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

[No 7&1/2]

The choke tackle is an obvious point whoch may need further review. In the last there have been instances where players have been held by the neck and it was quite dangerous however more and more players are causing it themselves. The black and white view would be it's still dangerous but could be called quicker as a scrum instead of a pen on terms of future laws?

[robbo277]

There are some mitigations available. E.g. in the Francis incident it was noted that:

1) the carrier dipped
2) Francis dipped to try and adjust for this
3) the initial contact was on the body but then moved to the head

I think in a scenario where you start low and a player dips you shouldn't see a red card, even if you connect with the head.

The other situation (an aptly named choke tackle) should be penalty only at worst. It's contact with the neck/head with low degree of danger (yellow card) mitigated by the fact that you started the initial tackle across the sternum (reduces to a penalty). If you let go as soon as you feel your arm slip from sternum to penalty you shouldn't see any sanction really.

[robbo277]

The choke tackle is an obvious point whoch may need further review. In the last there have been instances where players have been held by the neck and it was quite dangerous however more and more players are causing it themselves. The black and white view would be it's still dangerous but could be called quicker as a scrum instead of a pen on terms of future laws?

You could change the rule so that the team taking it in and going forward retained the feed into the scrum. Then no-one would bother choke tackling. However that would provide a further advantage to driving mauls off a lineout in that basically you can drive it as far as you want and then bring it down and have a scrum.

Maybe if there is 1 carrier in the maul and no-one from his team joins the carrier retains possession? But if there are supporting players from his team the maul is being used as an attacking strategy and the ball is turned over if it's unplayable.

[Old Man]

The choke tackle is an obvious point whoch may need further review. In the last there have been instances where players have been held by the neck and it was quite dangerous however more and more players are causing it themselves. The black and white view would be it's still dangerous but could be called quicker as a scrum instead of a pen on terms of future laws?

Yes, it should be called quicker, once a player is wrapped up by two defenders he is going to lose possession more often than not.

Besides, those wrapped arms pose little danger in the sense that it doesn’t come with brute force, it is more a choke hold that the referee should manage.

[Old Man]

The choke tackle is an obvious point whoch may need further review. In the last there have been instances where players have been held by the neck and it was quite dangerous however more and more players are causing it themselves. The black and white view would be it's still dangerous but could be called quicker as a scrum instead of a pen on terms of future laws?

You could change the rule so that the team taking it in and going forward retained the feed into the scrum. Then no-one would bother choke tackling. However that would provide a further advantage to driving mauls off a lineout in that basically you can drive it as far as you want and then bring it down and have a scrum.

Maybe if there is 1 carrier in the maul and no-one from his team joins the carrier retains possession? But if there are supporting players from his team the maul is being used as an attacking strategy and the ball is turned over if it's unplayable.

The main consideration which isn’t consistently applied by referees are when to call a maul?

I have seen referees allowing the ball carrier more time than necessary to get a knee on the ground, by the time that happens there is an arm around the downward sliding player, normally if I remember correct a maul will be called if a supporting player joins the fracas, perhaps two different laws should be applied. Alternatively the referee in a situation where the ball is caught up and doesn’t get ripped to call a scrum, team in possession ie. ball carrier to feed.

Same as a referee calls a scrum when one team goes forward and the ball can’t be played.

[LondonTiger]

Not sure if it has been noted, but Lavanini got a 4 week ban. He had the same 6 week starting point as the other guys sent off but did not get the full 50% reduction due to past bad behaviour. Leicester Tigers bear the bulk of this ban - but not as if we did not know what he was like.

[formerly known as Sam]

Spencer's was quite different to Lavanini. In a still they look the same, but Spencer was waiting for the player to come to him, while Lavanini was quite deliberately making a violent hit. He lowered and drove upwards with force intending (probably) to intimidate the player. He got it wrong and deserved to walk. He was lucky to get no sanction against Tonga.

You should always drive up into the tackle. You drive downwards and get it wrong and then you are clattering into knees and feet and asking for a blow to the head. Tackles with force are why we watch the game, it's a contract sport. Owen Farrell has no problem with trying big hits to intimidate and he had no complaints after that hit. It was similar to several other hits Lavanini put in early the game, forced a couple of knock ons.

