Champs Cup - Round 3

First topic message reminder :

Excellent result for Tigers

Yup. Can't believe the ref instructed walker to only throw to Racing players. Shocking.

Not the point - Quins made lots of mistakes yes but that doesn't excuse the officials - you shouldn't have to beat the other team and the officials

Heaf wrote:Not the point - Quins made lots of mistakes yes but that doesn't excuse the officials - you shouldn't have to beat the other team and the officials

Ah forgot. Players can make mistakes but if a ref does its always his fault. And thus being human and guaranteed to make mistakes it's always him or her who decides who wins.

The two contrasts for me were penalties for holding on. The Racing player clearly had his hands on the floor (twice!), whilst there were two Quins players in a strong position for the winning penalty.

Also for the first Quin's non try, you couldn't 100% prove that Morris didn't get the ball down on the second placement, with it being awarded on the field, that should have stood. It ended up being a fourteen point swing. Saying that, Morris also contributed to the loss with his brain dead yellow card, Quins were really getting into the ascendency there.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:Not the point - Quins made lots of mistakes yes but that doesn't excuse the officials - you shouldn't have to beat the other team and the officials

Ah forgot. Players can make mistakes but if a ref does its always his fault. And thus being human and guaranteed to make mistakes it's always him or her who decides who wins.

It's a balance - but when the mistakes are so blatant and in one teams' favour then yes that affects the result. Despite all their many mistakes Quins would have won if the officials had been competent ...

Cumbrian wrote:The two contrasts for me were penalties for holding on.  The Racing player clearly had his hands on the floor (twice!), whilst there were two Quins players in a strong position for the winning penalty.

Also for the first Quin's non try, you couldn't 100% prove that Morris didn't get the ball down on the second placement, with it being awarded on the field, that should have stood.  It ended up being a fourteen point swing.  Saying that, Morris also contributed to the loss with his brain dead yellow card, Quins were really getting into the ascendency there.

They should have checked the pass for the Racing try too as it looked forwards ...

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:Not the point - Quins made lots of mistakes yes but that doesn't excuse the officials - you shouldn't have to beat the other team and the officials

Ah forgot. Players can make mistakes but if a ref does its always his fault. And thus being human and guaranteed to make mistakes it's always him or her who decides who wins.

It's a balance - but when the mistakes are so blatant and in one teams' favour then yes that affects the result.  Despite all their many mistakes Quins would have won if the officials had been competent ...

But if you had your other eye open you would have seen things missed that favored quins. Two scrum penalties not given that I saw and other ruck offenses plus forward passes

don't listen to Healey commentating - he is one of the most one eyed ever

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:Not the point - Quins made lots of mistakes yes but that doesn't excuse the officials - you shouldn't have to beat the other team and the officials

Ah forgot. Players can make mistakes but if a ref does its always his fault. And thus being human and guaranteed to make mistakes it's always him or her who decides who wins.

It's a balance - but when the mistakes are so blatant and in one teams' favour then yes that affects the result.  Despite all their many mistakes Quins would have won if the officials had been competent ...

I agree he got some calls very wrong but let's remember he gave Racing THREE yellow cards and there was a penalty try... Hardly one way reffing, Quins messed up the line outs at the end of the day.

He had to at that point - and even then the TMO had to persuade him

TJ wrote:

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:Not the point - Quins made lots of mistakes yes but that doesn't excuse the officials - you shouldn't have to beat the other team and the officials

Ah forgot. Players can make mistakes but if a ref does its always his fault. And thus being human and guaranteed to make mistakes it's always him or her who decides who wins.

It's a balance - but when the mistakes are so blatant and in one teams' favour then yes that affects the result.  Despite all their many mistakes Quins would have won if the officials had been competent ...

