England vs USA - match thread

[robbo277]

First topic message reminder :

Much changed England team named this morning. Will add USA team as I find it.

ENGLAND:
Marler, Cowan-Dickie, Cole, Launchbury, Kruis, Curry, Ludlam, Vunipola, Heinz, Ford (C), Cokanasiga, Francis, Joseph, McConnochie, Daly
Singleton, Genge, Sinckler, Lawes, Wilson, Youngs, Farrell, Watson

USA:
Ainuu, Taufetee, Lamositele, Landry, Civetta, Lamborn, Quill, Dolan, Davies, Macginty, Iosefo, Lasike, Brache, Scully, Hooley
Fawsitt, Kilifi, Mullen, Peterson, Germishuys, De Hass, Campbell, Teo

[TightHEAD]

Not happy with that

[mikey_dragon]

Crazy few phases of play!

[Duty281]

I suspect Eddie Jones will be furious with that.

[TightHEAD]

How many knock ons in that passage of play???

[BigGee]

They certainly deserved that score well done USA

Prerty dominsnt displsy from Englsnd though, thst looks like a marker to me. Other tesms tske note

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Who mentioned getting nilled?

[bluestonevedder]

What a terrible end

[Scottrf]

What a f up. Why play on and risk injury let alone that score.

[TightHEAD]

So, will Francis be cited?

[WELL-PAST-IT]

They certainly deserved that score  well done USA

Prerty dominsnt displsy from Englsnd though, thst looks like a marker to me. Other tesms tske note

BG, are you trying to write in Gaelic or something

[Tramptastic]

No head contact. So back to no examples.

Oh my, that's a strong rebuttal how can you be unaware of the reputation Farrell has on the international stage for high tackles that go unpunished? I say unaware, could be denial?

Laidlaw is ponderous,
RG Snyman is the anthropomorphic personification of South African rugby,
Huget is just awful,
Wales play Gatlandball,
Farrell can't tackle with his arms

All of them are reputations based on truth but also wildly exaggerated.

Farrell can tackle using his arms. Some times.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

So, will Francis be cited?

No

[No9]

Well done USA... knocked the NIL monkey off your back...

Good win by England, but not sure it really tells you anything.. The next two will be tougher, but you should be able to win them.

[Heaf]

They should get a b*llocking for playing on and risking injuries for no good reason more than anything else. Ref seemed happy to ignore several offences along the way too ... everyone seemed to lose their heads.

[TightHEAD]

So, will Francis be cited?

No

Dallaglio disagrees, thinks he will be cited.

[robbo277]

I don't know why we didn't kick it out. What's left to prove at 45-0? Can't impact the result, could have only got injured or sent off.

Still, 45-7 is a decent return and brings me closer in the prediction game, so can't complain too much.

Banana skins swerved for England. 2 games, 4 days, 10 points and no major injuries*. In pure outcome terms we could have done no better.

Mako, Nowell and Slade to come back. Cokanasiga and Wilson rehabilitated.

*the two caveats on this is Francis may be cited and Farrell. Concussion can have delayed symptoms. I know Farrell bounced up, but they'll have to continually monitor him over the next couple of days.

[No 7&1/2]

You're getting confused tramp with a rep for mo arm tackles and high tackles. Feel free to go away watch the famous 2 incidents and to then come back and admit you are wrong.

[No9]

They should get a b*llocking for playing on and risking injuries for no good reason more than anything else.  Ref seemed happy to ignore several offences along the way too ... everyone seemed to lose their heads.

Good reason:-

1. The game is 80 mins NOT 77 mins. 
2. Opportunity still to score, as USA did and allowed them to put a score on the board.
3. They risk injury in the "warm-ups", in training, even crossing the road. So why shouldn't they playing the game they are paid to do.


Decision to stop play for injury was 100% correct. As was the decision to finish the game.

[Heaf]

80 minutes was up ....

[No9]

So, will Francis be cited?

No

Dallaglio disagrees, thinks he will be cited.

Thought the purpose of citing was to correct wrong or missed foul play. If a suitable decision was taken on field (in this case it was with RED), then there is nothing to cite for.

[No9]

80 minutes was up ....

The clock stopped at 77mins.. it hadnt turned red.

[LondonTiger]

So, will Francis be cited?

No

Dallaglio disagrees, thinks he will be cited.

Thought the purpose of citing was to correct wrong or missed foul play. If a suitable decision was taken on field (in this case it was with RED), then there is nothing to cite for.