Obviously we want to push the taller players more towards the Lawes style of tackling but I'd still like to see the directives look at the angle from which the tackler begins the tackle, the less bend of the waist involved the less mitigation can be used to limit the sanction.

[LondonTiger]

Spencer's was quite different to Lavanini. In a still they look the same, but Spencer was waiting for the player to come to him, while Lavanini was quite deliberately making a violent hit. He lowered and drove upwards with force intending (probably) to intimidate the player. He got it wrong and deserved to walk. He was lucky to get no sanction against Tonga.

You should always drive up into the tackle. You drive downwards and get it wrong and then you are clattering into knees and feet and asking for a blow to the head. Tackles with force are why we watch the game, it's a contract sport. Owen Farrell has no problem with trying big hits to intimidate and he had no complaints after that hit. It was similar to several other hits Lavanini put in early the game, forced a couple of knock ons.

Obviously we want to push the taller players more towards the Lawes style of tackling but I'd still like to see the directives look at the angle from which the tackler begins the tackle, the less bend of the waist involved the less mitigation can be used to limit the sanction.

If you drive upwards with force in a challenge like that where you are aiming for just below the neck anyway, well imo you deserve every sanction you get. There needs to be a change in behaviour from guys like Lavanini who are trying to intimidate by pushing as close to the boundaries as they can - otherwise they will keep getting banned.

[lostinwales]

Not sure if it has been noted, but Lavanini got a 4 week ban. He had the same 6 week starting point as the other guys sent off but did not get the full 50% reduction due to past bad behaviour. Leicester Tigers bear the bulk of this ban - but not as if we did not know what he was like.

Until Miaow(I think) posted that video of his past misdemeanors I hadn't realised that it was the same guy who hit Nathan Hughes at the knees when he was at the back of a maul. It may not quite have been a career ending injury but it probably is significant as far as Hughes' subsequent international career.

I really hope Leicester know what they are doing with this guy.

[formerly known as Sam]

Not sure if it has been noted, but Lavanini got a 4 week ban. He had the same 6 week starting point as the other guys sent off but did not get the full 50% reduction due to past bad behaviour. Leicester Tigers bear the bulk of this ban - but not as if we did not know what he was like.

Makes no odds. He was never likely to fly straight from Japan to Oval Park.

Week 1 - hold pads in training in Japan.
Week 2 - fly home to Argentina and get ready for the move.
Week 3 - arrive in the Midlands and undergo fitness tests as you get settled, do some light work.
Week 4 - full training and travel with squad to game.
Week 5 - second week of full training and eligible for game.

That way he gets a bit of rest before diving into the Prem season.

[formerly known as Sam]

Not sure if it has been noted, but Lavanini got a 4 week ban. He had the same 6 week starting point as the other guys sent off but did not get the full 50% reduction due to past bad behaviour. Leicester Tigers bear the bulk of this ban - but not as if we did not know what he was like.

Until Miaow(I think) posted that video of his past misdemeanors I hadn't realised that it was the same guy who hit Nathan Hughes at the knees when he was at the back of a maul. It may not quite have been a career ending injury but it probably is significant as far as Hughes' subsequent international career.

I really hope Leicester know what they are doing with this guy.

I hope they've got someone like Louis Deacon in as a mentor. Lavanini is a rough diamond. Just need to take off some of the rough edges.

[robbo277]

Not sure if it has been noted, but Lavanini got a 4 week ban. He had the same 6 week starting point as the other guys sent off but did not get the full 50% reduction due to past bad behaviour. Leicester Tigers bear the bulk of this ban - but not as if we did not know what he was like.

Makes no odds. He was never likely to fly straight from Japan to Oval Park.

Week 1 - hold pads in training in Japan.
Week 2 - fly home to Argentina and get ready for the move.
Week 3 - arrive in the Midlands and undergo fitness tests as you get settled, do some light work.
Week 4 - full training and travel with squad to game.
Week 5 - second week of full training and eligible for game.

