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

First topic message reminder :

Smith in the back field worked nicely against Ireland. We could interchange him and Steward on defensive duty but keep both in the backfield to receive kicks. Ford dropping in it one or the other has chased a kick up field.

I'd like to see if given a go as the attack does need an injection of something and the AB tactic isn't a bad one. Ruck speed and security needs a big upgrade though as that is the main element killing our attack.

Before yesterday I thought Argentina might have ...

Me too - possibly the worst showing I ever saw from a international rugby side (defo top 3 anyway). They couldn't catch covid let alone a ball. Couldn't put more than 2 phases together without spilling. I know a lot of credit went to English defence but a lot of the time they couldnt actually identify the area were week and kept running midfield channel lines. If they had gone at the 13 wing channel they would have found a lot of space against England as they went really narrow. Granted in order to have done that they would have been able to actually recycle the ball.

Maybe really harsh on Argentina but I don't think anyone would really argue they were poor.

Think pool d plays off against Fiji and Australia so pretty decent chance of semis.

I think with their unfortunate late withdrawals Fiji may struggle now - certainly wouldn't be writing Wales off at this stage. Australia didn't look too bad yesterday, probably better than some of their more recent results suggest.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Think pool d plays off against Fiji and Australia so pretty decent chance of semis.

Still smoking pot then?

Not unless they seriously improve they don't.

Welshmushroom wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Think pool d plays off against Fiji and Australia so pretty decent chance of semis.

Still smoking pot then?  

Not unless they seriously improve they don't.

Well in a way that's good for us. We'll have to become battle hardened to get past Japan and Samoa and aus and Fiji run the very real risk of just having training games.

Yoda wrote:Yeah I get the process and head on head and all that but they haven't got it right. When foul play is deemed less dangerous than an accident then priorities are way off. It's like give someone a tougher sentence for manslaughter than murder. Doesn't sit right and imo sets the wrong message about player safety when genuine foul play isn't punished according.

That sums it up well for me, the interpretation of the laws as they currently are seem off to me. Curry was a red with little mitigation but to my eyes was a rugby incident rather than foul play; Carreras on the other hand had a degree of mitigation but seemed like a rather deliberate act of foul play so gets a yellow.

Welshmushroom wrote:Me too - possibly the worst showing I ever saw from a international rugby side (defo top 3 anyway).  They couldn't catch covid let alone a ball.  Couldn't put more than 2 phases together without spilling.  I know a lot of credit went to English defence but a lot of the time they couldnt actually identify the area were week and kept running midfield channel lines.  If they had gone at the 13 wing channel they would have found a lot of space against England as they went really narrow.  Granted in order to have done that they would have been able to actually recycle the ball.  

Maybe really harsh on Argentina but I don't think anyone would really argue they were poor.

The weird thing, mate, is they looked nothing like the side which fronted up so well against the Boks and the Wallabies.

So the narrative is either about the Curry red card or how terrible the Pumas were.It was getting annoying but it really doesn't matter - we still played smart for almost a whole game and it has been a long time since that happened.

As for the Curry Card we have had 2 more instances today with head on head collisions. I haven't seen the circumstances with the SA 'head tackle' on the Scottish 8 other than the video on twitter - but it was definitely head on head and apparently not looked at. Chile on Japanese was a yellow but not upgraded.

Kriel should def have had a red.

Curry should appeal now and show that ...

Heaf wrote:Curry should appeal now and show that ...

Kriel will end up with a ban, but it doesn’t matter in the scheme of things today. The inconsistency is maddening. A real bad miss for Whitehouse.

Bad miss from the tmo but Curry has no leg to stand on for an appeal.

I think he does as there is clear mitigating circumstances and not not foul play. Rugby collision only. England's lawyer will have a field day after the non punishment of the worse head shots today. Either everyone gets banned or they let curry back into the comp.

Yoda wrote:I think he does as there is clear mitigating circumstances and not not foul play. Rugby collision only. England's lawyer will have a field day after the non punishment of the worse head shots today. Either everyone gets banned or they let curry back into the comp.

What's the mitigation?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Yoda wrote:I think he does as there is clear mitigating circumstances and not not foul play. Rugby collision only. England's lawyer will have a field day after the non punishment of the worse head shots today. Either everyone gets banned or they let curry back into the comp.

