill better England could have forced a penalty of their own, but it was a risk that didn't seem worth taking given the momentum of the match and the proximity to half-time.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Hartley will be 1st choice hooker for the next 10 years given England's inability to find a one who can throw. A double act of George & LCD sends shivers down my spine.

Taylorman wrote:...He also went for it because it seems the worlds media wants to have a say in our great tens not going for dropped goals...

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:...He also went for it because it seems the worlds media wants to have a say in our great tens not going for dropped goals...

If you really think New Zealand are changing the way they play to please the worlds media, then I'd be worried about them. I don't think they really are, of course. The penny dropped in that South Africa loss that a drop goal can be a handy weapon in the armoury. Sure, the players backed themselves to exploit an overlap, but if you don't have the ability to engineer a match-winning drop goal opportunity over several phases in front of the posts, then you are doing something wrong. A failure to do just that cost South Africa last week, and England this week.

I'm not sutrprised that New Zealand would have gone for drop goal in the game in that weather, especially as Farrell had reinforced its value in the first half. I am surprised that Barrett did so under penalty advantage, when he had a free opportunity to set up a try instead. I suspect he saw it as a chance to try a drop with the pressure off (the penalty would be awarded if he missed), along with the old Wilkinson rationale that he got two chances to score. The place kick looked easy but conditions were poor, so he might have thought it entailed more risk than usual.

If Barrett had tried to launch a try-scoring chance, and it had failed, I do wonder whar Read would have done, given that he'd called a scrum in the first half, and it had worked. You have to think Hansen told them at half time "take the points", so Barrett already knew he would be called on to kick.

Taylorman wrote:Maybe, and I agree with most of that but 11 missed tackles ...and he always tops that count means someone else has to make the tackle. In the rare instance we scored vs the Lions it was due to farrells five missed tackles, he opened the door for our midfield by charging crazily up at the wrong player.

He just needs to reduce tha5 count, cos any way you look at it, 11 is bad in a test match.

LordDowlais wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Maybe, and I agree with most of that but 11 missed tackles ...and he always tops that count means someone else has to make the tackle. In the rare instance we scored vs the Lions it was due to farrells five missed tackles, he opened the door for our midfield by charging crazily up at the wrong player.

He just needs to reduce tha5 count, cos any way you look at it, 11 is bad in a test match.

I have been calling Farrell out on his defensive weakness for years now, yet there are still people on here who will stick up for him till the bitter end.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

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.

He also went for it because it seems the worlds media wants to have a say in our great tens not going for dropped goals. Right or wrong its not a favourite of ours as we dont tend to need them as much as others and in 70 tests barretts never bothered wirh it. With the tight NH game it will probably come out more as less tries are scored, and the world cup around the corner.
Hes got the monkey off now, so everyones happy.

Barrett doesnt score that many tries v NH sides so he needs to adapt when he faces the tougher challenge of six nations sides.

Really? Whats not many? Half his tries...11 of 22 are vs NH sides (12 if you count Japan)and the are two hemispheres so I think hes pretty consistent where thats concerned. Tougher? No, we lose far more matches to SH sides. Losses to NH sides are rare. Lions once then one to Ireland in barretts career.  Not a lot right in that sentence Im afraid.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

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.

He also went for it because it seems the worlds media wants to have a say in our great tens not going for dropped goals. Right or wrong its not a favourite of ours as we dont tend to need them as much as others and in 70 tests barretts never bothered wirh it. With the tight NH game it will probably come out more as less tries are scored, and the world cup around the corner.
Hes got the monkey off now, so everyones happy.

Barrett doesnt score that many tries v NH sides so he needs to adapt when he faces the tougher challenge of six nations sides.

Really? Whats not many? Half his tries...11 of 22 are vs NH sides (12 if you count Japan)and the are two hemispheres so I think hes pretty consistent where thats concerned. Tougher? No, we lose far more matches to SH sides. Losses to NH sides are rare. Lions once then one to Ireland in barretts career.  Not a lot right in that sentence Im afraid.

You also play SH sides about 4 times more than you do NH sides. NZ have played Ireland 30 times and played Australia 164 times. Of course you lose to them more. Do you really think Australia are the bigger challenge to New Zealand at the moment?

Of course you don't. You just don't want to admit it. You just shaded a 1 point win scoring 1 try to the 5th place team in the 6 nations. Wow.

