England v Argentina - 09.00 GMT, 05/10/19 - Match thread

[BamBam]

First topic message reminder :

England: 15. Elliot Daly; 14. Anthony Watson, 13. Manu Tuilagi, 12. Owen Farrell (c), 11. Jonny May; 10. George Ford, 9. Ben Youngs; 1. Joe Marler, 2. Jamie George, 3. Kyle Sinckler; 4. Maro Itoje, 5. George Kruis; 6. Tom Curry, 7. Sam Underhill, 8. Billy Vunipola.

Replacements: 16. Luke Cowan-Dickie, 17. Mako Vunipola, 18. Dan Cole, 19. Courtney Lawes, 20. Lewis Ludlam, 21. Willi Heinz, 22. Henry Slade, 23. Jack Nowell.

Argentina: 15. Emiliano Boffelli, 14. Matías Moroni, 13. Matias Orlando, 12. Jeronimo de la Fuente, 11. Santiago Carreras, 10. Benjamin Urdapilleta, 9. Tomas Cubelli, 8. Javier Ortega Desio, 7. Marcos Kremer, 6. Pablo Matera (c), 5. Tomas Lavanini, 4. Guido Petti Pagadizabal, 3. Juan Figallo, 2. Julian Montoya, 1. Nahuel Tetaz Chaparro

Replacements: 16. Agustín Creevy, 17. Mayco Vivas, 18. Santiago Medrano, 19. Matias Alemanno, 20. Tomas Lezana, 21. Felipe Ezcurra, 22. Lucas Mensa, 23. Bautista Delguy

Thought it was time for a match thread

[Taylorman]

Feel a little for Lavanini because he's clearly bent at the waist and Farrell is dropping as he braces for impact. We've seen lots of those not given as red cards, even for England against the USA, Samoa got away with about three the other weekend with two as yellows. Arguably the Samoan ones were worse. With the high tackle witch hunt coming from world rugby as soon as Nigel was told to review, even though he'd already called no foul play twice over the mic in play, you knew he was going to flash the red.

Worries for England, Billy V carrying a niggle and playing at about 75% and Farrell looked really poor. His kicking for goal was awful and as a support runner he was anonymous leaving Ford isolated where he should have been there for the pass.

Youngs looked a little more lively than in previous weeks. All three England flankers looked the business.

Agree, Farrell was clearly dipping.

I'd have liked to see it downgraded to a yellow on that basis. Player is dipping and Lavanini is bending at the waist. Those tackles need to be filtered out but it's the American tackle on Farrell or Hodge on Yato that are the far more dangerous ones that need instant action. Where there's no attempt to bend at the waist and a shoulder is used straight to face.

Sorry Sam, but Lavanini had to go. His challenge was like a more violent version of the one Spencer was sent off for last season for Tigers.

I know Farrells quite a tough little player, or at least he likes to think he is but you’ve gotta wonder how his confidence is going on the ball with the attraction his head seems to be drawing. He’ll likely be up against the ABs who might just throw another his way the way he’s a magnet to them currently.

[Cyril]

Then the NZ player will see red as well. That would be pretty stupid from them.

[Rugby Fan]

Second game in a row someone's smashed Farrell in the head. Both times effectively dealt with though.

Don't think he had an HIA on either occasion, which seems an oversight.

[Taylorman]

Then the NZ player will see red as well. That would be pretty stupid from them.

True, imagine winning all your matches ending them with more on the field, how many is it now?

[No 7&1/2]

Wouldn't mind at all. If teams cant keep their discipline it's down to them.

[Barney McGrew did it]

That tackle was so red it made my TV screen go funny. I was worried OF would suffer 3rd degree burns from the leakage into infra-red. I hear WR is now replaying it to refs as an example of the most obvious of reds. I’d ban Lavanini for the max then double it for making it so easy for the ref to RC him (eventually eh Nige). Then just to make the point poor old OF displayed probably the worst goal-kicking of his career (til his head eventually stopped spinning).