Um, Francis is an England player.

[BamBam]

I predicted 44-6 in the prediction game, so I almost smiled when that try went in

Agree with everyone who thinks the ball should have been booted out though, nothing to prove. Performance was fine, treated USA with respect and built the score well, handling can be improved but the opposition were good at preventing line breaks. Set piece was strong as expected and the maul was just too good for USA

The assault on Farrell was awful, everyone in the pub audibly winced at the slow mo and was an obvious red card.

Shame about the "whataboutery" that seems to be coming through from some quarters on this thread, Farrell may have been involved in some challenges that could be described as borderline, but no one will be able to show anything as blatant as this that he got away with. In any case, two wrong refereeing decisions don't make a right, so not sure why tackles from a year ago are being brought up

[BigGee]

Francis tackle was a yellow at best, more likely a penalty. Can't see him being cited for that, even in current climate.

[BamBam]

So, will Francis be cited?

No

Dallaglio disagrees, thinks he will be cited.

Thought the purpose of citing was to correct wrong or missed foul play. If a suitable decision was taken on field (in this case it was with RED), then there is nothing to cite for.

Would help if you knew who Francis was

[LondonTiger]

They certainly deserved that score  well done USA

Prerty dominsnt displsy from Englsnd though, thst looks like a marker to me. Other tesms tske note

BG, are you trying to write in Gaelic or something

Nah, he is on holiday watching by the pool, drunk and writing on his phone. We are lucky it was that intelligible.

[BamBam]

80 minutes was up ....

The clock stopped at 77mins.. it hadnt turned red.

The gong went long before Daly had the ball in his hands around our 10m line, that was when it should have been kicked off. Being wrong on every post on this thread is a real talent No9, keep it up

[Tramptastic]

You're getting confused tramp with a rep for mo arm tackles and high tackles. Feel free to go away watch the famous 2 incidents and to then come back and admit you are wrong.

Sorry I'll clarify the confusion.

It's no arms, leading with the shoulder and high. All 3. That's what he has a reputation for. supported by the fact the refereeing panel used the two tackles I previously highlighted as examples of incidents where the player should have been carded for dangerous play.

Further supported by the England camp saying they've been working on his tackle technique to mitigate Farrell, specifically Farrell, no-one else in the England squad, just Farrell, getting carded in a big world cup game.

[TightHEAD]

How can people think it was justice that the red card offence was on Farrell, How many reds has Farrell had over the years?

Come on guys thats not Rugby wishing hits on players you dislike or are jealous of.

[Tramptastic]

And just to clear up my post further - the shot on Farrell was illegal and worthy of a red, no-one should be put at risk like that in a game.

[TightHEAD]

Not impressed by Daly at all, his contribution just isn't good enough in defence or attack. Seems he is only there to take long range kicks at goal.

[Heaf]

80 minutes was up ....

The clock stopped at 77mins.. it hadnt turned red.

There was a scrum on 79 minutes so you're wrong .... there were lots of opportunities to kick the ball out once the clock went red but they played on from within their own half for no reason ....

[Guest]

How can people think it was justice that the red card offence was on Farrell, How many reds has Farrell had over the years?

Come on guys thats not Rugby wishing hits on players you dislike or are jealous of.

Who said that?

[TightHEAD]

Its not what you said, its how you said it.

[No9]

80 minutes was up ....

The clock stopped at 77mins.. it hadnt turned red.

The gong went long before Daly had the ball in his hands around our 10m line, that was when it should have been kicked off. Being wrong on every post on this thread is a real talent No9, keep it up

Just rechecked and Gong hasn't gone... you can check that online via some video stream I'm sure... But here's the picture from the TV broadcast showing the broadcast straight after the ref blew and the TV went to the injured player... 

TIME 77 mins 22 Sec.. 

So stick that in your pipe BamBam... I accept your apology...

[Guest]

Its not what you said, its how you said it.

I quoted an English pundit on Twitter

[Tramptastic]

Nobody said anything about it! maybe the subtle nuances of Irony were delicately indicated but everybodys agreed it was a cheap, nasty shot and deserved a red

[TightHEAD]

Its not what you said, its how you said it.

I quoted an English pundit on Twitter

Lets just all move on and get Brexit done.

[BamBam]

80 minutes was up ....

The clock stopped at 77mins.. it hadnt turned red.

