England - the build-up and winning the World Cup at a canter

First topic message reminder :

Here we go again.....

Collapse2005 wrote:

mountain man wrote:I wonder if Farrell starts on Saturday.
If he's in team I think the odd boo might be heard whenever he touches ball....

Im sure he will be, I hope some of the Ireland players have a bit of fun with it. The odd "wasnt expecting to see you" or "can you recommend a good lawyer" sort of comment.

Good chance if he is picked he will get a yellow or red again so I dont really care if he does play.

Having the red card rescinded means he's had 2 yellow cards in 91 tests......That would indicate there is a not a good chance actually.......2.1% to be precise.

I've read quite a few SAs in the past day harking back to the 10 year old tackle which shows how the memory can play tricks. The furore on that was a 'no arms' tackle that the ref felt was attempted and thus no pen, and it's morphed into he avoided a red on that day.

mountain man wrote:Will Greenwood has an interesting take on it and a sensible one. Basically he thinks it's red.

Hard to argue with no wrap, his arm was by side how that isn't a shoulder charge. Even if Jamie George altered Bashem movement it doesn't account for that.

Don't suppose we've heard last of this.

This is the crux of it for me. It's not a tackle! You can't stop a player by just turning your shoulder into them. Farrell has so much previous for this, doesn't that count for anything at all?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

mountain man wrote:Will Greenwood has an interesting take on it and a sensible one. Basically he thinks it's red.

Hard to argue with no wrap, his arm was by side how that isn't a shoulder charge. Even if Jamie George altered Bashem movement it doesn't account for that.

Don't suppose we've heard last of this.

This is the crux of it for me. It's not a tackle! You can't stop a player by just turning your shoulder into them. Farrell has so much previous for this, doesn't that count for anything at all?

No. Why would it. You can't make a judgement om an incident by considering other times he may have broken a rule.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

mountain man wrote:I wonder if Farrell starts on Saturday.
If he's in team I think the odd boo might be heard whenever he touches ball....

Im sure he will be, I hope some of the Ireland players have a bit of fun with it. The odd "wasnt expecting to see you" or "can you recommend a good lawyer" sort of comment.

Good chance if he is picked he will get a yellow or red again so I dont really care if he does play.

Having the red card rescinded means he's had 2 yellow cards in 91 tests......That would indicate there is a not a good chance actually.......2.1% to be precise.  

Sure but I think most people would agree that he has got a way with a few and the offences he has been sanctioned for have been more recent given the changing landscape of the game. As such your maths doesn't factor in the changes to the game and the fact that he is most certainly under the spot light now. Above all the main reason I think he will do it again is that he cant help himself, its instinctive for him to tackle like that. If it wasnt why on earth would you risk getting a red card in a completely meaningless warm up game v Wales?

Can someone explain why an independent all Australian panel would set themselves up for heaps of abuse from fans, media, etc, by 'letting off' the England captain - someone their country is quite likely to face in the QF of the world cup?  I can't see any motive other than the fact, they felt the red card was unfair.

Sharkey06 wrote:Can someone explain why an independent all Australian panel would set themselves up for heaps of abuse from fans, media, etc, by 'letting off' the England captain - someone their country is quite likely to face in the QF of the world cup?  I can't see any motive other than the fact, they felt the red card was unfair.

Yeah we can disagree with their findings but the conspiracy theory thing probably isn't the strongest under scrutiny.

Sharkey06 wrote:Can someone explain why an independent all Australian panel would set themselves up for heaps of abuse from fans, media, etc, by 'letting off' the England captain - someone their country is quite likely to face in the QF of the world cup?  I can't see any motive other than the fact, they felt the red card was unfair.

The issue with lack of consistent view in application of laws. I've watched a few aus club games and am regularly amazed at their application and commentary.

mountain man wrote:I wonder if Farrell starts on Saturday.
If he's in team I think the odd boo might be heard whenever he touches ball....

I was just wondering the same thing as I was going back to see earlier posts.  Phrasing it somewhat different, however:

Does Borthwick have the cojones to play Farrell in Dublin?  Or even bring him to Dublin?

