World Cup

First topic message reminder :

I'll header it world cup but start with England as, well I'm English. The World cup is nearly upon us. Hope this does as much for rugby as it did for football with the Lionesses win. It could bring some much needed positivity to the sport here following the highlighted risks from head injury cases and the decline of Worcester (and Wasps).

The first lineup is here, and England remain the favourties having won their last 25 matches (which takes over Cyprus' record):

England: Kildunne; Thompson, Scarratt, Rowland, MacDonald; Harrison, Infante; Cornborough, Cokayne, Bern, Aldcroft, Ward, Matthews, Kabeya, Hunter (capt).

Replacements: Powell, Botterman, Muir, O'Donnell, Cleall, L Packer, Aitchison, Dow.

Bit of info from the Beeb.

'Fiji are already proving to be a popular side at the tournament and England head coach Middleton says "we're going to be the bad guys on Saturday".

"They're probably going to want an open, flowing game based around a bit of carnage," he added.

"We want to try and bring them under control."

Dow may well help England match fire with fire, with Middleton suggesting the wing is nearly back to her best.

"She scored a couple of tries in training yesterday and she puts the fear of god into defenders in front of her," he said.

"Before she got injured she was the best finisher in world rugby. To get back from where she's been is incredible - enjoying it is the most important thing."

England's match at 04:45 BST will be the second of three on the opening day at Auckland's Eden Park, where a record attendance is expected with fewer than 1,800 tickets left for the 50,000 capacity venue.

France and New Zealand - England's main contenders for the trophy - will also play at Eden Park on Saturday.

France face South Africa in the tournament opener at 02:15, with hosts New Zealand taking on Australia in the final game of the day at 07:15.

Wales and Scotland play each other in Whangarei at 05:45 on Sunday, 9 October.'

Where did our penalty advantage go?

Advantage??? What happened???

This is it then.

They weren't going to let nz lose that one

Yeah NZ a little lucky with that yellow. Not sure why they're looking at anything other that head on head poor tmo there. But England still messed up that last lineout.

Oh well. Red card killed it. NZ by far better in backs but Eng could have nicked that at end.
Whitehouse? hmmm wonder which side he was on...

A great game. Shame about the red card.
Well done New Zealand

The irony being we mess up the chance of a rolling maul to win.

Judging on the 1 match only....NZ deserved the win. England lacked ideas and skill outside the set piece, not unlike the mens side tbh.

Yep NZ backs far better. On balance of play deserved win but gutting all the same.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:The irony being we mess up the chance of a rolling maul to win.

Judging on the 1 match only....NZ deserved the win. England lacked ideas and skill outside the set piece, not unlike the mens side tbh.

Massively unfair. The women have a great setpiece.

Yea actually....its much better than the mens!

Tight game in the end. England looked one dimensional with the rolling maul upon rolling maul as the game plan. Good on them for that as it’s been successful. Have to say, this women’s RWC has been great, better than the dross served up in the last men’s effort.

Right now i am gutted for the red roses dp close yet just noy enough.

Red card ultimately decided the game. The player in question will be distraught for a very long while.

Is the TMO allowed to chime in at will? I thought the laws stipulated only certain circumstances or when asked by the ref? Haven't seen the match yet but apparently the TMO (Ben Whitehouse?) chimed in to overrule a line-out call without being asked? Now the end decision may have been right but then surely they should be calling in for every forward pass, knock-on etc that's missed rather than cherry-picking as it looks a bit dodgy otherwise.

Also was it Whitehouse that decided no red for the NZ head to head?

It's a creep now in terms of when the tmos get involved. Think it was supposed to be only errors foul play 9r when asked.
He was asked where the contact was, and didn't mention it was direct head to head merely where the shoulder initial was.

Deserved red card and correctly punished. There was a concern the officials were going to bottle it like some had in previous ‘women’s’ matches in this tournament but they didn’t on the biggest of stages so well done to them. Referee did a good job.

The offside sanctioned rolling maul really should be outlawed as it’s a blight on the game. The fact it can be relied on as a one trick pony tactic to be successfull is detrimental.

Why the inverted commas on women's? Nice to see you back, don't think I've seen you since a semi final.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why the inverted commas on women's? Nice to see you back, don't think I've seen you since a semi final.

Deserved red card and correctly punished. There was a concern the officials were going to bottle it like some had in previous ‘women’s’ high profile matches in RWCs this tournament but they didn’t on the biggest of stages so well done to them. Referee did a good job.

Fair call 7.5, I see how that looks, poor choice from me to say it like that. For reference, I only have two examples where a trigger happy referee might have issued a RC but didn’t. One being at 58 mins in below. Tip tackle past horizontal landing on head. Overall I think the refereeing has been very good and has contributed to an enjoyable RWC.

Quotes lifted from the Guardian. Has me scratching my head a little as he's not even thought about maybe tackling a little lower?

'England women’s head coach, Simon Middleton, believes the game’s high-tackle protocols need revisiting following his team’s heartbreaking defeat in Saturday’s World Cup final. The Red Roses were forced to play with 14 players for over an hour after Lydia Thompson was sent off and Middleton believes the winger was punished excessively.

While Thompson made clear contact with the head of her opponent, Portia Woodman, Middleton believes it was an accidental collision that should not have prompted the harshest sanction. “There has to be a penalty for a high tackle or head clash or things that endanger players,” said Middleton, who believes a 20-minute “orange card” would be a better option in such situations.