[Yoda]

Now I've been round the block a few times and I am pretty sure a tackle to the head has always been illegal and a red card offence. Why has it taken umpteen concussions and a report for referees to start carding at international level? It's never been OK the make contact with the head. In the good old days of boot assisted rucking there was a rule of not to stamp on head or privates. Tackling high was also one those unforgiveable acts that usually ended in a brawl and a sending off or two. Blimey the games hard enough without bellends aiming to take your head off.

[Taylorman]

Wouldn't mind at all. If teams cant keep their discipline it's down to them.

Nah, it’s not about discipline. Lack of discipline means I’m going to go out and red card someone. They’re not doing that. They’re getting caught out because of a transition to a more tougher interpretation of making players safe being applied. There’s too great an amount of bad luck in these red card events, or is it that suddenly there’s a whole bunch of players, including kids under 20, that have turned evil all of a sudden in the last two years?

The u20s was a farce, and this tournament is threatening...quickly...to also be one. Every side will be such on edge to not get caught out that it’s dominating the thinking. That’s player safety gone too far, that’s about paranoia, not safety.

[Taylorman]

Now I've been round the block a few times and I am pretty sure a tackle to the head has always been illegal and a red card offence. Why has it taken umpteen concussions and a report for referees to start carding at international level? It's never been OK the make contact with the head. In the good old days of boot assisted rucking there was a rule of not to stamp on head or privates. Tackling high was also one those unforgiveable acts that usually ended in a brawl and a sending off or two. Blimey the games hard enough without bellends aiming to take your head off.

Good point, and I think that’s because the games become far too defensive oriented. Rush defences have Ben the new fad for a few seasons now and that’s causing a lot of ‘suddenly’ in your face tackles where it’s all happened to fast to avoid bad collisions. Players are told to rush up and hit anything and everything as soon as possible. Negative approaches bring negative outcomes, and reds are the result.

[No 7&1/2]

Tackle lower. Pretty simple.

[Taylorman]

Sure, if you have time to go lower, and, go lower than the player, ie Farrell, does.  That slight dip, made sure it was red, intended or not.

Hey I’m all for not hitting the head in tackles, I just don’t think the current situation is tenable in its current form. The primary goal of player safety is certainly being addressed, but to what trade off?

I’m thinking the increase in regularity will mean the player should be replaced, even if after ten or 20. The safety risk is removed, that goal is met. It might just mean players will just keep getting sent off and replaced regularly until the message, and the techniques, change. That will take time. But it doesn’t need to ruin the game.

Let’s say England lose two players in the first five minutes of the final. Game over, nobody’s gonna bother watching it as a contest, the whole thing finishes in a flop. And that is no less likely than it is for Japan to beat Ireland.

[No 7&1/2]

If players dont have the skillset to tackle low I'm again fine with taking advantage of that.

[lostinwales]

Sure, if you have time to go lower, and, go lower than the player, ie Farrell, does.  That slight dip, made sure it was red, intended or not.

England locks are tall and tackle hard - and they manage to do so without getting carded. And yes I know about Lawes but that was not a card although it was a penalty.

It is possible to get it right.

It would have been better for the occasion had it been yellow, but it was red every day. There was no mitigation. He wasn't even really looking at his target.

[Taylorman]

Yes, especially when it’s the other side getting the reds. Wait till it’s yours, then we’ll see the crying.

[Taylorman]

Sure, if you have time to go lower, and, go lower than the player, ie Farrell, does.  That slight dip, made sure it was red, intended or not.

England locks are tall and tackle hard - and they manage to do so without getting carded. And yes I know about Lawes but that was not a card although it was a penalty.

It is possible to get it right.

It would have been better for the occasion had it been yellow, but it was red every day. There was no mitigation. He wasn't even really looking at his target.