That way he gets a bit of rest before diving into the Prem season.

But now we get into the meaningful weeks situation. The ban gets paused if he doesn't have a meaningful fixture that he would have played in that week. So I'd say in that scenario, Weeks 1 and 4 are meaningful fixtures and Weeks 2 and 3 aren't, so by the end of Week 4 he'll still have two weeks of ban to serve.

Now I'm sure Leicester will say he is available the second Argentina get knocked out and would have picked him straight away had he not been banned to get round this. Just shows another maddening aspect of that rule I guess.

[No 7&1/2]

I come from being a football fan first so I still think it's crazy an international ban applies to the club.

[robbo277]

I see the merit in rugby's way, in that you are punishing the player first and foremost and not the club. For instance, it would be weird to see someone get a long ban at the end of a Six Nations campaign and then turn out for their club the next week.
A 10 week ban at International level would be pretty much a full season under the football system.

[formerly known as Sam]

Not sure if it has been noted, but Lavanini got a 4 week ban. He had the same 6 week starting point as the other guys sent off but did not get the full 50% reduction due to past bad behaviour. Leicester Tigers bear the bulk of this ban - but not as if we did not know what he was like.

Makes no odds. He was never likely to fly straight from Japan to Oval Park.

Week 1 - hold pads in training in Japan.
Week 2 - fly home to Argentina and get ready for the move.
Week 3 - arrive in the Midlands and undergo fitness tests as you get settled, do some light work.
Week 4 - full training and travel with squad to game.
Week 5 - second week of full training and eligible for game.

That way he gets a bit of rest before diving into the Prem season.

But now we get into the meaningful weeks situation. The ban gets paused if he doesn't have a meaningful fixture that he would have played in that week. So I'd say in that scenario, Weeks 1 and 4 are meaningful fixtures and Weeks 2 and 3 aren't, so by the end of Week 4 he'll still have two weeks of ban to serve.

Now I'm sure Leicester will say he is available the second Argentina get knocked out and would have picked him straight away had he not been banned to get round this. Just shows another maddening aspect of that rule I guess.

Leicester have meaningful fixtures hence Lavanini has meaningful fixtures he could be playing in. I think the Tigers barristers would be all over it if World Rugby decided that some Premiership games were deemed to not be meaningful games. Especially as that dirty cheat Callum Clark got away with missing friendly games as part of his ban.

[Guest]

Spencer's was quite different to Lavanini. In a still they look the same, but Spencer was waiting for the player to come to him, while Lavanini was quite deliberately making a violent hit. He lowered and drove upwards with force intending (probably) to intimidate the player. He got it wrong and deserved to walk. He was lucky to get no sanction against Tonga.

I feel that's a bit harsh. Might have to rewatch but my interpretation was he was wrapping arms, looking for a big 'body hit', and just got it wrong - with not enough mitigating to prevent the red.

The thing here was timing, not intent, but Lavanini's record goes against him, of course. It's one of those where the gainline is key and it almost becomes NFL-esque - a small/marginal gain can make or break the move. Both players were simply 'getting' to the contact a bit quicker than expected or that they could control, and the onus is on the defender to be safe with their tackle. He wasn't, so it's red.

[robbo277]

Not sure if it has been noted, but Lavanini got a 4 week ban. He had the same 6 week starting point as the other guys sent off but did not get the full 50% reduction due to past bad behaviour. Leicester Tigers bear the bulk of this ban - but not as if we did not know what he was like.

Makes no odds. He was never likely to fly straight from Japan to Oval Park.

Week 1 - hold pads in training in Japan.
Week 2 - fly home to Argentina and get ready for the move.
Week 3 - arrive in the Midlands and undergo fitness tests as you get settled, do some light work.
Week 4 - full training and travel with squad to game.
Week 5 - second week of full training and eligible for game.

That way he gets a bit of rest before diving into the Prem season.

But now we get into the meaningful weeks situation. The ban gets paused if he doesn't have a meaningful fixture that he would have played in that week. So I'd say in that scenario, Weeks 1 and 4 are meaningful fixtures and Weeks 2 and 3 aren't, so by the end of Week 4 he'll still have two weeks of ban to serve.