England players console each other
Middleton hails beaten England: ‘We couldn’t ask for a single thing more’
Read more
“I think that’s a great solution. Player welfare should be right at the top of the agenda but I just think you have to take intent into consideration. Maybe that’s the bit that’s missing as part of our protocols and consistency. Lydia Thompson is one of the most beautiful, caring people you will ever meet in your life. She did not deserve this.”

Advertisement
Middleton also suggested England, who have now lost two consecutive World Cup finals after leading at half-time, had done well to make the game such a tight contest following Thompson’s dismissal in the 17th minute. “If it hadn’t been for the character, commitment and determination of the side, it might not have been the spectacle it was,” he said.

“All the [sanctions] that have been brought in have had a huge impact on the game in terms of concussion and we should keep going as hard as we can to make the game as safe as we can. But there were some far more intentful incidents across this competition that didn’t receive what we got yesterday.”

Middleton’s future as head coach will now be the subject of a post-tournament review, with the Rugby Football Union’s chief executive, Bill Sweeney, confirming other potential candidates for the job would be assessed. “We’ve got exactly the same process for coach succession planning for the women’s as we have for the men’s,” said Sweeney. “It’s about getting as many people that we know are on the radar and looking at what skills they’ve got.

“It wouldn’t be fair to name names now. We’ll need to get back and debrief with Simon and get his feedback on how things went and we’ll take it from there. He’s been doing it for a while now. We need to understand where he wants to go next and then look at other candidates who would like to come in. You can have people coming in as consultants, but I think a steady pipeline of people who understand the women’s game is probably the way we would go.”

Sweeney also indicated that Eddie Jones’s post-2023 successor as men’s head coach would be confirmed by May at the latest and has not ruled out a non-English coach taking charge. “We’ve got a list of candidates we think could do a very good job. It’s not just the head coach, it’s the whole coaching set-up,” he said. “I didn’t actually say our preference was for an English coach. What I said was that it has to be the best coach. If it was an English person it makes life a bit easier but the first priority is it’s got to be the right person.”


The men’s squad, says Sweeney, could also learn something from the way the Red Roses conducted themselves during their World Cup campaign. “They are really accessible and just very grateful for everything that’s going on. The men’s game tends to be a bit more serious, intense and structured. But I was down on the pitch watching them come off.

“There was an eight-year-old New Zealand boy fan who was looking for autographs. Tatyana Heard took her boots off and gave him her socks. I just thought it was a tremendous gesture and it comes very naturally to them. They want to engage, promote the game and do their best for it.”'

From that sounds like Middletonn may step down and go elsewhere. As for mens head coach, I'm sure it was said preference was English but maybe not(?).

Personally I would get an Englishman in if possible. No reason not to get a foreign born coach in but it just sits better for me that head of set up is from same country. Works well for NZ, SA and France.

I've not seen many argue that the English girl deserved a red.....on the flip though, it was a sure red for the NZ tackle too. It was quite weird how it got brushed aside and hardly any angles shown of the incident. It was a little like watching a game in France when they control the cameras and conveniently lose a few....

Plus TMO intervening in NZ favour but never for Eng etc.
However, result stands. NZ on balance of play deserved win. If was 15 v 15 England highly likely would have won.

Oh well, 2025.

ebop wrote:Tight game in the end. England looked one dimensional with the rolling maul upon rolling maul as the game plan. Good on them for that as it’s been successful. Have to say, this women’s RWC has been great, better than the dross served up in the last men’s effort.

New Zealand had the better backs, England the better forwards. But for the first 20 minutes England were using their backline as well - but once they were a player down out wide their options were much more limited for backs play given the quality of the opposition. It was a sensible adaptation to the conditions.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I've not seen many argue that the English girl deserved a red.....on the flip though, it was a sure red for the NZ tackle too. It was quite weird how it got brushed aside and hardly any angles shown of the incident. It was a little like watching a game in France when they control the cameras and conveniently lose a few....

The thing that sticks with me a couple of days later is that the head contact for the red card was far less serious than for the one that was ultimately judged yellow. Woodman went off - but from what I could see it was with a wrist injury. Both decisions were in line with protocol - though I'd have preferred if Davidson had at least considered whether Woodman's dip just before the tackle offered any mitigation rather than just dismissing it (looked to me as if she dropped around 4-6 inches, which could have been material in the point of impact), and whether in the other incident the initial point of contact actually constituted mitigation - because even though there was shoulder contact first, there was no way that it altered the fact that head contact occurred or the force of it.

I also thought England were hard done by at another point where Scarratt (IIRC) was penalised for catching a very marginal knock on from a very marginal offside position. Technically correct, but pretty unsympathetic because she wouldn't have known it was a knock on until after she'd caught the ball. It's one of those Laws that needs refining (and the precedent is already there - it's the same sort of incident that Romain Poite downgraded to a scrum on the NZ Lions tour).

There are 3 wome i would like to carry om to 2025 RWC . Saraha Hunter Marlie Packer  and Emily Scarrat.
Fpr me they are the spine and back bon.e of this team

i know Hunter  says she will retire before then i hope she cahanges her mind though.

Poorfour wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I've not seen many argue that the English girl deserved a red.....on the flip though, it was a sure red for the NZ tackle too. It was quite weird how it got brushed aside and hardly any angles shown of the incident. It was a little like watching a game in France when they control the cameras and conveniently lose a few....

The thing that sticks with me a couple of days later is that the head contact for the red card was far less serious than for the one that was ultimately judged yellow. Woodman went off - but from what I could see it was with a wrist injury.

Portia Woodman has no memory of the final and it’s not because she had a sore wrist