For now they do...but things have a way of evening things up. I think it’s more circumstantial than malice, agree with the technique, some are faster learners. But under the current rule set, England will have its turn, and Farrell went close in consecutive tests last year.

Only a matter of time.

[Guest]

Tough game. Like Italy v SA, we'll never know what might have happened sans red card.

England look decent. There's clearly more to come, but they don't look like they can compete with NZ or Oz's running game at the moment. It will be all about choking either/both side where possible, and then making the most of attacking opportunities with controlled mayhem, kicking, and of course pace.

Decent win, 7/10. Got the job done. Another game where Farrell misses the early pressure kicks, while nailing the kicks once the pressure is off. Harsh perhaps, but there's a weak trend of that happening in my mind. Test level, anyway. Not too much of a worry, but kicks will change momentum in the latter stages.

Argentina...what can you say. Fought well in a way, but were almost shameful in other ways. The high tackle was a red - marginal, but a red. Totally fair call. Can't help but feel they got selection hopelessly wrong - you don't punish your European-based players for a RWC. Missing some huge talent from the test squad, and ultimately, as well as Ledesma spoke after the game, they've gone backwards in the last 4 years. Almost consistently. The Rugby Championship isn't proving to be as beneficial as it was initially, even to the point it probably hampers them now. As I said elsewhere, it feels a bit like Glasgow trying to play for Scotland; it's Jaguares trying to play test rugby, but they're less than the sum of their parts at test level.

Expect England to go up a gear against France, and then we'll really get a good look of where they are. Solid win, result never in doubt, and not too much of a test. Might help for later in the tournament re: fatigue, but in a way, the fact they've been able to coast til now as well might work as well.

[lostinwales]

Yes, especially when it’s the other side getting the reds. Wait till it’s yours, then we’ll see the crying.

If its as obvious as that one today there will be no complaints

[Old Man]

Tough game. Like Italy v SA, we'll never know what might have happened sans red card.

Doubt the result would have been much different. Italy was under the cosh and SA totally dominated.

[Taylorman]

Yeah agree with the Jaguares v Pumas comment. Jaguares went all the way to the final in S rugby then jumped straight into test rugby. They’re done. Far too much too expect a RWC showing off the back of that effort.

Japan meanwhile took all of their players out of the Sunwolves and reaped the benefit of that, and are probably still to peak looking at the last matches.

England look the real deal, winning easily without even trying so far. Gotta say the Argie line defence one on one tackling wasn’t even there. The Fback virtually drops the ball and is allowed to saunter in untouched after that. Poor.

[lostinwales]

Sure, if you have time to go lower, and, go lower than the player, ie Farrell, does.  That slight dip, made sure it was red, intended or not.

England locks are tall and tackle hard - and they manage to do so without getting carded. And yes I know about Lawes but that was not a card although it was a penalty.

It is possible to get it right.

It would have been better for the occasion had it been yellow, but it was red every day. There was no mitigation. He wasn't even really looking at his target.

For now they do...but things have a way of evening things up. I think it’s more circumstantial than malice, agree with the technique, some are faster learners. But under the current rule set, England will have its turn, and Farrell went close in consecutive tests last year.

Only a matter of time.

Clumsiness is not a defence, and its no consolation to the guy on the other end. This is all about safety of the players.

But I agree on lack of malice, and do wonder about what else they can do if malice is involved other than banning for longer afterwards

[englishborn]

Players are told to rush up and hit anything and everything as soon as possible. Negative approaches bring negative outcomes, and reds are the result.

It is not a negative approach, it is actually a very positive defence as it forces the attacking team to react quickly which tests their skill levels. Otherwise it is just sit back and wait for them to hit your wall, which in the current era of massive muscular forwards and centres is less and less likely to be effective.

A well drilled rush defence is not "hit anything and everything" as that just would be a penalty machine, the defence rushes up, ball carriers are tackled and space that they may pass into is filled with a defensive player if possible to reduce the options available to the attacking team.