All the talk before the game was of record wins, record try amounts etc.

Exiledinborders wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Maybe, and I agree with most of that but 11 missed tackles ...and he always tops that count means someone else has to make the tackle. In the rare instance we scored vs the Lions it was due to farrells five missed tackles, he opened the door for our midfield by charging crazily up at the wrong player.

He just needs to reduce tha5 count, cos any way you look at it, 11 is bad in a test match.

I have been calling Farrell out on his defensive weakness for years now, yet there are still people on here who will stick up for him till the bitter end.

Tackle percentages are pretty meaningless. What counts is not the stats for individual players but the effectiveness of the defensive system.  At Saracens too Farrell has a 'poor' tackle percentage yet the Saracens overall defence is regarded as being excellent. Opponents do not see the Saracens midfield as a weak point.

Farrell's job is not to stop the attacker but to rush up and 'tackle' from the outside and so:
a) prevent the pass to the outside
b) force the attacker back to the inside where the Sarries forwards will tackle in numbers and hope to gain a turnover.

It is often better to force the attack back inside than to tackle in the open where the attacking team are likely to quickly recycle.

If a midfield player in a rush defence misses a tackle but prevents the pass and turns the attacker back inside he has not failed but done what is required by the system. Tackle percentages as a way of rating players is just for newspapers not serious coaches. The England coaching staff will be measuring Farrell's defence but in terms of the number of times the ball gets to the outside not in crude tackle percentage terms.

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

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.

He also went for it because it seems the worlds media wants to have a say in our great tens not going for dropped goals. Right or wrong its not a favourite of ours as we dont tend to need them as much as others and in 70 tests barretts never bothered wirh it. With the tight NH game it will probably come out more as less tries are scored, and the world cup around the corner.
Hes got the monkey off now, so everyones happy.

Barrett doesnt score that many tries v NH sides so he needs to adapt when he faces the tougher challenge of six nations sides.

Really? Whats not many? Half his tries...11 of 22 are vs NH sides (12 if you count Japan)and the are two hemispheres so I think hes pretty consistent where thats concerned. Tougher? No, we lose far more matches to SH sides. Losses to NH sides are rare. Lions once then one to Ireland in barretts career.  Not a lot right in that sentence Im afraid.

You also play SH sides about 4 times more than you do NH sides. NZ have played Ireland 30 times and played Australia 164 times. Of course you lose to them more. Do you really think Australia are the bigger challenge to New Zealand at the moment?

Of course you don't. You just don't want to admit it. You just shaded a 1 point win scoring 1 try to the 5th place team in the 6 nations. Wow.

All the talk before the game was of record wins, record try amounts etc.

In Barretts career? Wrong. Not 4 times more. Its about 36-30 SH v NH and Im tired of watching you bring up grossly exaggerated numbers. Do your own research. The rest of the argument has nothing to do with the original point, which was Barrett scores more tries and its a tougher challenge of 6 N sides.

Of the 6N, NZ has never lost to two of them. One has won once in nearly 30 times, winning its first and only in Chicago, of all places.one hasnt won since 1953, losing a record 30 straight since.

Of the two remaining England have lost the last six straight and France the last 14 straight.

Now how in your wildest fanatasies could you think that is tough?

What you think is true and what is actually true are very different.

We might play oz more times, but we also lose to them more. Weve lost 12 to oz and 11 to SA this century, where no 6N has got anywhere near that number, not even close, regardless of the play rates.

Oz and SA are also the two most recent teams to beat us.
, your teams are not,

Next time you want to talk stats...how about trying to get at least one right. Or dont bother at all.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

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.

He also went for it because it seems the worlds media wants to have a say in our great tens not going for dropped goals. Right or wrong its not a favourite of ours as we dont tend to need them as much as others and in 70 tests barretts never bothered wirh it. With the tight NH game it will probably come out more as less tries are scored, and the world cup around the corner.
Hes got the monkey off now, so everyones happy.

Barrett doesnt score that many tries v NH sides so he needs to adapt when he faces the tougher challenge of six nations sides.

Really? Whats not many? Half his tries...11 of 22 are vs NH sides (12 if you count Japan)and the are two hemispheres so I think hes pretty consistent where thats concerned. Tougher? No, we lose far more matches to SH sides. Losses to NH sides are rare. Lions once then one to Ireland in barretts career.  Not a lot right in that sentence Im afraid.