I think the boo birds will be out in force from the moment Farrell would appear in warm-ups through the anthems, and then whenever he sets foot on the pitch or is shown on the big screen.  And some of the bile will inevitably be directed at the England squad too.  Would that really be something we want?  Is that in the best interest of the sport?  

Mate, you said earlier that Farrell should not take the abuse for getting off, which should properly be directed at World Rugby.  I agree, but I think the crowds in the stadiums will still vent their spleens at Farrell regardless, which could potentially create a dangerous situation.  

I think if Borthwick really thinks this through, he leaves Farrell at home for the Ireland match.  And then tries to figure out a damage limitation strategy.  This will follow Farrell and England through England's RWC matches.

Murray Kinsella understands that wr appealing the decision. So he will be banned for at least the group now I'd imagine.

I agree I think be best to leave Farrell out of 23 but I suspect Borthwick and Farrell be thinking as red was over turned he's basically been found not guilty so why shouldn't he play.

Be interesting to see what happens. I hope Ford starts with Smith on bench.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Murray Kinsella understands that wr appealing the decision. So he will be banned for at least the group now I'd imagine.

It depends what basis there is for the appeal.

On the 2013 Lions tour, the Australian captain, James Horwill, was cited for stamping. He was cleared, to the disbelief of many. World Rugby appealed the decision but the decision stood. It turns out that a World Rugby appeal doesn't relitigate the original offence. Instead, it looks only at whether the disciplinary panel followed due process in reaching it's decision.

If that's how it works in this case, then, if the panel ticked all the right boxes, then the ruling will stand, no matter how outrageous it seems.

doctor_grey wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Geordie wrote:Move on next....

I mean it's an almighty co## up, no ones moving on until WR make a comment at least. And then the second that the next high shot comes in it's back on the agenda.

I agree with you - no matter what happens I think this will follow England through their World Cup.  World Rugby has to try to get closure with this, but I don't think they are able now.  So many people have seen the incident and think it is a red, as I do.   I also think this might become bigger than Farrell.  

Shame because no one wants to see Basham hurt and because a smooth and entertaining World Cup is what Rugby needs.   Would like to move past this, it's just I doubt we will be able to.      

If that is what they wanted and they had influence then surely Farrell would have got banned?

Well apparently Borthwick has decided that it is best to leave Farrell out of the side v Ireland in Dublin. Ford to start at 10 and Lawes to captain. Maybe a wise move given all the noise.

Rugby Fan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Murray Kinsella understands that wr appealing the decision. So he will be banned for at least the group now I'd imagine.

It depends what basis there is for the appeal.

On the 2013 Lions tour, the Australian captain, James Horwill, was cited for stamping. He was cleared, to the disbelief of many. World Rugby appealed the decision but the decision stood. It turns out that a World Rugby appeal doesn't relitigate the original offence. Instead, it looks only at whether the disciplinary panel followed due process in reaching it's decision.

If that's how it works in this case, then, if the panel ticked all the right boxes, then the ruling will stand, no matter how outrageous it seems.

I was thinking along similar lines; what basis do WR have to question a decision by an independent (and in this case usually hostile) panel that have gone through all the correct motions in reviewing the matter and come to a decision. What if someone is found guilty and banned by a panel, but the world and his dog all think the opposite, will that be appealed? They might no like the decision, but to start appealing decisions because you don't like them, is opening up a Pandora's box to question every decision. The only thing they can do is to check the correct process was followed as with Horwill, if it was, the decision has to stand, like it or not.

Collapse2005 wrote:Well apparently Borthwick has decided that it is best to leave Farrell out of the side v Ireland in Dublin. Ford to start at 10 and Lawes to captain. Maybe a wise move given all the noise.

Yep makes sense. I'm slightly surprised though but absolutely right call and I'm glad we get to see Ford at 10 and without Farrell at 12.

A lot of professional pundits are talking as if a World Rugby appeal just starts the disciplinary process against Farrell from scratch. Maybe they all know how the process works and are right. More likely, though, they are shooting from the hip based on a general understanding of the word "appeal", which is the same mistake they made in 2013.