You may not like it, but to call it negative is a bit much.

The red seen today was intentionally high from the moment he knew he was going to hit Farrell, if you look at replays he is looking at Farrell's head all the way up until he hit it. That isn't rush defence, that intend to "Smash" the player, which has been around long before the rush defence was a thing.

[Taylorman]

Oh look of course it’s negative. It stretches the offside rule to the max, it’s designed to shut down space and it assumes a tackle must be made well before the opportunity to make on is even there. That cuts down the time needed to either make the right decision, or get into good position, especially when the tackled player isn’t upright.

I’m not saying the Argie one wasn’t deserved all I’m concerned about is the impact reds are having on the number of tests these days. At least 7 or 8 matches have been ‘cut short’ as a fair contest and for me ‘play fair or lose your man for 60’ doesn’t cut it if it’s happening what seems like every second or third test. It robs the contest, it robs the fans, it robs the players team mates.

If this rate carries on, something will change, and for me, replacing the player after ten or 20 minutes after leaving, is fair, based purely on the number of times it’s happening. And I think it would be obtuse of anyone to suggest teams will deploy headhunters early on just to get an advantage. No one wants a test rep of that behaviour.

[Guest]

Tough game. Like Italy v SA, we'll never know what might have happened sans red card.

Doubt the result would have been much different. Italy was under the cosh and SA totally dominated.

Result in terms of winner? Yeah, obviously. Both England and SA favourites. The scoreline and the game itself would have been though.

[Guest]

Nah, it’s not about discipline. Lack of discipline means I’m going to go out and red card someone. They’re not doing that. They’re getting caught out because of a transition to a more tougher interpretation of making players safe being applied. There’s too great an amount of bad luck in these red card events, or is it that suddenly there’s a whole bunch of players, including kids under 20, that have turned evil all of a sudden in the last two years?

It literally is discipline. The NH has had 4 years of getting used to it, the SH apparently hasn't adapted. Hence the teams being penalised - adapt or die, after all.

[Guest]

Oh look of course it’s negative. It stretches the offside rule to the max, it’s designed to shut down space and...

[Guest]

As with the rankings, I dunno why Kiwis only start showing interest in the actual laws when it influences their team. Learn the law changes when they happen then stop whining. The Saffers get absolutely hammered by refs, have suffered far more than any other tier 1 nation in terms of funding and structural issues, yet their coach is a credit to the sport. I might be just because we're hearing it from the coaches, and then again on sites like this, but the antipodeans seem shocked by the actual laws of rugby, and the novelty's worn off.

[lostinwales]

As with the rankings, I dunno why Kiwis only start showing interest in the actual laws when it influences their team. Learn the law changes when they happen then stop whining. The Saffers get absolutely hammered by refs, have suffered far more than any other tier 1 nation in terms of funding and structural issues, yet their coach is a credit to the sport. I might be just because we're hearing it from the coaches, and then again on sites like this, but the antipodeans seem shocked by the actual laws of rugby, and the novelty's worn off.

There is an undertone of the game not being 'manly' enough unless you allow the odd beheading.

[englishborn]

Oh look of course it’s negative. It stretches the offside rule to the max, it’s designed to shut down space and it assumes a tackle must be made well before the opportunity to make on is even there. That cuts down the time needed to either make the right decision, or get into good position, especially when the tackled player isn’t upright.

Pushing a rule to the max has been in international rugby for decades. The whole point of it is to stop the attacking team dictate the pace of the game. The NH (6 Nations and domestic competitions) has been using this defence for a number of years now and the number of red cards has been minimal so I really struggle why you call it a negative tactic. You may as well call competing in the air negative due to the potential for a red card if the player has made a poor decision.

To me negative tactics are along the lines of "slowing the ball down by lying on the wrong side", "lazy runners" or "holding the ball even though you are off your feet and only letting go when the ref screams NO", not a legitimate defensive tactic designed to reduce the attackers time to think on the ball, hence why you see wingers cutting off the angle in rush defences without touching a single player or ball.

