England v S Africa 3rd Nov Match thread

pickarooney

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If Gardner was going to bottle it, he wouldn’t have reviewed it at all, the game was over.

Anyone who didn’t see the game, wait until you see the angle that’s Gardner saw that led him to decide it was a fair tackle. It’s the other angle, probably out there on twitter somewhere.


Farrell is lucky though. While he got his left hand around enough to satisfy the referee, the only thing stopping that tackle being a match-loser is for the Saffer to drop his head an inch into contact, which he’s be perfectly entitled to do. That’s not what happened this time, but if it did England would have lost and Farrell would have been banned for a few weeks. Smart coaches would be pointing that out to him this week.

Wasn't the narrative last time out that Cipriani should have known that Scannell would have ducked into contact? So Farrell knew the opponent wasn't going to? This half-baked notion of intent/knowledge aforethought makes a mockery of these decisions.

Buer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This lives in the realms of what you think the laws should be, rather than what they actually are. Very easy to ignore his left arm and reach your conclusion, but it’s not how the laws work.

Not really. It was a subjective scenario and open to interpretation. It's just that one interpretation is completely far fetched and grasping at straws. It gave the referee a tiny opening at taking the easy way out though and he took it. Only the most partisan would have complained if a penalty was awarded. The official could have very simply awarded a penalty under dangerous play. It's the very first law of the section on dangerous play and is a far more applicable law than the left arm coming up but having no involvement.

Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others.

We all know what happened. We all can see the extent of the "wrap" and it is minimal at best. We can all see clearly the leading arm drop to Farrell's side to leave his shoulder clear for a heavy contact.

I have defended Farrell and England plenty of times. I don't care who did it. I care that a reckless incident was hurriedly dismissed at a time where dangerous tackles are under extreme scrutiny.

irishbucsfan

shootermacg wrote: »

You should just stop. If you hit someone on the ankle and lead with the shoulder, you will also give away a penalty.

That’s not correct, nah

irishbucsfan

Buer wrote: »

Not really. It was a subjective scenario and open to interpretation. It's just that one interpretation is completely far fetched and grasping at straws. It gave the referee a tiny opening at taking the easy way out though and he took it. Only the most partisan would have complained if a penalty was awarded. The official could have very simply awarded a penalty under dangerous play. It's the very first law of the section on dangerous play and is a far more applicable law than the left arm coming up but having no involvement.



We all know what happened. We all can see the extent of the "wrap" and it is minimal at best. We can all see clearly the leading arm drop to Farrell's side to leave his shoulder clear for a heavy contact.

I have defended Farrell and England plenty of times. I don't care who did it. I care that a reckless incident was hurriedly dismissed at a time where dangerous tackles are under extreme scrutiny.

You know you’re really stretching things when you try to use reckless endangerment to penalize a tackle!

stephen_n

fitz wrote: »

"A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player."

Show me a picture of Farrell attempting to grasp the player before making contact with the shoulder of an arm that was in no position to do so.

Your interpretation would lead to a lot of cards, how many tackles happen without the shoulder making contact first?

fitz

stephen_n wrote: »

Your interpretation would lead to a lot of cards, how many tackles happen without the shoulder making contact first?

Point is that neither arm is making a grasping attempt when contact is made.

fitz

fitz wrote: »

Point is that neither arm is making a grasping attempt when contact is made.

If you stop a lot of tackles at the point of contact, you could say the same.

Buer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You know you’re really stretching things when you try to use reckless endangerment to penalize a tackle!

You're being deliberately dramatic to try and dismiss a valid point. The law says that you must not to anything reckless.

Are you saying you believe that Farrell's movements i.e the shoulder and dropping his leading arm weren't reckless?

Utah_Saint

Doesn't say much for England when Teo can walk into the team having played very little

pickarooney

Being able to walk is almost enough to get a cap at the moment.

I reckon Farrell was trying to take one for the team...!

uptherebels

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Get over yourself and stop trying ( and failing) to be the epitome of condescension .

So I'm wrong and head contact with a shoulder is open to interpretation? I eagerly await your attempted response.
If you feel inferior due to not understanding something I apologise for pointing it out

uptherebels

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Funny how you say that rules and laws are the same, but then mention interpretation which is exactly what the difference between rules and laws are.

Feel free to point out where the difference is one is open to interpretation and the other isn't.