Now I'm sure Leicester will say he is available the second Argentina get knocked out and would have picked him straight away had he not been banned to get round this. Just shows another maddening aspect of that rule I guess.

Leicester have meaningful fixtures hence Lavanini has meaningful fixtures he could be playing in. I think the Tigers barristers would be all over it if World Rugby decided that some Premiership games were deemed to not be meaningful games. Especially as that dirty cheat Callum Clark got away with missing friendly games as part of his ban.

It's not could have played in though, it's would have played in. It's not that the games wouldn't count as meaningful it is whether Lavanini would have been selected.

When I got a ban the second week of my two-week ban covered a county game (there was no club game). I had to provide assurances that I would have been picked for the county game had I not been banned. As it was a county trials game before the cup started, so the fact that I was put forward and had been training with the county was considered evidence enough, but otherwise I would have needed the county coach to confirm that I would have been picked.

The issue would be therefore not that the games aren't meaningful, but whether Lavanini would have played in them. And it will be difficult to argue he would have if he has flights booked to Argentina and wasn't due to land in the country for another two weeks.

[quinsforever]

Not sure if it has been noted, but Lavanini got a 4 week ban. He had the same 6 week starting point as the other guys sent off but did not get the full 50% reduction due to past bad behaviour. Leicester Tigers bear the bulk of this ban - but not as if we did not know what he was like.

Makes no odds. He was never likely to fly straight from Japan to Oval Park.

Week 1 - hold pads in training in Japan.
Week 2 - fly home to Argentina and get ready for the move.
Week 3 - arrive in the Midlands and undergo fitness tests as you get settled, do some light work.
Week 4 - full training and travel with squad to game.
Week 5 - second week of full training and eligible for game.

That way he gets a bit of rest before diving into the Prem season.

But now we get into the meaningful weeks situation. The ban gets paused if he doesn't have a meaningful fixture that he would have played in that week. So I'd say in that scenario, Weeks 1 and 4 are meaningful fixtures and Weeks 2 and 3 aren't, so by the end of Week 4 he'll still have two weeks of ban to serve.

Now I'm sure Leicester will say he is available the second Argentina get knocked out and would have picked him straight away had he not been banned to get round this. Just shows another maddening aspect of that rule I guess.

Leicester have meaningful fixtures hence Lavanini has meaningful fixtures he could be playing in. I think the Tigers barristers would be all over it if World Rugby decided that some Premiership games were deemed to not be meaningful games. Especially as that dirty cheat Callum Clark got away with missing friendly games as part of his ban.

It's not could have played in though, it's would have played in. It's not that the games wouldn't count as meaningful it is whether Lavanini would have been selected.

When I got a ban the second week of my two-week ban covered a county game (there was no club game). I had to provide assurances that I would have been picked for the county game had I not been banned. As it was a county trials game before the cup started, so the fact that I was put forward and had been training with the county was considered evidence enough, but otherwise I would have needed the county coach to confirm that I would have been picked.

The issue would be therefore not that the games aren't meaningful, but whether Lavanini would have played in them. And it will be difficult to argue he would have if he has flights booked to Argentina and wasn't due to land in the country for another two weeks.

ooh. what did you doto merit the ban?

[maestegmafia]

Spencer's was quite different to Lavanini. In a still they look the same, but Spencer was waiting for the player to come to him, while Lavanini was quite deliberately making a violent hit. He lowered and drove upwards with force intending (probably) to intimidate the player. He got it wrong and deserved to walk. He was lucky to get no sanction against Tonga.

I feel that's a bit harsh. Might have to rewatch but my interpretation was he was wrapping arms, looking for a big 'body hit', and just got it wrong - with not enough mitigating to prevent the red.

The thing here was timing, not intent, but Lavanini's record goes against him, of course. It's one of those where the gainline is key and it almost becomes NFL-esque - a small/marginal gain can make or break the move. Both players were simply 'getting' to the contact a bit quicker than expected or that they could control, and the onus is on the defender to be safe with their tackle. He wasn't, so it's red.