[RiscaGame]

That tackle was so red it made my TV screen go funny. I was worried OF would suffer 3rd degree burns from the leakage into infra-red. I hear WR is now replaying it to refs as an example of the most obvious of reds. I’d ban Lavanini for the max then double it for making it so easy for the ref to RC him (eventually eh Nige). Then just to make the point poor old OF displayed probably the worst goal-kicking of his career (til his head eventually stopped spinning).

I think Farrell would've had the yips for a while, even without the head shot. He did miss his first conversion before the red, which was a point Dallaglio missed.

As I said though, it was a poor call from Owens.

Never mind, another BP win. I suspect another BP win is coming against the French too and then if it is the Australians they play, I would expect England to really turn up and get a convincing win. If it's Wales they play, then that would be a better contest, but let's just save that for the final hey

[Guest]

There is an undertone of the game not being 'manly' enough unless you allow the odd beheading.

Absolutely.



It's literally nothing new.



For all the wonderful rugby they can and do play, it's always back-to-basics thuggery if the ABs feel threatened.





No doubt having the PI'er influence has toughened them up over the years. I distinctly remember one ex-All Black captain coming out with almost the exact same sentiments 16 years ago as the Australians are now, and the New Zealanders have been since Barrett was red carded a few months ago.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=3507415

"We're not playing tiddlywinks".

Na, clearly not. But if your team's response to losing or potentially losing against a serious threat, as all the above examples were, it's pretty telling. It's always been a different mentality with regard to fairness between the British/Irish and the Kiwis in particular. Part of what makes them so good. Part of what made the French so competitive against the ABs - the French loved using rugby as a vehicle for thuggery as well.

It's a pro sport now. Fully commercial, all about mother and children at the games as well. Sponsorship deals, #content and branding. Accept that rugby has made the grade in becoming a commercial vehicle, where other sports - like League - have not. League is dying in Australia through a combo of it seeming outdated and stale in its machismo, while also turning off older viewers with the way it's going 'soft'. Union has, by and large, got the transitions to a cleaner, more commercial game bang on.

There is literally no better example than Uruguay and Japan at this World Cup that fair, clean, healthily competitive rugby is infinitely superior to the whining and whinging to justify 'on field justice'. Don't need it, crowds don't want it anymore, and if NZ and Oz cannot and will not adapt, let them continue to suffer the consequences, bad PR for World Rugby or not. You can't back down to a bully, and that's literally what Cheika is, and the NZ media has been since SBW's red card v the Lions, but in particular the (blatant) Barrett red card v Australia.

It's all about adapting. Rugby's not American football. You need skill, timing, and awareness when making 'hits'. Weird that, for some reason, the refs have been too weak in Australasia to prepare their teams for law changes and directives that have been operational across the world for years.

We've seen Italy knock themselves out of contention with a red card. Now we've seen Australia do the same today. Oz and NZ are literally just afraid they cannot win without overstepping the mark, and might suffer the same consequences. As happened v the Lions. All very apparent, all consistent with precedent from NZ in particular.

We've already see them get away with dirty stuff v the Boks in the opening game. They got away with murder 8 years ago - nice little reminder for anyone who might have forgotten:

As I said, Japan and Uruguay have been great to watch. The high tackle stuff is already souring what has been a really great tournament. You have to hope either NZ and Oz cut it out, or they get knocked out.

[Exiledinborders]

Oh look of course it’s negative. It stretches the offside rule to the max, it’s designed to shut down space and it assumes a tackle must be made well before the opportunity to make on is even there. That cuts down the time needed to either make the right decision, or get into good position, especially when the tackled player isn’t upright.

