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

[quinsforever]

wins vs tonga and USA are not informative. not informative for us, and not informative about how england will play against france and argentina.

delighted we have a deep squad. best moment for me was Ellis Genge's break from the maul in 2nd half and steam rollering of 2 defenders before Cocanasiga try (spelling)

[Soul Requiem]

.

[No 7&1/2]

I struggle with journalism in this country sometimes. Basically another article focusing on dangerous tackles but seemingly cant think through the logical steps about what the story is here. It's that despite the officials actually spotting it and getting the red correct the player safety aspect ie farrell getting checked was completely forgotten about.
Crackdowns on tackling are pointless unless you remember why they are brought in.

[lostinwales]

Francis has been cited. (Edit : 'for a tackle which left Hooley with concussion' - in which case why was he left on and how does what happened to him at the end of the game link to this. The poor guy ended in a bad way but can they link this to Francis's tackle in the first few minutes?)

Shall we just rename this thread to reflect that it only really covers a debate about high tackles?

[Soul Requiem]

That would be very harsh if he gets a ban for that, yellow card at most.

[LondonTiger]

Pretty certain Francis will get a 3 match ban in line with Hodge and Lee-Lo, as although the arm and shoulder hits Hooley on the shoulders, there is clear head on head contact. Surprised there was no citing for the Yank challenge on Launchbury.

It has been confirmed that Hooley's concussion was caused by a challenge with Mark Wilson.

[Rinsure]

Unlikely to matter in the scheme of things though, I think, Francis would be unlikely to be involved in the matchday 23 for the business end of the tournament. Unless, of course, we pick up injuries, but hopefully he'll have served his ban by then.

[LondonTiger]

Yeah, if it could happen to any player Francis (or McConnochie) has the least impact. I wonder if that will be Francis last appearance for England?

[TightHEAD]

To be fair McConnochie hasn't had much ball to play with, I think its more a case of how good our other wingers are at the moment.

[LondonTiger]

Not slating McConnochie and the ball has not run his way, but he is very much the 6th back 3 player in the squad.

[BamBam]

McConnochie took his try well, but didn't show up much outside of that. He had one opportunity close to their try line with plenty of space on the outside but didn't back himself, can't imagine him featuring much now unless we get any injuries

Think its fair enough that Francis was cited. Does a red card in a game automatically mean a suspension? If the players getting 3 week bans etc miss a few games, do the red cards have a similar impact?

[LondonTiger]

A red card automatically means a disciplinary hearing. Sometimes they will take the amount of time missed in the game into account but not relevant for Quill. Cannot see him getting anything other than another 3 weeks off. With Francis I am not sure what the entry point is. If it is the 6 weeks that Hodge and Lee-Lo got before the almost mandatory 50% reduction he will surely get the same.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Francis tackle was not even close to being as bad as the other to, the picture on the Sky website clearly shows heads alongside each other, both arms wrapping around and the bicep and shoulder hitting the ball and arms not the head. As both were vertical at the time the shoulder would not have driven through to the head.



As posters have previously said, a penalty at worse and a possible yellow card. Looking ate other videos, Francis comes in front to front and is twisting in a clockwise direction taking all his shoulder away from Hooley's head. That he is also on one knee when making the tackle shows that Hooley dropped into him.

[url=https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup/rwc-2019-japan/116140677/englands-piers-francis-under-scrutiny-for-rugby-world-cup-high-shot]Stuffs photo

[LondonTiger]

Francis tackle was not even close to being as bad as the other to, the picture on the Sky website clearly shows heads alongside each other, both arms wrapping around and the bicep and shoulder hitting the ball and arms not the head. As both were vertical at the time the shoulder would not have driven through to the head.

[url=www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12504/11820459/england-centre-piers-francis-cited-for-dangerous-tackle-at-rugby-world-cup url].

As posters have previously said, a penalty at worse and a possible yellow card.

Citing office disagrees. We shall see what the disciplinary panel say. It should be noted that head on head also breaches the rules.

[dummy_half]

Not so sure that Francis will be found guilty of a red card offence (citing is only a recommendation for review, not confirmation of guilt) - I'd feel it was pretty harsh if that's the conclusion (certainly by comparison with the other cases so far). He's upright in the tackle, rather than diving or jumping in, and the contact is shoulder and chest to upper chest and the ball, with only secondary contact between the heads. Francis clearly makes an attempt to wrap his arms. The photo on the BBC page is very clear as to what happened.