Inspector Coptoor

uptherebels wrote: »

So I'm wrong and head contact with a shoulder is open to interpretation? I eagerly await your attempted response.
If you feel inferior due to not understanding something I apologise for pointing it out

Just when I thought you couldn’t come across any worse.


No feelings of inferiority from me but you keep adding to your ever burgeoning superiority complex.
Yet another person from Cork with that “quality”.

Now can we go back to talking about Farrell’s tackle?
Or the game itself?

uptherebels

Basil3 wrote: »

If you stop a lot of tackles at the point of contact, you could say the same.

But the issue is if a tackler is leading with the shoulder his arm is down and unable to wrap or initiate a wrap with that arm at the point of contact.
So Is hitting with the right shoulder and trying to wrap with the left arm sufficient.

uptherebels

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Just when I thought you couldn’t come across any worse.


No feelings of inferiority from me but you keep adding to your ever burgeoning superiority complex.
Yet another person from Cork with that “quality”.

Now can we go back to talking about Farrell’s tackle?
Or the game itself?

Deflect all you want. Your refusal to answer the question because you caught yourself out gives me all the confirmation I need.
And you brought up the cipriani card in the first palce

Inspector Coptoor

uptherebels wrote: »

Deflect all you want. Your refusal to answer the question because you caught yourself out gives me all the confirmation I need.
And you brought up the cipriani card in the first palce

Answer me this question:

Do you think Cipriani intended for his shoulder to make contact with the Munster players head based on his actions?

Do you think Farrell intended to cause harm with his tackle when he pointed his shoulder directly at the SA player?

There’s no deflection from me.

I have an opinion on both incidents.
They don’t dovetail with the letter of the laws.
Surely I’m allowed express an opinion that I don’t agree with that?

I did bring in the Cip red card as I felt it was an injustice, in the same way I feel it’s an injustice Farrell wasn’t penalized today.

Synode

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You know you’re really stretching things when you try to use reckless endangerment to penalize a tackle!

In no reality is that a tackle. It's a shoulder charge with a flailing left arm

Enzokk

I think it was a penalty as he didn't use his arms to tackle. That is how I saw the tackle but it seems to me that referees are not willing to make tough decisions in the last minute that could decide a match. Remember the offside of the Lions vs the All Blacks? It is not a surprise that Gardner didn't make the call.

leakyboots wrote: »

South Africa will if they get a bit more streetwise (don't balls up lineouts in the red zone, take the drop goal if its on etc)... which I think they will knowing Rassie and Nienaber.

Why do you think Erasmus and Nienaber will be able to turn it around? What in his coaching record makes you think he is a serial winner that will turn it around? I see more organization from the Coetzee era, but then again that is not difficult to do. Then again Coetzee had a 44% win record and Erasmus has a 45% win record right now. What has changed?

I still see a team that consists of way too many players that are from the teams that finished joint last in the South African conference in Super Rugby. I also see the coach picking players of colour but not trusting them. He was quick to yank Mbonambi off after 30 minutes after a mistake but he left Marx on after his missed throws today? Then he picked a bunch of players of colour on the bench but he didn't trust them to change the game when fresh legs were needed.

Unfortunately you cannot discuss South African rugby without talking about transformation. I know that you will not have the players coming through of colour if it wasn't forced on the teams. But there is still a reluctance to trust the players and it will be felt by the likes of Papier and Jantjies that the coach is only picking them because they are coloured and not because he believes in their ability. Otherwise he would have brought them on earlier. Erasmus is on record as saying he doesn't like to change his flyhalf as he wants to give him the whole game to influence the game, but when Jantjies starts he has taken him off after 60 minutes or earlier on most occasions. So you know there will be unhappiness in the squad about this and it will gather with the other players who will be wondering if they are also only there as numbers for the politicians.

But I digress, any team that are able to dominate another physically will have a chance. I just think that the teams South Africa were able to dominate 10 years ago is able to stand up against them more comfortably so while they pose a threat if you can match them physically there really isn't much else there to be frightened of. The attack looks blunt and if you have to rely on Faf De Klerk and Willie Le Roux for your attacks you are in trouble. What guarantees do you have that they will be fit and on form in a years time?