But if you had your other eye open you would have seen things missed that favored quins.  Two scrum penalties not given that I saw and other ruck offenses plus forward passes

don't listen to Healey commentating - he is one of the most one eyed ever

I agree there were things missed both ways - but the overall balance was well in Racing's favour

Heaf wrote:He had to at that point - and even then the TMO had to persuade him

The ref didn't mess up Quins two line outs at the end where all they had to do is win one of them for an almost guaranteed try against 12 men, nor did he make Morris make a brain dead tackle in the air, which completely switched the momentum towards Racing.

As I've said - I know Quins made plenty of mistakes but that doesn't excuse the officials making so many blunders too ...

Heaf wrote:As I've said - I know Quins made plenty of mistakes but that doesn't excuse the officials making so many blunders too ...

He did make some very poor calls, agreed. It was a great game and Quins are very exciting to watch. I haven't seen much of Smith at Quins but he really is such a threath with ball in hand. Very impressive.

First game back for Smith after injury and yes he's looking good - hopefully he can bring that to England ...

Heaf wrote:As I've said - I know Quins made plenty of mistakes but that doesn't excuse the officials making so many blunders too ...

Yeah the officials aren't very good, Brace and Neville rarely put in a good display though so Quins should have been prepared for the peculiarities of being reffed in that way. Spreadbury has got a rather large task standardising officiating across Europe.

Agreed - although no amount of preparation would have helped with some of the decisions

Brace I agree is poor

neville is top class but very picky / strict

The issue is the reffing in the premiership which is much looser imo. so URC sides are used to the stricter reffing that you get in France adn URC.

TJ wrote:Brace I agree is poor

neville is top class but very picky / strict

The issue is the reffing in the premiership which is much looser imo.  so URC sides are used to the stricter reffing that you get in France adn URC.

In what way? There's quite a bit of variation within refs in the prem.

I was thinking it was the other way around - eg hands on the ground will get you pinged in the prem but Brace went the other way twice today. Would be interesting to do a comparison of which things we see reffed differently between leagues.

PS Apologies in advance for the Ireland v Wales match as I believe they've drawn the short straw of Karl Dickson ...

Heaf wrote:PS Apologies in advance for the Ireland v Wales match as I believe you've drawn the short straw of Karl Dickson ...

Lol

Heaf wrote:I was thinking it was the other way around - eg hands on the ground will get you pinged in the prem but Brace went the other way twice today.  Would be interesting to do a comparison of which things we see reffed differently between leagues.

Lying about in rucks is less strictly reffed in the premiership IMO as are high tackles. Farrell would be carded and banned far more often in the URC for an example with his shoulder charges

that one you refer ( hands on the ground) to was a really poor decision tho - obviously wrong.

Heaf wrote:I was thinking it was the other way around - eg hands on the ground will get you pinged in the prem but Brace went the other way twice today.  Would be interesting to do a comparison of which things we see reffed differently between leagues.

Hands on the ground gets you pinged in every league, it's breaking the laws of the game, it was simply a poor call from Brace. Austin Healy is, as always talking out of his behind with this vastly different interpretations of laws in other leagues.

TJ wrote:

Heaf wrote:I was thinking it was the other way around - eg hands on the ground will get you pinged in the prem but Brace went the other way twice today.  Would be interesting to do a comparison of which things we see reffed differently between leagues.

Lying about in rucks is less strictly reffed in the premiership IMO as are high tackles.  Farrell would be carded and banned far more often in the URC for an example with his shoulder charges

that one you refer ( hands on the ground) to was a really poor decision tho - obviously wrong.

You're wrong about both of those

TJ wrote:

Heaf wrote:I was thinking it was the other way around - eg hands on the ground will get you pinged in the prem but Brace went the other way twice today.  Would be interesting to do a comparison of which things we see reffed differently between leagues.

Lying about in rucks is less strictly reffed in the premiership IMO as are high tackles.  Farrell would be carded and banned far more often in the URC for an example with his shoulder charges

that one you refer ( hands on the ground) to was a really poor decision tho - obviously wrong.