Just for reference, here are a couple of links to the Horwill case (when World Rugby was still the IRB)

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-rugby-lions-australia-horwill-idUKBRE95Q0HA20130627

“The International Rugby Board has confirmed to the Australian Rugby Union that it will appeal the James Horwill disciplinary decision following an extensive review of the case,” the governing body said in a statement on Thursday.

“... given its duty to preserve player welfare at all levels of the game, the IRB is compelled to further examine potential acts of foul play which either potentially or in reality impact on the preservation of player welfare.

“It is important for the IRB to ensure amongst all stakeholders in the game that there is full confidence that priority is given to player welfare and the values of the game.”

The appeal was then dismissed.

https://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/16057/8801632/australia-skipper-james-horwill-cleared-of-stamping-and-will-play-in-lions-test-decider

The International Rugby Board's appeal for his alleged stamp on Alun-Wyn Jones, overseen by independent appeal officer Graeme Mew, was not upheld, ensuring the original decision to exonerate Horwill stands.

"There was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable judicial officer could have reached the decision that was made," Mew said.

"Accordingly it could not be said that the judicial officer was manifestly wrong or that the interests of justice otherwise required his decision be overturned."

This is the key point.

https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/item/mew-s-decides-to-dismiss-the-appeal-of-the-irb-horwill-cleared-to-play

As Graeme Mew explained in dismissing the appeal, the IRB would have had to establish that “there was some misapprehension of law or principle by the judicial officer or that his decision was so clearly wrong or manifestly unreasonable that no judicial officer could have reached the conclusion that he did”.  The IRB did not establish either and Mr Mew held that there was “sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable judicial officer could have reached the conclusion that he did”.

Mr Mew also said that the IRB had been right to appeal in their role as promoters of player welfare and protectors of the image of the game, something the governing body said was a major reason for making the appeal.

If this is still the way an appeal works today (and we don't know if it is), then the argument won't be over whether Jamie George did have a material impact on Basham's trajectory. Instead, it will be over whether the panel had a reason to take that view, and whether the legal consequences on mitigation were properly assessed.

So presumably they can relatively easily overturn it as they can simply say that due to the tucked arm no mitigation should have been applied.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Sharkey06 wrote:Can someone explain why an independent all Australian panel would set themselves up for heaps of abuse from fans, media, etc, by 'letting off' the England captain - someone their country is quite likely to face in the QF of the world cup?  I can't see any motive other than the fact, they felt the red card was unfair.

Yeah we can disagree with their findings but the conspiracy theory thing probably isn't the strongest under scrutiny.

Simple. They know Farrell makes England worse and Ford is a better 10 for England so they want Farrell there!

England delaying the squad announcement until after the WR appeal. Now due at 16:00.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:England delaying the squad announcement until after the WR appeal. Now due at 16:00.

Jesus, it's Thursday. I honestly would've guessed at Tuesday if someone had asked. It's been a such a s***e week or so anyway that I haven't even put myself through watching the weekends game yet.

And the appeal is in.

I'm guessing the team announcement was delayed so that this could be confirmed one way or the other beforehand.

BBC take on the upcoming appeal

"While World Rugby's intervention will be widely welcomed, there is no guarantee they will be successful.

It's understood World Rugby's case will hinge on whether Farrell's challenge was always "illegal" because of his tucked right arm. If that is the case he wouldn't be entitled to any mitigation, and a red card - and therefore a ban - would be the correct outcome.

However, they need strong enough evidence and a strong enough argument to overturn the panel's original verdict. But even if unsuccessful, the governing body feel they need to send a message supporting their officials as well as the Head Contact Process."

I can understand the BBC stance and they may be right, one way or another hopefully it's sorted quickly. Also World Rugby have at least released the original judgement, something 6Ns wouldn't do, and some elements of their interpretation seem like they can reasonably be challenged to me. I'll leave it there with my thoughts though, as all we can really do is wait and see what the appeal panel say. If the appeal panel don't agree with WR, then I think WR might need to tighten the protocol a bit - but that's an argument for another day.

have you seen the video that Ardie Savea has released....with Reiko Ioane...

Completely unsurprising that wr have appealed. Should be a fairly simple conclusion and back to how long will he get. Seemed to me about mid level so 6 to 8 games I think.