Not saying I'd be shocked if he is suspended, as it's pretty marginal and certainly a situation that we should look to avoid in future games - certainly would have been a red card offence had he made contact a few inches higher or if Hooley had stooped a bit lower.

It would certainly be a travesty of justice if Francis and Quill were suspended for the same number of games given the difference between the two tackles (one marginal, and one clear shoulder charge to the head, with the leading arm tucked across the tacklers body where there was no possibility of wrapping in the tackle).

[robbo277]

I think Francis was on par with Hodge and the first Samoan yellow card. Quill and the second Samoan yellow were worse. I haven't studied the tapes in depth though.

For my money they were all reds under the current directive. They all connected with the head and there wasn't enough "dip" by any of those tackled players to mitigate a red.

Quill and the second Samoan were worse in my opinion. Quill was no arms and in terms of empathy with the game needless, the whistle was just about t go (although it hadn't, which is why that game empathy needs to come into it). The Samoan seemed to jump headfirst into the Russian with little regard for anyone's safety.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

LT,

Take a look at the links, if they work. Francis comes in low on one knee and has his head alongside Holley's any contact is minimal if at all. I could not see Hooley's head move under any impact, in fact it seems to be moving forward under the body impact. Francis makes contact and as part of the same movement twists around to the left pulling Hooley with him which takes his shoulder away from Hooley's head.

As you say, we will see what the disciplinary panel say, but it is not in the same league as the other two.

This dropping into tackle by the ball carrier is worrying as it looks like they are trying to instigate a head contact. Francis is on one knee at the time of contact, there is no way he can change position when Hooley just drops into him and turns his head and shoulder towards Francis. You could argue that Hooley instigated the head contact on Francis.

We have seen a lot of this so far in the RWC, ball carriers dropping into the tackle to try and put tacklers off or worse get them penalised and carded. It's just like jumping to take a pass when there is no need for it, they know they are going to get man and ball, so lets milk a penalty at the same time.

[Poorfour]

Working through the high tackle framework:

World Rugby High Tackle Framework

High tackle or shoulder charge? He wraps the arms, so tackle.
There's head/head contact, so then we move onto degree of danger:

Tackler draws the arm back prior to contact - No
Tackler may leave the ground - No
Arm swings forward prior to contact - No
Tackler is attempting an active/dominant tackle, as opposed to passive/soak, or “pulling out” of contact - Yes
Tackler speed and/or acceleration into tackle is high - Yes
Rigid arm or elbow makes contact with BC head as part of a swinging motion - No
Tackler completes the tackle (as opposed to immediate release/withdrawal) - Yes

Mitigation:
Tackler makes a definite attempt to change height in an effort to avoid ball carrier’s head - No
BC suddenly drops in height (e.g. From earlier tackle, trips/falls, dives to score) - No
Tackler is unsighted prior to contact - No
“Reactionary” tackle, immediate release - No
Head contact is indirect (starts elsewhere on the body and then slips or moves up resulting in minor contact to the BC’s head or neck) - Arguably. It's an upright tackle, but he's clearly trying to make the tackle rather than going for head contact.

It's a bit marginal for me. Nowhere near as bad as Hodge's - but then it's also nowhere near as bad as Biggar's on Itoje, which wasn't even cited.

The outcome depends on whether 3 out of 7 indicators classifies it as a high degree of danger. I would have thought in the match a yellow would have been a reasonable outcome, but I'd find it hard to be too aggrieved if he gets a red. I'd hope any ban would be shorter than three weeks though - it would be very inappropriate for that to merit a similar punishment to Hodge's.

[lostinwales]

It's very easy to say that is no where near a red without understanding that the rules have changed

[dummy_half]

It's very easy to say that is no where near a red without understanding that the rules have changed

I don't think anyone here is saying this was nowhere near a red card offence - I think it's useful for the citing panel to have a look at it regardless of the ultimate judgement, as it is clearly on the margins of a red card offence to the current framework. As such, it will either set the benchmark of the worst tackle that is permitted or the least dangerous that should be judged a red card offence.

[TightHEAD]

Any news on the injured US player?

[dummy_half]

Local Bedford newspaper reporting it as a serious concussion, caused by his head hitting the ground hard after Wilson's tackle. The report doesn't suggest any other issues.

[TightHEAD]

Looked like he was fitting but may be wrong and have no wish to re-watch it.

[Armchairexpert]

Is it sacrilegious to say that I thought the back row went better when Wilson came on? I thought Billy looked rather limp, Wilson added a lot more dynamism and linked better with the rest of the back row. All the talk has been that Billy is England’s most important player, did not get that feeling yesterday. Over worked perhaps?