What's the mitigation?

Change in height immediately before contact? Only need to mitigate it down to yellow.

So we've seen 3 or 4 similar head clashes this weekend with results ranging from not even looked at to red - guess we're not getting any consistency any time soon ....

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Yoda wrote:I think he does as there is clear mitigating circumstances and not not foul play. Rugby collision only. England's lawyer will have a field day after the non punishment of the worse head shots today. Either everyone gets banned or they let curry back into the comp.

What's the mitigation?

Change in height immediately before contact? Only need to mitigate it down to yellow.

There's not much change I'm height at all though. They're not going to use that.

By popular demand going to stop pretending Borthwick is competent too. Its too draining in this heat though storms are coming.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Yoda wrote:I think he does as there is clear mitigating circumstances and not not foul play. Rugby collision only. England's lawyer will have a field day after the non punishment of the worse head shots today. Either everyone gets banned or they let curry back into the comp.

What's the mitigation?

Change in height immediately before contact? Only need to mitigate it down to yellow.

There's not much change I'm height at all though. They're not going to use that.

By popular demand going to stop pretending Borthwick is competent too. Its too draining in this heat though storms are coming.

7'n half, I'm proud of the work you did.

Not going to pretend it wasn't difficult. I'm taking my flowers.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Yoda wrote:I think he does as there is clear mitigating circumstances and not not foul play. Rugby collision only. England's lawyer will have a field day after the non punishment of the worse head shots today. Either everyone gets banned or they let curry back into the comp.

What's the mitigation?

Change in height immediately before contact? Only need to mitigate it down to yellow.

There's not much change I'm height at all though. They're not going to use that.

By popular demand going to stop pretending Borthwick is competent too. Its too draining in this heat though storms are coming.

Not much change in height, the guy falls out of the sky into the tackle. There's considerable change in height. Now whether Curry is ever low enough I'm not sure. I'm sure they'll point out traffic which means Curry doesn't get a clear view, again bit ropey. They only need one to stick.

It's worth a try, he's still admitting foul play so doesn't lose any mitigation on his sentence.

Failing that show video footage of Kriel and Biggar committing head on head tackles and not even getting penalised.

It's a sudden change in height i.e. not predictable that they look at Sam so as Curry had a clear line of sight nothing unusual happened within that little piece of play, no a change in height doesn't/shouldn't come in that at all. If on landing he'd slipped etc or be bumped that's when mitigation would normally be applied.

And within the Kriel thing, it's a blatant red too, I've not often seen too many murderers point to OJ Simpson though and say well he got away with it!

Curry in my opinion were unlucky.

Standing still waiting for the player in the air to come down for contact is very difficult to judge. I doubt he had any intention for a head clash

Old Man wrote:Curry in my opinion were unlucky.

Standing still waiting for the player in the air to come down for contact is very difficult to judge. I doubt he had any intention for a head clash

I think extremely few head on heads are intentional. In regards to unlucky, I can't see it.

Curry was a red as should have been Kriel.

That's it really.

I've got no issues for it being a red for Curry, he steps into the contact at the end of the day. A bit over eager to make the hit and gets it wrong.

Doesn't mean England won't try and find mitigation to bring it down though.

Yeah get that Sam, they're not doing their job if they don't.

Letter of the Law, Curry's tackle merited a red. Wasn't a big hit (most of the momentum was the Argentina player coming forward), just a slight misjudgment of height in a normal rugby context. Two or three week ban.

Haven't seen the other head on head tackles, but sounds like there is some serious inconsistency around still - I can understand why the Welsh were upset by Warburton's red a couple of tournaments ago in the same way - the ref in that case gave the correct decision by the Laws and guidance when many in other games failed to.

Thought the Argentinian player was lucky not to be upgraded to a red, as his actions were clearly reckless. I agree with those who are saying that the Laws, or at least their interpretations need looking at when an accidental/careless head clash gets a red and a flying challenge like that one where there is contact to the head and it was only luck that there was some contact to Ford's shoulder area first isn't.

Anyone mentioned how bad Carley was reffing Wales Fiji?

Favoured Wales no end I thought, Wales gave away 4 pens in a row on own try line and just a warning, immediately after Wales counter attack and Fiji infringe in their 22 and yelllow straight away.

Plus no arms tackles etc.