That's where it becomes tricky - is it a difference in interpretation between leagues or just some poor officiating on the day - difficult to judge without watching more of all the leagues - even then of course there are lots of inconsistencies between refs and even between calls from the same ref sometimes. The Farrell one for example is nothing to do with the league - that was just a man sausage-up by the officials on the day.

On the subject of rucks, in the prem they are now more strict on clearing out beyond the ruck but today Dombrandt was held back by a Racing player 2-3 metres from the ruck. Ironically seconds after that Quins were pinged for tackling a player without the ball but when Dombrandt complained about being held back himself I'm sure I heard Brace say "that was a ruck". Now was that a massive difference in interpretation or was Brace just wrong again?

IIRC 2m around the ruck is fair game in the laws

the basic issue is rugby is very difficult to ref. a lot of stuff is subjective not objective and the potential number of offenses is huge. IIRC there are 14 different lineout offenses

Brace did not have a great game not helped by both teams playing over the edge of the law

The Farrell one for example is nothing to do with the league - that was just a man sausage-up by the officials on the day.

that latst one but the number of times he gets away without sanctionfor high late and no arms would be picked up inthe URC more often

But again - thats both a subjective decision and my subjective view

TJ wrote:

The Farrell one for example is nothing to do with the league - that was just a man sausage-up by the officials on the day.

that latst one but the number of times he gets away without sanctionfor high late and no arms would be picked up inthe URC more often

But again - thats both a subjective decision and my subjective view

Is pretty much zero. Can you show a no arms high tackle which he got away with?

Heaf wrote:PS Apologies in advance for the Ireland v Wales match as I believe they've drawn the short straw of Karl Dickson ...

That’s a shame. I think both sets of fans were hoping for Wayne Barnes.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Heaf wrote:PS Apologies in advance for the Ireland v Wales match as I believe they've drawn the short straw of Karl Dickson ...

That’s a shame. I think both sets of fans were hoping for Wayne Barnes.

Or anyone that isn't Karl Dickson. To be fair he has improved and surely there's no way they'll team him up with his normal TMO for their Laurel and Hardy style sketch on the international stage. They'll have Barnes mentoring from a touchline as well I assume.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Heaf wrote:PS Apologies in advance for the Ireland v Wales match as I believe they've drawn the short straw of Karl Dickson ...

That’s a shame. I think both sets of fans were hoping for Wayne Barnes.

Nah, I wasnt. Barnes cant be trusted in Wales v Ireland fixtures even if he has improved over the years.

TJ wrote:IIRC 2m around the ruck is fair game in the laws

the basic issue is rugby is very difficult to ref.  a lot of stuff is subjective not objective and the potential number of offenses is huge.  IIRC there are 14 different lineout offenses

Brace did not have a great game not helped by both teams playing over the edge of the law

My understanding was you can only clear out a player that is actually engaged in the ruck? Surely you can't grab an opponent from the wrong side 2-3m away to stop him even approaching the ruck - that's straight up obstruction isn't it?

TJ wrote:

The Farrell one for example is nothing to do with the league - that was just a man sausage-up by the officials on the day.

that latst one but the number of times he gets away without sanctionfor high late and no arms would be picked up inthe URC more often

But again - thats both a subjective decision and my subjective view

Given I suspect most of the claims that he does that come from international or Euro club matches which won't involve refs from the prem but will on occasion involve refs from the URC I'm not sure if that really holds up?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TJ wrote:

The Farrell one for example is nothing to do with the league - that was just a man sausage-up by the officials on the day.

that latst one but the number of times he gets away without sanctionfor high late and no arms would be picked up inthe URC more often

But again - thats both a subjective decision and my subjective view

Is pretty much zero. Can you show a no arms high tackle which he got away with?

Loads on youtube if you are interested. The most famous one was the one in a game against SA IIRC where he pretended to be hurt and then celebrated when no card was given Loads over the years. But I know you will deny there is anything wqrong

This one

https://youtu.be/Lb4Q8Wa51Hc
this is the one he got cited for
https://youtu.be/f3vKro2R9y4

One of these is a repeat. 2 more on here

https://youtu.be/zgwgZV_9488

Plenty more on youtube

Still not seeing anything to suggest the prem is currently more loosely reffed than the URC though?