[Rugby Fan]

...The photo on the BBC page is very clear as to what happened....

That's not possible. No single, static, photograph can ever accurately sum up what might have happened.

Sports lawyer Tim O'Connor is outraged that people are still seeking to excuse high tackles. Here is his thread;

https://twitter.com/timoconnorbl/status/1177490158884552704

To everyone who argues that some high tackles are a matter of small margins, he argues that wouldn't be true if players aimed lower.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Is it sacrilegious to say that I thought the back row went better when Wilson came on? I thought Billy looked rather limp, Wilson added a lot more dynamism and linked better with the rest of the back row. All the talk has been that Billy is England’s most important player, did not get that feeling yesterday. Over worked perhaps?

I thought that as well. Wilson is a massively under rated player, he seemed to make more yards and link better, but that could be because he was getting less attention than BV

[Poorfour]

Billy was also taking the ball far too statically. The one occasion in the first half when he took it at pace, he went through three or four defenders. He needs momentum to make the most of his power.

[No 7&1/2]

I'm on the other side. Wilson is overrated by fans. Hes there for cover. He wont be there barring injury post world cup. He was good yesterday though. His second best performance with the other coming at 8. Better there when asked to carry more than 6 where hes a bit anonymous?

[lostinwales]

Is it sacrilegious to say that I thought the back row went better when Wilson came on? I thought Billy looked rather limp, Wilson added a lot more dynamism and linked better with the rest of the back row. All the talk has been that Billy is England’s most important player, did not get that feeling yesterday. Over worked perhaps?

I thought that as well. Wilson is a massively under rated player, he seemed to make more yards and link better, but that could be because he was getting less attention than BV

Yeah Billy will always get attention because the opposition know he's going to get the ball. When they get it right he won't look so great, but should still make space for others to exploit.

[Soul Requiem]

I'm on the other side. Wilson is overrated by fans. Hes there for cover. He wont be there barring injury post world cup. He was good yesterday though. His second best performance with the other coming at 8. Better there when asked to carry more than 6 where hes a bit anonymous?

No Wilson proved you wrong and you're not man enough to admit it, his carrying is good and his support work at the breakdown is superb on top of being able to tackle all day.

[No 7&1/2]

Not at all yet. Bit of a weird comment soul considering he looks to have been dropped from the team.

[LondonTiger]

Wilson is a different style of carrier, more a support runner. Billy beat 6 defenders in total and had a large part to play in the first try. He was a bit quiet in defence (nigh on non existent) but he is an absolutely vital part of the team who scares opposition and ties in defenders with his dummy runs. 

I really like Wilson, feel he is appreciably better than 7.5 is willing to accept, but he is just back up. Nice to have such quality back up. That was the hallmark of 2003 with the likes of Corry and Moody as back row back up.

[Soul Requiem]

Back up to Curry and Underhill, he must be useless.

[No 7&1/2]

I'm I'm happy to accept that's your view LT. As with geordie et al. And I'm sure youd accept that hes dropped to cover for 8 and unlikely to unseat Vunipola 1 of the very best 8 s in the world. He seems to not be concerning the places of 6 or 7 at all either. I've always said hes a decent 6. For my money shields was better as he is much better in the lineout. And I've said previously neither of them would be around after the world cup at guys like Willis hill etc come through. Before willis was injured I thought hed walk into this team. Jones seems (at the moment at least) to agree that hes not worthy of the 6 shirt. Its jones so he'll no doubt prove me wrong next game. I will restate though that Wilson has been anonymous at 6 when played there.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

7.5, no one is suggesting the Wilson will take Billy's place, but he is there for more than cover, he offers an alternative play style to Billy. You would not want Billy on the field having 10 minutes left to defend a 4 point lead, you want someone that can smash and grab anything that moves and keep going 100% the whole time.

Wilson also offers a lot of leadership on the field, Billy can lead by example, but he is not the one to raise other players games after they have made an mistake, Wilson is.

[No 7&1/2]

I don't think you've understood the point then soul.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

I don't think you've understood the point then soul.

Your a misunderstood soul, Soul.

7.5 is BV's no. 1 fan.

Wilson is a mere shadow, unskilled, there to make up the numbers until BV 2 comes along. 7.5 is a minority of 1 on this subject.

[No 7&1/2]

Fair enough Past. I personally doubt vunipola would be withdrawn for wilson in that circumstance however so I do think hes there purely for cover.