Pushing a rule to the max has been in international rugby for decades. The whole point of it is to stop the attacking team dictate the pace of the game. The NH (6 Nations and domestic competitions) has been using this defence for a number of years now and the number of red cards has been minimal so I really struggle why you call it a negative tactic. You may as well call competing in the air negative due to the potential for a red card if the player has made a poor decision.

To me negative tactics are along the lines of "slowing the ball down by lying on the wrong side", "lazy runners" or "holding the ball even though you are off your feet and only letting go when the ref screams NO", not a legitimate defensive tactic designed to reduce the attackers time to think on the ball, hence why you see wingers cutting off the angle in rush defences without touching a single player or ball.

It is not negative. It is just the opposite. It is a tactic designed to turn defence into attack. It is far more positive than a passive drift defence.

[formerly known as Sam]

Feel a little for Lavanini because he's clearly bent at the waist and Farrell is dropping as he braces for impact. We've seen lots of those not given as red cards, even for England against the USA, Samoa got away with about three the other weekend with two as yellows. Arguably the Samoan ones were worse. With the high tackle witch hunt coming from world rugby as soon as Nigel was told to review, even though he'd already called no foul play twice over the mic in play, you knew he was going to flash the red.

Worries for England, Billy V carrying a niggle and playing at about 75% and Farrell looked really poor. His kicking for goal was awful and as a support runner he was anonymous leaving Ford isolated where he should have been there for the pass.

Youngs looked a little more lively than in previous weeks. All three England flankers looked the business.

Agree, Farrell was clearly dipping.

I'd have liked to see it downgraded to a yellow on that basis. Player is dipping and Lavanini is bending at the waist. Those tackles need to be filtered out but it's the American tackle on Farrell or Hodge on Yato that are the far more dangerous ones that need instant action. Where there's no attempt to bend at the waist and a shoulder is used straight to face.

Sorry Sam, but Lavanini had to go. His challenge was like a more violent version of the one Spencer was sent off for last season for Tigers.

And I have the same problem with this one as I did with the Spencer one. It is in no way consistent with any decision before and will undoubtedly not be again. After that Spencer card there was plenty of similar tackles in the rest of the season and none given red. This decision smacks of pressure from World Rugby. In other games there has been discussion around mitigation, Nigel brushed that aside because he was scared to not brandish the red card. He also bottled the Sinckler call which should have been yellow, no arm tackle to the knees a metre from his own line.

I like the intention of the law and it's current interpretation I dislike how it is being applied. There have been considerably worse tackles than this that have not resulted in red. Right now we will see any contact with the head as a straight red irrespective of what is happening in the game and that isn't correct. Lavanini clearly bends at the waist to lower the intended height before Farrell drops. His poor technique is that he drops his head down and so loses sight of the tackler instead of keeping his head up.

I want to see the red applied harshly to players who are not attempting to tackle low not those that are and make contact with the head because the opposition drops height into contact. That's mitigation and should be yellow.

[Taylorman]

There is an undertone of the game not being 'manly' enough unless you allow the odd beheading.

Absolutely.



It's literally nothing new.



For all the wonderful rugby they can and do play, it's always back-to-basics thuggery if the ABs feel threatened.





No doubt having the PI'er influence has toughened them up over the years. I distinctly remember one ex-All Black captain coming out with almost the exact same sentiments 16 years ago as the Australians are now, and the New Zealanders have been since Barrett was red carded a few months ago.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=3507415

"We're not playing tiddlywinks".

Na, clearly not. But if your team's response to losing or potentially losing against a serious threat, as all the above examples were, it's pretty telling. It's always been a different mentality with regard to fairness between the British/Irish and the Kiwis in particular. Part of what makes them so good. Part of what made the French so competitive against the ABs - the French loved using rugby as a vehicle for thuggery as well.