Heaf wrote:Still not seeing anything to suggest the prem is currently more loosely reffed than the URC though?

Its just a feeling I have from watching loads of games. My opinion.

those clips are just Farrell getting away with being a thug. I think He stole Ritchie McCaws invisibilty cloak :-) ( McCaw wasn't dirty inthat way tho)

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TJ wrote:

The Farrell one for example is nothing to do with the league - that was just a man sausage-up by the officials on the day.

that latst one but the number of times he gets away without sanctionfor high late and no arms would be picked up inthe URC more often

But again - thats both a subjective decision and my subjective view

Is pretty much zero. Can you show a no arms high tackle which he got away with?

Loads on youtube if you are interested.  The most famous one was the one in a game against SA IIRC where he pretended to be hurt and then celebrated when no card was given  Loads over the years. But I know you will deny there is anything wqrong

This one

https://youtu.be/Lb4Q8Wa51Hc
this is the one he got cited for
https://youtu.be/f3vKro2R9y4

One of these is a repeat.  2 more on here

https://youtu.be/zgwgZV_9488

Plenty more on youtube

Ah. You think the sa one was a high no arms challenge. Lol.

TJ wrote:

Heaf wrote:Still not seeing anything to suggest the prem is currently more loosely reffed than the URC though?

Its just a feeling I have from watching loads of games. My opinion.

those clips are just Farrell getting away with being a thug.  I think He stole Ritchie McCaws invisibilty cloak :-) ( McCaw wasn't dirty inthat way tho)

Three of those four clips were at international level where there wasn't a Prem official present though. The one that did include Prem officials caused uproar because they missed it.

I don't think officials are particularly looser or tighter in general it tends to be specific areas. URC refs allow more leeway for competition at the breakdown but are much stricter on offside line. French refs are far quicker to award penalties at the scrum and very quick to reach for a card for a high tackle but the breakdown is a free for all. Prem refs don't really manage the offside line but are strict at the breakdown. Individual refs obviously differ as well.

As a Tigers fan there was a couple of times I knew we were in trouble because we weren't great at the breakdown but Nigel Owens would be on the whistle. Great ref but he always allowed more of a contest then a Prem ref would. It's not really right or wrong it's interpretation.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

TJ wrote:

Heaf wrote:Still not seeing anything to suggest the prem is currently more loosely reffed than the URC though?

Its just a feeling I have from watching loads of games. My opinion.

those clips are just Farrell getting away with being a thug.  I think He stole Ritchie McCaws invisibilty cloak :-) ( McCaw wasn't dirty inthat way tho)

Three of those four clips were at international level where there wasn't a Prem official present though. The one that did include Prem officials caused uproar because they missed it.

I don't think officials are particularly looser or tighter in general it tends to be specific areas. URC refs allow more leeway for competition at the breakdown but are much stricter on offside line. French refs are far quicker to award penalties at the scrum and very quick to reach for a card for a high tackle but the breakdown is a free for all. Prem refs don't really manage the offside line but are strict at the breakdown. Individual refs obviously differ as well.

As a Tigers fan there was a couple of times I knew we were in trouble because we weren't great at the breakdown but Nigel Owens would be on the whistle. Great ref but he always allowed more of a contest then a Prem ref would. It's not really right or wrong it's interpretation.

Lot of sense in that post. That's the challenge for those in charge though, to reduce the amount of variance in interpretation, though that's between individuals more than leagues. Which is obviously really easy to do.

RiscaGame wrote:Fair play to Ospreys. Not enough is made of them now. They have two front rows to outplay a lot of teams. Toby Booth has got them playing well. Could be another first Gatland game where we play the majority of them.