Loads of back chat which isn't a good look neither was trying to influence ref to TMO check etc.

Good game but a mess from officials.

Can understand the yellows to an extent, not really down to numbers in a black and white sense. I really am getting the sense though that in the aim to speed things up and take decisions quickly that World Rugby have piled pressure on refs and tmos. Sometimes you need that clear head and a little time but everything seems to be so rushed.

mountain man wrote:Anyone mentioned how bad Carley was reffing Wales Fiji?

Favoured Wales no end I thought, Wales gave away 4 pens in a row on own try line and just a warning, immediately after Wales counter attack and Fiji infringe in their 22 and yelllow straight away.

Plus no arms tackles etc.

Loads of back chat which isn't a good look neither was trying to influence ref to TMO check etc.

Good game but a mess from officials.

He gave a yellow the next time we infringed after the warning.

The Fiji yellow was for a cynical play in pulling down a rolling maul that was advancing at a fair speed - yellow all day long.

ETA: If it was, & I don't think it was, a no arms tackle from Elias then Carley is never going to see it & so if there is fault there it lies with the TMO for not picking it up.

dummy_half wrote:...

Thought the Argentinian player was lucky not to be upgraded to a red, as his actions were clearly reckless. I agree with those who are saying that the Laws, or at least their interpretations need looking at when an accidental/careless head clash gets a red and a flying challenge like that one where there is contact to the head and it was only luck that there was some contact to Ford's shoulder area first isn't.

That is my view, and as someone who has done and attempted many a charge down - you just don't jump directly at the kicker, they know what they are doing when they do that. And it isn't the first time this has been seen from Argentina - there was the incident with Grant Williams just a few weeks ago. I would guess the bunker chap gave mitigation for it being shoulder contact first, but much like Farrell a few weeks ago - that was always foul play, it was dangerous and no mitigation should apply.

The critical thing here is consistency.

I am not sure Curry had a clear line of sight - he came from behind an Argentinian player and it looked to me in real time that he was moving into the tackle zone and was surprised by the angle that Malia was coming down at, but I guess we will find out tomorrow what the citing commissioners say.

Much more worrying is the handling of Carreras, Kriel and the yellow in the Japan-Chile game. All of those involved clear head contact and foul play - Carreras made a pretty gratuitous late hit, so I don’t understand why mitigation was applied; the other two made upright tackles.

If World Rugby is serious about enforcing its head contact protocols, then they need to be treated consistently. I guess we will see what the citing commissioner has to say, but it would seriously undermine the credibility of the process if Curry ends up being the only one facing a hearing.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Failing that show video footage of Kriel and Biggar committing head on head tackles and not even getting penalised.

There's nothimg guaranteed to irritate a disciplinary panel more than drawing comparisons with how other incidents have been officiated. A strategy like that would almost certainly backfire.

https://rugbylad.ie/world-rugby-announce-probe-england-vs-argentina/?fbclid=IwAR1qLsSf7dTtSWO3oO8kkrDJgut-qRmr2SvKSmCnabb_uOvB_X8LLJCWEX8_aem_AToBeJNxUc8DjGMymk_ip3Z1a6vSzFoPRW9SPlvzxCsyc3aM746NEMUJg5Lz2pHf82o

There is to be a probe into your game. Seems like England did something… You were too busy bellowing over opposition mistakes to notice .

mikey_dragon wrote:https://rugbylad.ie/world-rugby-announce-probe-england-vs-argentina/?fbclid=IwAR1qLsSf7dTtSWO3oO8kkrDJgut-qRmr2SvKSmCnabb_uOvB_X8LLJCWEX8_aem_AToBeJNxUc8DjGMymk_ip3Z1a6vSzFoPRW9SPlvzxCsyc3aM746NEMUJg5Lz2pHf82o

There is to be a probe into your game. Seems like England did something… You were too busy bellowing over opposition mistakes to notice .

? It has been mentioned, more so I think as it's about the 3rd or 4th time it's happened at big events in France over the last couple of years.

I think it's fairly clear that mikey didn't read that before posting. Rather just saw "probe" and "England" in the same headline and linked it.