Ireland: Keenan; Hansen, Ringrose, Aki, Lowe; Byrne, Gibson-Park; Porter, Sheehan, Furlong, Beirne, Ryan, O'Mahony, van der Flier, Prendergast.

Replacements: Herring, Loughman, Bealham, McCarthy, Doris, Murray, Crowley, Earls.

Strong Irish side. Could be a tough day at the office this one.

Prendergast is the only surprise but he is such a busy player Im sure he will be great.

England will target the scrums as they always do, look for pens to kick to the corner, there will be some "spiral bombs" and maybe even a few slick backs moves instigated by Ford.

Hopefully no red cards nor injuries for anyone.

As long as we have the same level of attacking intent as we have had the past 2 weeks it'll be great. Hopefully we finish off some of these chances we've been creating.

Teams up apparently...

Starting: Steward; Watson, Marchant, Tuilagi, Daly; Ford, Youngs; Genge, George, Stuart, Itoje, Ribbans, Lawes (capt), Earl, B Vunipola.

Replacements: Dan, Marler, Sinckler, Chessum, Willis, Care, Smith, Lawrence

Ireland are basically just better at the moment, but it looks a team that should (on paper at least) make a decent game of it.

Nice seeing Chessum back in the mix. Hope Arundell gets a start vs Fiji.

That's a good England team.

I'm a big fan of Ribbans

I'm disappointed Arundell not even on bench, he hardly got a pass last week.
Also Steward at 15 again. I'd like to try someone else for warm ups, we know he'll be FB for RWC so give someone else a run and see how it goes. Better attacking threats and injury cover.

mountain man wrote:I'm disappointed Arundell not even on bench, he hardly got a pass last week.
Also Steward at 15 again. I'd like to try someone else for warm ups, we know he'll be FB for RWC so give someone else a run and see how it goes. Better attacking threats and injury cover.

Arundell did have treatment last weekend. Might be carrying a knock and they don't want to risk him.

I'd like to see an alternative 15 given a chance in the last game but understand wanting to give Steward some more exposure in this game. He's still young and improving.

carpet baboon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I missed that. Huge shoes for him to step into if that's the case, but SA attack has always been blistering and another voice in the brain trust can only be good.

Felix Jones is the only Irishman with a world cup winners medal (as far as I know)
Absolute fantastic signing. Would have loved him to come back to Ireland.

John Gallagher could be considered Irish. He won a world cup with NZ (1987) and has 1 cap with Ireland A

Seems stupid that Farrell hasn't been selected.

I am disappointed that Mitchell is not on the bench, if we are going to go with 3 9s, he needs some game time to gel with the others. Apart from that I think it is a strong team, Sinckler doesn't seem to be getting much time he could be undercooked when we start the RWC proper.

mountain man wrote:I'm disappointed Arundell not even on bench, he hardly got a pass last week.
Also Steward at 15 again. I'd like to try someone else for warm ups, we know he'll be FB for RWC so give someone else a run and see how it goes. Better attacking threats and injury cover.

Ireland will target Steward so I can see Watson and Daly having a busy day

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:I am disappointed that Mitchell is not on the bench, if we are going to go with 3 9s, he needs some game time to gel with the others. Apart from that I think it is a strong team, Sinckler doesn't seem to be getting much time he could be undercooked when we start the RWC proper.

Mitchell's only had a week in camp, though, and Ireland away is probably not the best introduction. I'd expect him to feature against Fiji - but it's likely to be Youngs and Care for Argentina. I could see Mitchell being important against Japan, though - added pace could be very valuable.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

mountain man wrote:I'm disappointed Arundell not even on bench, he hardly got a pass last week.
Also Steward at 15 again. I'd like to try someone else for warm ups, we know he'll be FB for RWC so give someone else a run and see how it goes. Better attacking threats and injury cover.

Arundell did have treatment last weekend. Might be carrying a knock and they don't want to risk him.

I'd like to see an alternative 15 given a chance in the last game but understand wanting to give Steward some more exposure in this game. He's still young and improving.

OK if Arundell had a knock but Steward has plenty of big match experience now surely. What if he gets injured in first 5 mins of Arg game, then what.