I worry about the letter of the law making these decisions non subjective. Two instances are rarely the same and if a stringent law is made then the law can be taken advantage of too.

If France want to get a key england player sent off duck in to the tackle take the hit.

It’s cynical and not part of the game but these red cards have so much of an impact on the result it’s practically tournament over once the card is issued

[No 7&1/2]

Duck into a tackle and it's extremely unlikely to be a red card.

[maestegmafia]

Duck into a tackle and it's extremely unlikely to be a red card.

Depends whether the referee thinks the player ducked. There have been calls both ways where many fans have disagreed on whether the player had or had not ducked going into the tackle and whether that ducking should award a red or yellow card.

Hooper and Read have been let off with penalties when other players have seen their team exit the competition for the same tackle..

[Engine#4]

Target the ball in the tackle and you are unlikely to ever get sent off for a high hit. The root of the problem is the emphasis placed on winning collisions. Until this is addressed there will always an issue with player safety. I also think that if I commit a high hit because the opposition steps or ducks then hard lines, he's outdone me and it's up to me not to get caught out. It's not up to an attacker to stand up tall enough to be hit.

[No 7&1/2]

Precisely engine. Lower your tackle height and you will be fine. Cant remember the specifics of read oe even hooper now but I dont think either got cited after the event either.

[robbo277]

Not sure if it has been noted, but Lavanini got a 4 week ban. He had the same 6 week starting point as the other guys sent off but did not get the full 50% reduction due to past bad behaviour. Leicester Tigers bear the bulk of this ban - but not as if we did not know what he was like.

Makes no odds. He was never likely to fly straight from Japan to Oval Park.

Week 1 - hold pads in training in Japan.
Week 2 - fly home to Argentina and get ready for the move.
Week 3 - arrive in the Midlands and undergo fitness tests as you get settled, do some light work.
Week 4 - full training and travel with squad to game.
Week 5 - second week of full training and eligible for game.

That way he gets a bit of rest before diving into the Prem season.

But now we get into the meaningful weeks situation. The ban gets paused if he doesn't have a meaningful fixture that he would have played in that week. So I'd say in that scenario, Weeks 1 and 4 are meaningful fixtures and Weeks 2 and 3 aren't, so by the end of Week 4 he'll still have two weeks of ban to serve.

Now I'm sure Leicester will say he is available the second Argentina get knocked out and would have picked him straight away had he not been banned to get round this. Just shows another maddening aspect of that rule I guess.

Leicester have meaningful fixtures hence Lavanini has meaningful fixtures he could be playing in. I think the Tigers barristers would be all over it if World Rugby decided that some Premiership games were deemed to not be meaningful games. Especially as that dirty cheat Callum Clark got away with missing friendly games as part of his ban.

It's not could have played in though, it's would have played in. It's not that the games wouldn't count as meaningful it is whether Lavanini would have been selected.

When I got a ban the second week of my two-week ban covered a county game (there was no club game). I had to provide assurances that I would have been picked for the county game had I not been banned. As it was a county trials game before the cup started, so the fact that I was put forward and had been training with the county was considered evidence enough, but otherwise I would have needed the county coach to confirm that I would have been picked.

The issue would be therefore not that the games aren't meaningful, but whether Lavanini would have played in them. And it will be difficult to argue he would have if he has flights booked to Argentina and wasn't due to land in the country for another two weeks.

ooh. what did you doto merit the ban?

Fracas right near the end of the game, one of their players squaring up to me and I leant my head into his. It was a headbutt but wasn't "full blooded" (didn't man sausage my head back, didn't use excessive force) and the other player was fine (no injury, wasn't knocked off his feet or anything, able to complete the game). But yes, definitely a red card and apologies to the player and the referee after the game for losing my head.

4 weeks for a low entry offence, down to 2 for a guilty plea, contrition and good prior record. Then we spent about 30 minutes discussing which weeks would constitute "meaningful weeks" because it was the end of the season, which is why I feel I have an okay handle on what constitutes meaningful weeks (that is, until NZ let SBW count a 3x 30 minute trial game ).

[Sponsored content]