[No 7&1/2]

Erm then I saw that last remark! Yes vunipola is miles better than Wilson. Infinitely so. Wilsom is just cover and not threatening the staring lineup at 8. At all.
And I'm pretty sure I'm not in a minority at all for that!

[WELL-PAST-IT]

7.5, if used used the term, " a bit less effective alternative", you might have more people support you in this. Although there would be quite a number that would drop the "less effective" part.

[No 7&1/2]

You've lost me a little bit here. Are you just saying wilson is an alternative to vunipola? Yes he is. Not one who will be chosen however. And doesn't really go against what I've said?

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Billy is miles better than Wilson at being Billy. Wilson is miles better than Billy at being Wilson.

Billy offers his ability to crash through brick walls, leadership by example and causes the opposition to focus on him to the benefit of the team but not much else. Wilson offers a line out option, a tackling machine and verbal leadership during the game as well as the ability to make yards as he takes the ball going forward, not standing still, which Billy does too much of.

It's horses for courses, I would select BV over Wilson, but Wilson is a lot more than JUST, cover.

Is Slade or JJ, just cover for Manu, is Big Joe just cover for May or Watson. No, like Wilson they are there to provide a creditable alternative when a game requires it and cover when injury occurs.

[No 7&1/2]

I accept that's what you think. I just disagree completely. If billy vunipola is fit, hes on the pitch for jones in the remaining games.
To be fair the more interesting question for me now if should a flanker go down is it wilson or Ludlow who starts. Close call.

[WELL-PAST-IT]

Lets face it 7.5. you do not rate Wilson at all and have been constantly disparaging towards him since he came on the scene. You were screaming for an alternative when BV was injured and couldn't play.

[No 7&1/2]

I rate wilson as decent but nothing more. Hes not blown me away that's true. Robshaw was better. The next guy, likely willis, will be better.im fine with saying that's my opinion. Wilson is decent cover in the short term.

[lostinwales]

I rate wilson as decent but nothing more. Hes not blown me away that's true. Robshaw was better. The next guy, likely willis, will be better.im fine with saying that's my opinion. Wilson is decent cover in the short term.

I am a huge Robshaw fan but I think Wilson right now is much better. Similar engine and anticipation but bigger and stronger. It is horses for courses and I can't deny how exciting it is to have Curry and Underhill playing together, especially that Curry is starting to become much more of an all rounder, but Wilson can step in anywhere across the back row and not let anyone (well, almost anyone) down. Ludlam may well have an excellent future and I am not worried about him playing now, but he's making up the numbers.

I also think Shields has been mostly anonymous. Competent but little more, and am quite happy he stayed at home.

[Guest]

[quote="Rugby Fan"]

To everyone who argues that some high tackles are a matter of small margins, he argues that wouldn't  be true if players aimed lower.

Key point that seems missing in too many discussions, particularly from what I've seen in the SH. There isn't the acceptance there to change. The Kiwis justifying the Hodge tackle as marginal/close/harsh etc. because they know the ABs will probably have a similar issue later in the tournament. They're not going to sacrifice the big hit for player safety. It's a cultural thing - the desire to change the game isn't there.

[No 7&1/2]

So really are we a million miles away from agreeing. Robshaw had a really dodgy couple of games for England then got injured and never got back to where he was. Curry and underhill v exciting. I was a bit undecided about ludlam but with underhill or curry I think the balance is nice. And yes Wilson is the perfect back row cover. I've said the reason I liked shields was the lineout backup for my preferred lick combo of launchbury and itoje. I'm expecting more and more from curry in that spot though.
I've also said for a good while it's more quibbles about England squads for me. I'm happy for jones to pick any of these guys and expect more often than not to win. I'll still say my preferences though.

[Guest]

Billy V is far less important to you that Tuilagi is. Same for Mako. Both are good on their day, but I think Marler is excellent, and there's enough go forward from Curry/Underhill and whoever they pick at 8, Wilson at the moment, to mitigate what Billy brings and also doesn't bring. Tuilagi is the key man if England are to win the RWC, but having all 3 in the team is useful, particularly Billy and Tuilagi from a carrying perspective. Two big running options, and then you can add the likes of George, Itoje, Sinckler/Genge from the bench, and Underhill. Then the fleet footed May, Watson, Nowell/Joe C, Slade. It's like 3 tiers of carrying, with Tuilagi at the top for me. Useful to have Billy there as well to keep defenders guessing, but not integral.

[No 7&1/2]

When england reacting slowly to refs is brought up next time can we remember the japan game last autumn and compare with how ireland reacted please?!

[Sponsored content]