As for England, I also don't see much to be afraid of. Much like SA, they are a threat just because they have quality players but they seem to be fighting the coach. It will be interesting to see if John Mitchell can bring some new ideas to freshen things up as they desperately need a spark.

leakyboots

Did you see the mess he inherited?

He just coached a team that beat the All Blacks in NZ and narrowly lost out to them back in SA.

They're most definitely on the up and we should be wary of them in a RWC

Enzokk wrote: »

I think it was a penalty as he didn't use his arms to tackle. That is how I saw the tackle but it seems to me that referees are not willing to make tough decisions in the last minute that could decide a match. Remember the offside of the Lions vs the All Blacks? It is not a surprise that Gardner didn't make the call.

Why do you think Erasmus and Nienaber will be able to turn it around? What in his coaching record makes you think he is a serial winner that will turn it around? I see more organization from the Coetzee era, but then again that is not difficult to do. Then again Coetzee had a 44% win record and Erasmus has a 45% win record right now. What has changed?

I still see a team that consists of way too many players that are from the teams that finished joint last in the South African conference in Super Rugby. I also see the coach picking players of colour but not trusting them. He was quick to yank Mbonambi off after 30 minutes after a mistake but he left Marx on after his missed throws today? Then he picked a bunch of players of colour on the bench but he didn't trust them to change the game when fresh legs were needed.

Unfortunately you cannot discuss South African rugby without talking about transformation. I know that you will not have the players coming through of colour if it wasn't forced on the teams. But there is still a reluctance to trust the players and it will be felt by the likes of Papier and Jantjies that the coach is only picking them because they are coloured and not because he believes in their ability. Otherwise he would have brought them on earlier. Erasmus is on record as saying he doesn't like to change his flyhalf as he wants to give him the whole game to influence the game, but when Jantjies starts he has taken him off after 60 minutes or earlier on most occasions. So you know there will be unhappiness in the squad about this and it will gather with the other players who will be wondering if they are also only there as numbers for the politicians.

But I digress, any team that are able to dominate another physically will have a chance. I just think that the teams South Africa were able to dominate 10 years ago is able to stand up against them more comfortably so while they pose a threat if you can match them physically there really isn't much else there to be frightened of. The attack looks blunt and if you have to rely on Faf De Klerk and Willie Le Roux for your attacks you are in trouble. What guarantees do you have that they will be fit and on form in a years time?

As for England, I also don't see much to be afraid of. Much like SA, they are a threat just because they have quality players but they seem to be fighting the coach. It will be interesting to see if John Mitchell can bring some new ideas to freshen things up as they desperately need a spark.

Enzokk

leakyboots wrote: »

Did you see the mess he inherited?

He just coached a team that beat the All Blacks in NZ and narrowly lost out to them back in SA.

They're most definitely on the up and we should be wary of them in a RWC

He gets some credit I suppose, but it was a self inflicted wound that he is trying to fix. South Africa never disappeared from relevance, even Coetzee almost beat the All Blacks in his last year losing 24-25 to some Damian McKenzie magic.

But there are still problems within SA Rugby (other than the political element which is overblown) and IMO he has made more himself as well which may take time to play out. Those will be felt after the World Cup, even if they win it, and you will most likely see a consolidation of where the team is now. They are okay, on par with England but likely to lose to all other teams that on the day. So not much has changed that I can see.

Bridge93

Matt Dawson, Stuart Barnes, Will Greenwood and Brian Moore to name a few that I’ve seen comment on it have said Farrell was lucky or that other way on they’d be screaming for a penalty. So this idea it’s some sort of anti England or Farrell stance is a load of bollox. It’s at best a decision that will split opinions down the middle. I like Farrell, lions tour totally changed my perception of him, but he was lucky

irishbucsfan

Bridge93 wrote: »

Matt Dawson, Stuart Barnes, Will Greenwood and Brian Moore to name a few that I’ve seen comment on it have said Farrell was lucky or that other way on they’d be screaming for a penalty. So this idea it’s some sort of anti England or Farrell stance is a load of bollox. It’s at best a decision that will split opinions down the middle. I like Farrell, lions tour totally changed my perception of him, but he was lucky

I think he was lucky. On a number of counts.

Firstly, the referee judged his left arm to be wrapping. I thought the same but another referee could easily have disagreed. The reverse clip made a good case for it at the time and I'd say a large majority of referees would have reached the same opinion, but leaving any room for doubt at such an important moment in the game is silly.