It's a pro sport now. Fully commercial, all about mother and children at the games as well. Sponsorship deals, #content and branding. Accept that rugby has made the grade in becoming a commercial vehicle, where other sports - like League - have not. League is dying in Australia through a combo of it seeming outdated and stale in its machismo, while also turning off older viewers with the way it's going 'soft'. Union has, by and large, got the transitions to a cleaner, more commercial game bang on.

There is literally no better example than Uruguay and Japan at this World Cup that fair, clean, healthily competitive rugby is infinitely superior to the whining and whinging to justify 'on field justice'. Don't need it, crowds don't want it anymore, and if NZ and Oz cannot and will not adapt, let them continue to suffer the consequences, bad PR for World Rugby or not. You can't back down to a bully, and that's literally what Cheika is, and the NZ media has been since SBW's red card v the Lions, but in particular the (blatant) Barrett red card v Australia.

It's all about adapting. Rugby's not American football. You need skill, timing, and awareness when making 'hits'. Weird that, for some reason, the refs have been too weak in Australasia to prepare their teams for law changes and directives that have been operational across the world for years.

We've seen Italy knock themselves out of contention with a red card. Now we've seen Australia do the same today. Oz and NZ are literally just afraid they cannot win without overstepping the mark, and might suffer the same consequences. As happened v the Lions. All very apparent, all consistent with precedent from NZ in particular.

We've already see them get away with dirty stuff v the Boks in the opening game. They got away with murder 8 years ago - nice little reminder for anyone who might have forgotten:

As I said, Japan and Uruguay have been great to watch. The high tackle stuff is already souring what has been a really great tournament. You have to hope either NZ and Oz cut it out, or they get knocked out.

Ooh, feeling the pressure already. Poor old doctor JPR, I’d say he’d been embarrassed one of his own using him as a poor me story. He was always a lot tougher than than that.

I’m sure he’d agree, this game is not for cry babies.

Have a hanky.

[Guest]

Case in point. A middle aged man sitting on an internet rugby forum, gleaning second hand man points for foul play. Absolute peak of masculinity right there...

[LondonTiger]

Sam, I do not feel Lavanini was trying to tackle low. While he bent, he the drove upwards to try and put a massive hit in that would unsettle Farrell. He may have achieved that it was by driving his shoulder into Farrell face. 

I have seen people try and compare it to Brian Lima from back in the day, but the Samoan tried to cut people in half aiming at the sternum. Lavanini was aiming for the upper chest with force. For me it is the exact type of tackle we need to eradicate.

[LondonTiger]

JPR was tough, but not a thug. Too often thuggish behaviour is excused and the victims derided. You can still find people out there who excuse the type of assault committed by Duncan McRae on ROG. The defence we see of thuggish behaviour is beyond pathetic.

[Taylorman]

Sam, I do not feel Lavanini was trying to tackle low. While he bent, he the drove upwards to try and put a massive hit in that would unsettle Farrell. He may have achieved that it was by driving his shoulder into Farrell face. 

I have seen people try and compare it to Brian Lima from back in the day, but the Samoan tried to cut people in half aiming at the sternum. Lavanini was aiming for the upper chest with force. For me it is the exact type of tackle we need to eradicate.

Agree with that LT but that is more a skill issue more than an attitude issue. Assuming these guys are simply doing what they always have, it’s the rule change to highlight the importance that is doing two things...successfully addressing the head injuring issue. The several cards issued in the short time have made sure that awareness has been heightened... quickly and clearly. I doubt it could have been done better, or faster in THAT respect.

But what it’s also done is highlighted a skills deficiency issue. Playing one way a whole lifetime then being told to play another ‘overnight’ is meaning cards are being issued out to what must be labelled ‘slow learners’.

So while these otherwise exemplary players blight their careers through the learning process, what do we do about the matches yet to be ruined by the act of one or God forbid, more than one player?

I get the odd rare test can be subject to losing with 14 men through a sole act of indiscretion, but this could easily be every second or third...look at England, two matches already they’ve benefitted from the downstream effects of one player. Don’t get reds will be the obvious response.