You also play SH sides about 4 times more than you do NH sides. NZ have played Ireland 30 times and played Australia 164 times. Of course you lose to them more. Do you really think Australia are the bigger challenge to New Zealand at the moment?

Of course you don't. You just don't want to admit it. You just shaded a 1 point win scoring 1 try to the 5th place team in the 6 nations. Wow.

All the talk before the game was of record wins, record try amounts etc.

In Barretts career? Wrong. Not 4 times more. Its about 36-30 SH v NH and Im tired of watching you bring up grossly exaggerated numbers. Do your own research. The rest of the argument has nothing to do with the original point, which was Barrett scores more tries and its a tougher challenge of 6 N sides.

Of the 6N, NZ has never lost to two of them. One has won once in nearly 30 times, winning its first and only in Chicago, of all places.one hasnt won since 1953, losing a record 30 straight since.

Of the two remaining England have lost the last six straight and France the last 14 straight.

Now how in your wildest fanatasies could you think that is tough?

What you think is true and what is actually true are very different.

We might play oz more times, but we also lose to them more. Weve lost 12 to oz and 11 to SA this century, where no 6N has got anywhere near that number, not even close, regardless of the play rates.

Oz and SA are also the two most recent teams to beat us.
, your teams are not,

Next time you want to talk stats...how about trying to get at least one right. Or dont bother at all.

Ha you are in denial. Its kind of funny watching you squirm because you cant bring yourself to admit it.

Barrett has 1 try in about 9 games v Ireland and England and 0 v the Lions. When the big games come the tries diminish.

Taylorman wrote:He just needs to reduce tha5 count, cos any way you look at it, 11 is bad in a test match.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The tmo trials which are running across all the matches from last weekend including england vs new zealand? Obviously not

LordDowlais wrote:I initially thought there was nothing wrong with the try Underhill scored on Saturday, and boy oh boy what a turn of pace and an inside out to totally out fox Barrett who did not have a clue where he was going.

He learned all that stuff in Wales by the way.

But I was watching Scrum V last night, and they actually highlighted the offside line and Courtney Lawes was passed it, by about a yard, they went from the attacking players hind feet.

If the TMO trials were in that game, and not the Wales V Australia game, I reckon that try would be awarded. But those are the breaks.

Taylorman wrote:Oddly you get to feel how SA fans did last week, and their case may have been stronger, some refs saying they would have penalised Farrell, though the not so difficult kick would still have to have been made. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

Rugby Fan wrote:If Farrell was such a defensive liability, it's fair to ask why a team as smart as New Zealand couldn't take more advantage.

When that match had just finished, I didn't think "That was a poor defensive display from England, and Farrell. in particular, had a schocker", and I doubt many others did. It's only after the raw data appeared that those comments started.

I'd be a lot happier seeing fewer missed tackles but, unless I see some analysis point out how those misses constitute a major problem which other teams will exploit, then the debate is in something of a vacuum.

The two biggest defensive blunders on the day were McKenzie and Ioane leaving Ashton unmarked on his wing, and England letting Crotty gain free metres to set up McKenzie for his try.

robbo277 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Oddly you get to feel how SA fans did last week, and their case may have been stronger, some refs saying they would have penalised Farrell, though the not so difficult kick would still have to have been made. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

While South Africa may have missed the kick last week, people this week are also discounting the fact that had the try been awarded there would have been time for NZ to come back and potentially win it anyway. As there was time for England to go on and win it, which we should have done if we'd remained calmer.

I think it was touch and go, much like the Farrell tackle in that regard. I'm not sure about this clear and obvious edict that is being quoted, but at the time it felt like a long review time and no more than a coin toss either way, so it was disappointing for it to be chalked off. But the game wasn't won and lost on that moment. Farrell kick the ball straight out on the restart, Sinckler dropping the ball on the line and Lawes bouncing the ball off Slade's face into touch at the end are better places for England fans to start when dissecting this one.

Taylorman wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:If Farrell was such a defensive liability, it's fair to ask why a team as smart as New Zealand couldn't take more advantage.

When that match had just finished, I didn't think "That was a poor defensive display from England, and Farrell. in particular, had a schocker", and I doubt many others did. It's only after the raw data appeared that those comments started.

I'd be a lot happier seeing fewer missed tackles but, unless I see some analysis point out how those misses constitute a major problem which other teams will exploit, then the debate is in something of a vacuum.