Oh didn't realise we'd have to wait until next week for the appeal. Thought they'd just use common sense and give Farrell the ban. Seems a tiny bit harsh that that now will eat another game into the WC. Farrell is integral to Borthwicks plan.

Arundel did get a knock from a flying knee in the chest from Williams, looked like it hurt.
I want to see England take on the Irish attack and the dummy Irish runners who are essentially blocking the defenders, to enable the ball to get further out to Ringrose and the wingers. Tuilagi at 12 should just smash into a blocker who will be in front of the ball and put his hands in the air and see what the ref does.....
Ribbans is the closest replacement for Kruis and should make a difference in the scrum and Lawes had a blinder in the lineout last week. Earls has a real opportunity to establish his presence in the team against van der Flier, who never has a bad game.

England will be better for the run out last week but the handling errors and soft penalties has to be sorted. A Tuilagi and Lawrence combination second half must be odds on with Marchant moving out the wing at the expense of Watson.

I see Farrell Snr has made his view clear on the current media circus around his son and quite right too.

The ref would wave play on

Big wrote:Teams up apparently...

Starting: Steward; Watson, Marchant, Tuilagi, Daly; Ford, Youngs; Genge, George, Stuart, Itoje, Ribbans, Lawes (capt), Earl, B Vunipola.

Replacements: Dan, Marler, Sinckler, Chessum, Willis, Care, Smith, Lawrence

Ireland are basically just better at the moment, but it looks a team that should (on paper at least) make a decent game of it.

That is England's world cup XV surely? It's the form team from what I can tell and a good replacement front row too. I do agree with others that Mitchell should have made the bench for this 'friendly' before the world cup.

mikey_dragon wrote:

Big wrote:Teams up apparently...

Starting: Steward; Watson, Marchant, Tuilagi, Daly; Ford, Youngs; Genge, George, Stuart, Itoje, Ribbans, Lawes (capt), Earl, B Vunipola.

Replacements: Dan, Marler, Sinckler, Chessum, Willis, Care, Smith, Lawrence

Ireland are basically just better at the moment, but it looks a team that should (on paper at least) make a decent game of it.

That is England's world cup XV surely? It's the form team from what I can tell and a good replacement front row too. I do agree with others that Mitchell should have made the bench for this 'friendly' before the world cup.

Curry might well come in when he's fit, not sure how they'll rejig the backrow for that though. Think Chessum might switch with Ribbans potentially. Bench has a couple missing.

Certainly hope Ford can keep his spot ahead of Farrell.

Funny that we've gone through so many backs over the last few years just to end up going into this world cup with a potential starting backline with Youngs, Ford, Tuilagi. It's groundhog day.

Brilliant response on Xitter to Andy Farrell's defense of his son

Linebreak Rugby wrote:Maybe if he hugged him more as a child, he would know how to wrap his arms

formerly known as Sam wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Big wrote:Teams up apparently...

Starting: Steward; Watson, Marchant, Tuilagi, Daly; Ford, Youngs; Genge, George, Stuart, Itoje, Ribbans, Lawes (capt), Earl, B Vunipola.

Replacements: Dan, Marler, Sinckler, Chessum, Willis, Care, Smith, Lawrence

Ireland are basically just better at the moment, but it looks a team that should (on paper at least) make a decent game of it.

That is England's world cup XV surely? It's the form team from what I can tell and a good replacement front row too. I do agree with others that Mitchell should have made the bench for this 'friendly' before the world cup.

Curry might well come in when he's fit, not sure how they'll rejig the backrow for that though. Think Chessum might switch with Ribbans potentially. Bench has a couple missing.

Certainly hope Ford can keep his spot ahead of Farrell.

I sincerely doubt that Ford is ahead of Farrell in Borthwick's mind.  And barring injury, suspension, or bad optics (OK no one cares about optics), I'm sure Farrell will remain first choice.

If the appeal by World Rugby is successful, then Ford becomes number 1. Depending on the length of Farrell's presumed suspension, Borthwick may opt to add another 10 to slot in behind Ford.

If Farrell doesn't make it who would they choose? I still think Slade would be a reasonable bet. If Borthwick wanted a specialist 10 then would it be other Smith? Atkinson?