The gong went long before Daly had the ball in his hands around our 10m line, that was when it should have been kicked off. Being wrong on every post on this thread is a real talent No9, keep it up

Just rechecked and Gong hasn't gone... you can check that online via some video stream I'm sure... But here's the picture from the TV broadcast showing the broadcast straight after the ref blew and the TV went to the injured player... 

TIME 77 mins 22 Sec.. 

So stick that in your pipe BamBam... I accept your apology...

Carry on watching and see when England had the ball at around the 10m line with Daly AFTER 80 MINS. That was when it should have been kicked off.

No one other than you is talking about the injury to the USA player, as that was obviously during the 80 mins

[TightHEAD]

Looked like he was fitting, hope I'm wrong.

[Heaf]

80 minutes was up ....

The clock stopped at 77mins.. it hadnt turned red.

The gong went long before Daly had the ball in his hands around our 10m line, that was when it should have been kicked off. Being wrong on every post on this thread is a real talent No9, keep it up

Just rechecked and Gong hasn't gone... you can check that online via some video stream I'm sure... But here's the picture from the TV broadcast showing the broadcast straight after the ref blew and the TV went to the injured player... 

TIME 77 mins 22 Sec.. 

So stick that in your pipe BamBam... I accept your apology...

You may as well post a picture of the teams lining up for the anthems - what's this got to do with the end of the match?

[No9]

I think, maybe, there's a cross thread here... 

I was responding to the "why they play on after the injury".. I know think Heaf you where on about why England played on rather than killing the game.. If so, sorry.. got different posts confused.. 

So I retract..

[mikey_dragon]

Farrell got away with 2 red card offences within the space of 3 weeks, we all know who the opposition were, except for 7.5 who seems to be in denial again. Not that it has anything to do with the here and now, but I can see why people mentioned it. If you'd like to move on from that subject then it helps to accept the reality of situation, rather than deny it happened. The hit on Farrell today was a deserved red card. The challenge by Francis was close, I'm not so sure - I guess we can wait and see?

[Scottrf]

TIME 77 mins 22 Sec.. 

So stick that in your pipe BamBam... I accept your apology...

Nobody was talking about stopping the game, just England kicking it out with ball in hand in our own half with 80 minutes up...

Not that hard to understand.

[Soul Requiem]

Neither Farrell tackle was a red card, yellow card yes.

[Heaf]

I think, maybe, there's a cross thread here... 

I was responding to the "why they play on after the injury".. I know think Heaf you where on about why England played on rather than killing the game.. If so, sorry.. got different posts confused.. 

So I retract..

Ah OK - yes I was questioning the thinking of the team to play on after 80 mins for no real gain whilst risking further incidents that could affect matches to come ...

[BigGee]

Completely agree with Tramps

No one wants to see anyone get injured, especially from a high shot.

Quite a few of my english friends who i havd been texting following the game also appreciated the irony of it being Farrell on the receiving end though. It is just a bit of a laugh at the end of the day.

Reputations stick unfortunately but i do hope he has improved his technique and we won't be talking about this in the future.

[TightHEAD]

Farrell got away with 2 red card offences within the space of 3 weeks

How can you get away with a red card when it wasn't one, surely the TMOs and Refs would have given a red had it been one!

[LondonTiger]

Farrell got away with 2 red card offences within the space of 3 weeks, we all know who the opposition were, except for 7.5 who seems to be in denial again. Not that it has anything to do with the here and now, but I can see why people mentioned it. If you'd like to move on from that subject then it helps to accept the reality of situation, rather than deny it happened. The hit on Farrell today was a deserved red card. The challenge by Francis was close, I'm not so sure - I guess we can wait and see?

Potential red card offences only and under the stricter interpretations now in play. Even then World Rugby used them as evidence but did say that contact was not made with the head so it is unlikely they would have been red. Farrell and England have certainly taken it on board as they have worked on changing his technique. 

Not accusing anyone on here, but I have seen posts elsewhere with people claiming the Yank should not have been sent off as Farrell deserved it. That kind of comment is truly dumb.

[LondonTiger]

I think, maybe, there's a cross thread here... 

I was responding to the "why they play on after the injury".. I know think Heaf you where on about why England played on rather than killing the game.. If so, sorry.. got different posts confused.. 

So I retract..

Ah OK - yes I was questioning the thinking of the team to play on after 80 mins for no real gain whilst risking further incidents that could affect matches to come ...

all friends again?

[Sponsored content]