The two biggest defensive blunders on the day were McKenzie and Ioane leaving Ashton unmarked on his wing, and England letting Crotty gain free metres to set up McKenzie for his try.

Ultimately it didnt cost them directly due to Farrell but that doesnt mean that will always be the case. Im just saying its an area that could be exploited as his counts are always high.

It was a smart try the Ashton one. Daly sucked DMac off his line by heading left behind the ruck. DMac followed him across for about five meters before realising Youngs went right with the big pass, leaving Ioane marking a huge space. DMac then flew towards the left corner and how he even got there from near the posts I dont know. Great move, the pass itself making it that much easier to complete.

robbo277 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Oddly you get to feel how SA fans did last week, and their case may have been stronger, some refs saying they would have penalised Farrell, though the not so difficult kick would still have to have been made. Swings and roundabouts I guess.

While South Africa may have missed the kick last week, people this week are also discounting the fact that had the try been awarded there would have been time for NZ to come back and potentially win it anyway. As there was time for England to go on and win it, which we should have done if we'd remained calmer.

I think it was touch and go, much like the Farrell tackle in that regard. I'm not sure about this clear and obvious edict that is being quoted, but at the time it felt like a long review time and no more than a coin toss either way, so it was disappointing for it to be chalked off. But the game wasn't won and lost on that moment. Farrell kick the ball straight out on the restart, Sinckler dropping the ball on the line and Lawes bouncing the ball off Slade's face into touch at the end are better places for England fans to start when dissecting this one.

Dreadful officiating and tired execution explain England’s lost lineouts
Ben Kay


England lost five of their ten second-half lineouts after Jamie George came on at hooker but it would be wrong to say that their set piece capitulated, because they were victims of three dreadful decisions in a row from the officials.

1 - 51min 48sec: England knock-on
England’s lineout had been 100 per cent up to this point. George had come on at half-time and thrown one to Brad Shields at the back and two to Maro Itoje in the middle. The call on this throw was Shields at the front, where he was lifted by Sinckler. Scott Barrett had just come on and Itoje said that his arrival prompted a change to the way New Zealand defended the lineout, effectively switching from zonal marking to man-to-man.

Barrett was mirroring Shields and got up well but a touch later and without a jumper. Shields caught the ball but then spilt it after Barrett knocked his left arm in the air. The referee called it a “good competition” for the ball and ten years ago England would have had no complaints but the law now prevents contact in the air. This should have been a penalty to England, not a knock-on and scrum to New Zealand.


2 - 54.28: George “dummy”
George was penalised for dummying the lineout throw, which was a dreadful decision from the officials. George cocked back his arms but they never came forward and the referee imagined he had dummied it because New Zealand reacted too early. It cannot be a dummy unless the arms come through but George leaves the ball behind his head before executing a perfect throw. England were stunned by the call.

3 - 56.18: New Zealand steal 
England call a four-man lineout with Itoje and Shields and two jumpers. England try and hit Itoje at the front but Brodie Retallick jumped so far across the line to nick the throw that he landed on Sinckler, who was lifting Shields. That should have been another clear penalty. England managed the situation well and on their next lineout, George threw the ball low and to the front for Itoje, which secured possession. It was smart lineout management.


4 - 66.12: New Zealand steal
Charlie Ewels had just come on and taken over the lineout calling from George Kruis and he makes a poor decision. He should have seen from the bench how New Zealand were putting the pressure on England and calling a throw to a spot where Retallick could get up in front of Itoje was the wrong decision.

England’s lineout was now under massive pressure but Ewels called the next throw to himself, winning it in the middle. That is the sign of a a good lineout, that you keep backing your drills even after a difficult run.



5 - 69.55: New Zealand steal
England had a great chance to secure field position and work a
drop-goal routine but the execution was poor. Courtney Lawes’s dummy at the front was not convincing enough, allowing Retallick to leap in front of Itoje again and steal possession.

Steve Borthwick, England’s forwards coach, will not be concerned by the lineout. Remove the three incorrect decisions and England suffered from one ill-judged throw and some tired execution. Not a bad day, despite the perception.

Taylorman wrote: Daly sucked DMac off

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Taylorman wrote: Daly sucked DMac off  

I'm all for the game embracing the LGBT movement but this seems a bit too far.