I heard it was a probe into why England aren't scoring tries, and why they keep bellowing over opposition mistakes - a crooked lineout for example. Maybe it's just hearsay but I'm only relaying it over, don't shoot the messenger. Glass houses eh lads, stick to your own and stop obsessing over Wales all the time .

mikey_dragon wrote:I heard it was a probe into why England aren't scoring tries, and why they keep bellowing over opposition mistakes - a crooked lineout for example. Maybe it's just hearsay but I'm only relaying it over, don't shoot the messenger. Glass houses eh lads, stick to your own and stop obsessing over Wales all the time .

You're literally on an England thread talking about England.

mikey_dragon wrote:I heard it was a probe into why England aren't scoring tries, and why they keep bellowing over opposition mistakes - a crooked lineout for example. Maybe it's just hearsay but I'm only relaying it over, don't shoot the messenger. Glass houses eh lads, stick to your own and stop obsessing over Wales all the time .

Then you're as informed as normal

Duty281 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:I heard it was a probe into why England aren't scoring tries, and why they keep bellowing over opposition mistakes - a crooked lineout for example. Maybe it's just hearsay but I'm only relaying it over, don't shoot the messenger. Glass houses eh lads, stick to your own and stop obsessing over Wales all the time .

You're literally on an England thread talking about England.

Key message, mikey is discussing the rugby. Where next for England?

Where next for England?

Playing Japan in Nice.

mountain man wrote:

Where next for England?

Playing Japan in Nice.

Nice. I think England have a good chance of scoring tries, one or two.

Duty281 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:I heard it was a probe into why England aren't scoring tries, and why they keep bellowing over opposition mistakes - a crooked lineout for example. Maybe it's just hearsay but I'm only relaying it over, don't shoot the messenger. Glass houses eh lads, stick to your own and stop obsessing over Wales all the time .

You're literally on an England thread talking about England.

You can understand why. I mean it must be really really depressing to support a team that has lost more often than not this year, even against a poor side like England - a team that can't even score. They obviously want to know what the secret is to make that step up from abysmal to rubbish, and we should be supportive of that.

mikey_dragon wrote:

mountain man wrote:

Where next for England?

Playing Japan in Nice.

Nice. I think England have a good chance of scoring tries, one or two.

Points win games. Tries are always nice but when the opposition keeps on offering 3 pointers who are we to refuse them.

With this obsession it is possible you are watching the wrong code.

lostinwales wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

mountain man wrote:

Where next for England?

Playing Japan in Nice.

Nice. I think England have a good chance of scoring tries, one or two.

Points win games. Tries are always nice but when the opposition keeps on offering 3 pointers who are we to refuse them.

With this obsession it is possible you are watching the wrong code.

Now tries don't matter? Fickle bunch, I can remember then they mattered most . England played well, Ford especially, versus Arg and a lot of 3-pointers were served up because Puma's were terrible. England managed that tremendously well when down to 14 and should be applauded for doing so. I'm calling a win for England versus Japan, along with another red card or two.

The 2003 lot have harped on for years about keeping the scoreboard ticking over and building pressure via the scoreboard. Come away with something from every visit to the oppo 22. And as we cannot score tries it makes huge sense to adopt the drop kick ploy. Very well done.

hugehandoff wrote:The 2003 lot have harped on for years about keeping the scoreboard ticking over and building pressure via the scoreboard. Come away with something from every visit to the oppo 22. And as we cannot score tries it makes huge sense to adopt the drop kick ploy. Very well done.

Absolutely! If you're struggling to be creative & make tries then you have to take points when they're on offer.

Being honest for a sec - our attack hasn't done anything for a while. The May try vs Fiji was a decent effort but only felt special because it was so unusual for us on recent evidence. So the jury is still very much out on our attacking game. Regardless of the reasons playing the way we did vs Argentina was the right way given the conditions let alone being a man down - and trying to run the ball from everywhere would have generated the types of errors that would have brought Argentina back into the match.

That match has brought us time. I'd be amazed if we didn't top the group, although there will be some more difficult and stupid moments. We will have to rediscover a way to score tries again though.

The other thing on which further progression depends is going to be playing Mitchell and Ford and leaving Farrell on the bench or preferably in the stands.

And a man down, England were always going to have limited options in attack. Ticking the points over was absolutely the right thing to do in the context of this game, and Ford's first two drop goals were excellent (second one as good a strike as you'll ever see).

The aim of the game was to win, and we did that very effectively in difficult circumstances.