Secondly, it was very nearly high to the point where if the South African had gone any lower Farrell would have been sent off, banned and the match lost. That would have been entirely Farrell's fault.

He was absolutely very lucky. And coaches need to be stepping in immediately to explain that to players.

However anyone who thinks the referee 'bottled it' or there was an objectively incorrect decision is either on another planet or are letting personal opinions (of whoever, even Gardner) cloud their vision.

Bridge93

Ah yeah bottling it is far too strong. I feel he was wrong but therein lies the problem of inconsistency we keep seeing raised. He had his reasons for giving nothing, just as others had theirs for sending people off.

Eoinbmw

The ref wanted an easy out and found one with the "attempted wrap" he even rushed the TMO and could have took a much longer look at it! bad call!

irishbucsfan

Bridge93 wrote: »

Ah yeah bottling it is far too strong. I feel he was wrong but therein lies the problem of inconsistency we keep seeing raised. He had his reasons for giving nothing, just as others had theirs for sending people off.

It would be inconsistent if someone had been sent off or penalised for the same tackle. That hasn't happened though in recent times.

Terrific post match from Rassie, on the tackle he just said it's incredibly effective way to stop someone so if that's legal we'll have to practice that and do the same. Brilliant shade thrown at World Rugby in the most dead pan of fashions. Highlights the urgent need for consistency and transparency.

Dubinusa

Farrell does play on the the line. He is a lightning rod and is England's most important player.
A lot of times, I feel, the decisions made by the refs depend on who is involved.
I may be wrong, but I think if that was Care or Wigglesworth or any other English player, I think a penalty would have been called with a yc.
Anyway, what does EJ do next week?
I see England playing muckball and infringing on the rucks and trying to play multiple phase rugby.
I also see England trying to outmuscle the kiwis and try to keep it a possession game.
Englands pack are playing like individuals and there hasn't been much cohesion this last year.
Missing Billy V really changes the match for them as the other 8's are not really top quality.
Itoje and Kruse are not on the same level as the kiwis locks and with the discipline problems England have within the pack, what does EJ do?
England are a slow lumbering poorly disciplined pack that seem to turn off for stretches during the matches I have seen.
The test next weekend could possibly be the end of the road for EJ. If the kiwis destroy England, Jones should be fired. The team is regressing and only for the boks ineptitude, they should have lost by at least 10 points yesterday.

uptherebels

Inspector Coptoor wrote: »

Answer me this question:

Do you think Cipriani intended for his shoulder to make contact with the Munster players head based on his actions?

Do you think Farrell intended to cause harm with his tackle when he pointed his shoulder directly at the SA player?

There’s no deflection from me.

I have an opinion on both incidents.
They don’t dovetail with the letter of the laws.
Surely I’m allowed express an opinion that I don’t agree with that?

I did bring in the Cip red card as I felt it was an injustice, in the same way I feel it’s an injustice Farrell wasn’t penalized today.

this is what you aren't getting. it doesn't matter the intent. The onus is on the defending player not to execute a dangerous tackle.
There is no interpretation on shoulder to head tackles because there is now no point in a player executing a sloppy tackle and maybe getting off depending on the ref.
What happened with farrell is i think he went to take one for the team. He could have executed a proper tackle with both arms but went for the shoulder smash instead.
He got away with it because the ref decided that there was enough of an attempt to wrap.
That decision shows why there is no interpretation allowed in shoulders to the head.
How much of an attempted wrap makes the farrell tackle ok?
How much of a shoulder to the head is dangerous?
How do you decide how much force cipriani put into the hit?

Mookie Blaylock

uptherebels wrote: »

this is what you aren't getting. it doesn't matter the intent. The onus is on the defending player not to execute a dangerous tackle.
There is no interpretation on shoulder to head tackles because there is now no point in a player executing a sloppy tackle and maybe getting off depending on the ref.
What happened with farrell is i think he went to take one for the team. He could have executed a proper tackle with both arms but went for the shoulder smash instead.
He got away with it because the ref decided that there was enough of an attempt to wrap.
That decision shows why there is no interpretation allowed in shoulders to the head.
How much of an attempted wrap makes the farrell tackle ok?
How much of a shoulder to the head is dangerous?
How do you decide how much force cipriani put into the hit?

If Cipriani is cited, intent and recklessness come into the equation.