I would have no issue, as a Scarlets fan, of having the starting front 5 for the Ireland match being made up of Ospreys players,

One thing for sure is that increasing the teams to 24 from 20 was a very silly move. The additional sides added had zero intent of showing up and any side drawn against those teams have clearly had advantages over other sides.

They really need to look at the Challenge Cup as well. For the amount of travel those teams cost them I just don't see how this is viable for any of the sides in terms of making the tournament viable. I think they should move this to a simple cup knockout format. At least most sides who never intended to compete will be removed in the opening round so causing less damage to the integrity of the competition.

I know ERC are making changes to the Champions Cup and will likely revert to the old format, they should also look at changing the challenge cup and either make changes there or just remove that competition.

It is a weird thing, but Farrell has gone high throughout his career. Of course, most games are fine. But we just can't say when he will go no arms again. But we know he will simply because he has always done it. I also don't think he is deliberately being a thug, or acts that way in a pre-mediated manner. It's is just him. And because he never corrected it or made a conscious decision to improve technique, it tells me he simply doesn't care one way or the other.

If he does this in the RWC and gets a red he could screw the England team. Consequently, I am done with him. Don't want him, his attitude, his angst, and his overall demeanor. Done. Don't care who replaces him.

It's a tackle technique like you'd see every week in Rugby League, you go higher up the body because you've got to stop the offload. Dislodging the ball is of a massive benefit also. Sinfield has already talked about coaching going lower into tackles to avoid the possibility of a card. Tigers went from one of the most penalised teams to one of the least (this season only Wasps and Wuss have conceded less penalties for obvious reasons). I would expect them to be challenging Farrell to change his technique.

Haven't watched League in a long time, but from what I remember, that makes sense. My concern is if he has a brain fart (technique fart) in a Six Nations or RWC match it could be the red card which is the difference between winning and losing the tournament.

doctor_grey wrote:Haven't watched League in a long time, but from what I remember, that makes sense.  My concern is if he has a brain fart (technique fart) in a Six Nations or RWC match it could be the red card which is the difference between winning and losing the tournament.    

If Sinfield has publicly said he's going to be looking at tackle technique then I'd expect it to be something that him and Borthwick have already discussed. If Owen doesn't toe the line he'll be out on his ear. Borthwick jettisoned Lavanini because he couldn't do what was asked and Borthwick famously threw 6 players out of his first training session at Tigers because he didn't like their attitude.

I think it was telling he said the selections for captain were for the squad and not necessarily the team. No free passes hopefully.

Owen Farrell “fully accepts he needs to change” his tackle technique

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/jan/16/billy-vunipola-may-nowell-england-six-nations-squad-rugby

Sinfield is spot on there. We need change to tackling height across the board. Coaches have been far too slow to adapt perfectly demonstrated by Les Kiss at the weekend.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sinfield is spot on there. We need change to tackling height across the board. Coaches have been far too slow to adapt perfectly demonstrated by Les Kiss at the weekend.

Farrell does get particular ttention partly because he is England captain, partly because of the perception he gets away with it and not least partly because he is such a marmite character. there is no doubt in my mind that he also loses his temper on the pitch and has the red mist descend when he is more likley to do this and opponents know this and wind him up knowing he will be less effective if you can get him riled.

He needs to take a lesson from Martin Johnson who in the early part of career was similar. Niggle and wind him up he lost his temper and lost effectivness. In the later part of his career he controlled his temper much better and was a better player for it

Ultimately, with Farrell, I am not sure what he actually brings the England squad.  He is not the best passer, playmaker, runner, tackler, runner, defender (even w/o the recent red) either overall or at his position.  He is probably (possibly?) still the best kicker.  People say he is a strong leader in training.  Very nice, but the game ain't played in training and his behaviour and mannerisms make him a poor representative of Sarries or England, as we have also seen.  The team has won without Farrell.  So is this worth carrying in the squad?

There does seem to be some aspect of Stockholm Syndrome with Farrell and England.  Time for an intervention...