From what I can tell this frequency is increasing, particularly with the rush defence game plan that has upped the ante over the past few years.

Although they’ve gone a long way to solving one issue, they’ve already created another. And how many reds have to be given before the numbers reduce?

[Guest]

Lavanini also has a history of genuine thuggery and pushing the limit too far. Unfortunate this time, but again, the past is a good place to find intent and future behaviour.

Think there was minor mitigating circumstances, but called correctly - not enough. We've seen refs do too much to trip over backwards to not award cards. Can't argue with those handed out in the last 2 days.

And now we have precedent. Which teams know what to avoid in the knockouts.

[SecretFly]

Is it only a defender who can be a 'thug'?

We have some massive gentlemen in recent years, pumped with extra muscle, fitness and perhaps other ingredients, hitting normal sized players with hungry relish.  Sometimes the small man rises to his feet in a daze, HIA called for.....
....but the player had ball in hand....nothing to see here folks - no intention to knock the little basterde into the beginning of the following week.  Ball in hand... innocent.

Seems there is more an instinctive desire to label defenders as thugs and too readily absolve 'ball carriers' of malice of their own.

[Guest]

To clarify, the tackle isn't thuggish. Clearly wasn't aiming to hit his head - which is why I think there are mitigating circumstances, but not enough to warrant reducing it from a red.

His thuggish stuff is usually off/after the ball. But he also has a penchant for some pretty sloppy, aggressive defence as well.

[TightHEAD]

They were too pumped up dancing around in the tunnel pre game acting like ametures, which is not too far from the truth.

England were professional and got their rewards.

[Taylorman]

That’s great to hear, the holidays in 87, the dwarf throwing, jumping off wharves days are gone then?

Great

[SecretFly]

Gotta say, that was sharp. It's strange the way you forget some of the most bizarre stories ever to hit a WC.

[lostinwales]

....
"We're not playing tiddlywinks".
...

Nope, but  'I've been repeatedly smashed in the head and its never done me any harm'  while dribbling isn't a good look

[formerly known as Sam]

Sam, I do not feel Lavanini was trying to tackle low. While he bent, he the drove upwards to try and put a massive hit in that would unsettle Farrell. He may have achieved that it was by driving his shoulder into Farrell face. 

I have seen people try and compare it to Brian Lima from back in the day, but the Samoan tried to cut people in half aiming at the sternum. Lavanini was aiming for the upper chest with force. For me it is the exact type of tackle we need to eradicate.

The upper chest is a legal area of contact and will continue to be targeted because it's the best way to dislodge the ball and also generally keeps you away from the bony elbows, hips and knees that get in the way.

I'd also like to point out that lowering the tackle height further was abandoned in the Championship because it led to a larger number of concussions.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/rugby-union/47000468

[Geordie]

I think Taylorman is worried about Wales and england for his beloved Blacks....

[Taylorman]

Nope. Just a bit bored with pool play, let’s get on with the real games

[Pal Joey]

Second game in a row someone's smashed Farrell in the head. Both times effectively dealt with though.

Don't think he had an HIA on either occasion, which seems an oversight.

Which is worrying.
You could see that the usual tilt-headed (no pun intended) composure routine before those missed kicks was definitely shaky.
Not nice to see. Even for an Aussie like me who wanted Argentina to win... but tipped England in huge's tipping comp. Hope he recovers well soon.

[Guest]

....
"We're not playing tiddlywinks".
...

Nope, but  'I've been repeatedly smashed in the head and its never done me any harm'  while dribbling isn't a good look

Exactly. Go tell Shontayne Hape he's 'being a big girl'.

[Guest]

I think Taylorman is worried about Wales and england for his beloved Blacks....

Definitely. The arrogant crowing belies the fear.

Maybe it's been more than 2 years of 'NH bad, SH good', but would make sense, as that's obviously when the Lions Tour to NZ was.

[Sponsored content]