England vs South Africa

[Timbo]

Itoje, btw, had a game high tackles completed with 15 and 0 missed, over 70 mins. Even when not at his absolute best his sheer work rate is absolutely integral to this team.

[Mr Mwenda]

Yeah i didn't see much wrong from itoje (but i missed the first 30). He's clearly a right so and so to play against and i expect the opposition generally wish he wasn't there.

[Raggs]

Watching through now. Wilson has been immense, but the most impressive bit for me was around 62 mins. He chases a kick to their 22, get's blocked off the tackle, as they run then kick through to our 22, he's basically the forward to get furthest back to support, we then break with May, and Nowell, and he's the first forward in support and could have potentially got the ball. That off the ball work is immense, especially so far into the game!

[Tigersman]

Too much to ask for
6. Wilson
7. Curry
8. Morgan
Eddie

[Timbo]

Too much to ask for
6. Wilson
7. Curry
8. Morgan
Eddie

Yes, Morgan is injured.

[Tigersman]

Too much to ask for
6. Wilson
7. Curry
8. Morgan
Eddie

Yes, Morgan is injured.

Oh FFS

[Spiffy]

Itoje, btw, had a game high tackles completed with 15 and 0 missed, over 70 mins. Even when not at his absolute best his sheer work rate is absolutely integral to this team.

Agree - he just needs to take a look at his discipline and mouth. I was never a fan of playing Itoje at 6 - he always looked like a lock playing out of position. But this season he has played quit a bit at 6 for Sarries, has improved his understanding of backrow play considerably and has come on well. He has the size and natural athleticism and operates well with the bit of extra space. In the absence of any outstanding 6s Jones might be tempted to give him another run in the slot.

[Puja]

Fazlet escapes citing. I didn't think it was a penalty on first viewing (albiet reckless and lucky not to be high), but this photo suggests I may have been wrong:



Puja

[WaspInWales]

'e dodged eur bullet for sure.

If t' lad wor lakin' rugby league league, 'e'd be eur 'eroa for eur clowt li' 'a'.

Farrell senior will be chuffed.

Translation provided by:
http://www.whoohoo.co.uk/yorkshire-translator.asp

[Lizard]

There’s not a huge amount of difference between what Faz did and the shoulder charge that earned SBW a red v the Lions.



Obviously, SBW’s case was different in that there was clear contact between shoulder and head (the ball-carrier being relatively lower in stance) but the arm position was similar - i.e. not in any position that looks like an attempt to tackle. SBW could even claim that, unlike Farrell, he was partially blocked from wrapping his arms by another player.

Farrell should have at least been penalised, if not Yellowed.

[Digby]

How do people think that Farrell tackle should be attempted? There's a large player moving at pace taking a line across Faz, the setup is almost where one could effect a left shoulder tackle going around the waist and dropping down the legs, but it's only almost and Farrell does need given where his feet are to use the inside shoulder, but once you use the inside shoulder with momentum of tackler and carrier making any wrap and not exposing the neck or head of the tackler as Halfpenny advocates looks problematic

This is a tackle I think is probably a penalty, but it's not a stand out pen as these things go, and the reality of the contact given feet and shoulder positions, momentum and body mechanics does lend the whole a problem or three

[Lizard]

The law on foul play does not end with “unless there was no way to tackle the player lawfully”.

[Scrumhead]

Itoje, btw, had a game high tackles completed with 15 and 0 missed, over 70 mins. Even when not at his absolute best his sheer work rate is absolutely integral to this team.

Agree - he just needs to take a look at his discipline and mouth. I was never a fan of playing Itoje at 6 - he always looked like a lock playing out of position. But this season he has played quit a bit at 6 for Sarries, has improved his understanding of backrow play considerably and has come on well. He has the size and natural athleticism and operates well with the bit of extra space. In the absence of any outstanding 6s Jones might be tempted to give him another run in the slot.

I’ve been equally against Itoje at 6, but I’d rather that (with Ewels coming in at lock) than see any more of Shields.

[Sandydragon]

Fazlet escapes citing. I didn't think it was a penalty on first viewing (albiet reckless and lucky not to be high), but this photo suggests I may have been wrong:



Puja

I think he has been very lucky. World Rugby are apparently going to discuss issue but he has dodged a bullet there. Although if he had been cited and banned then you would have had a different fly half for the ABs.

[Raggs]

It's never a red.

Penalty absolutely. Yellow depending on the ref perhaps.

[Puja]

Fazlet escapes citing. I didn't think it was a penalty on first viewing (albiet reckless and lucky not to be high), but this photo suggests I may have been wrong:



Puja

I think he has been very lucky. World Rugby are apparently going to discuss issue but he has dodged a bullet there. Although if he had been cited and banned then you would have had a different fly half for the ABs.

Raggs has the right of it below - probable penalty, possible yellow card, never a red - which is the level required for a citing. I will admit that when I saw it live, I thought it was high and was for a minute willing to lose the SA game if it meant that a) Fazlet would be undeniably to blame and b) we'd get Ford vs New Zealand.

Puja

[Beasties]

There is certainly a problem in as far as how the current laws are being applied, how they are being interpreted and the inconsistencies therein, and then there's what we as punters genuinely think of that particular tackle. I personally wouldn't even say it's an absolute nailed on pen as far as potential head contact in concerned, but I would argue that he got away with it as the laws are currently being erratically applied. Look at his face after and he knew he was in bother. Liz's comparison with SBW is just silly.

[Digby]

The law on foul play does not end with “unless there was no way to tackle the player lawfully”.

I hadn't meant to suggest it did, but we have a number of complaints about a tackle that was probably a penalty and would have been a very harsh yellow, and I'm wondering what do people think should have happened?

[Digby]

Fazlet escapes citing. I didn't think it was a penalty on first viewing (albiet reckless and lucky not to be high), but this photo suggests I may have been wrong:



Puja

I think he has been very lucky. World Rugby are apparently going to discuss issue but he has dodged a bullet there. Although if he had been cited and banned then you would have had a different fly half for the ABs.

Lucky to not concede a penalty or lucky to not be cited? I can agree with with the first but it surely wasn't red card territory

[p/d]

As always the Hask puts it best:

Is he a bit tipsy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

‘A bit tipsy’ seems lenient!!

he's off his tits!!!

fantastic stuff James

[Oakboy]

I think that if the Farrell tackle had occurred in the GP with the way that is being refereed currently it would have been a red card. It was a dangerous, high, shoulder charge with no arms. Farrell's demeanour during the video review suggests he was expecting the worst.

I'm not arguing that it should have been a red but it had to be a penalty.

[fivepointer]

My initial reaction was that it was a clear no arms tackle and should have been penalised. Certainly no red, but a penalty and possible yellow card.
The ref bottled it and the decision had a bit of home town about it. Though it should be noted there were other high hits that went unpunished during the game.

[Puja]

How do people think that Farrell tackle should be attempted? There's a large player moving at pace taking a line across Faz, the setup is almost where one could effect a left shoulder tackle going around the waist and dropping down the legs, but it's only almost and Farrell does need given where his feet are to use the inside shoulder, but once you use the inside shoulder with momentum of tackler and carrier making any wrap and not exposing the neck or head of the tackler as Halfpenny advocates looks problematic

Using his inside shoulder isn't the problem - the problem is that his arm is by his side, not outstretched. The issue is the shape of the shoulder. If you lift your arm up, then your shoulder is flat. If you have it down by your side, then it's pointy. The law about using your arms isn't about catching someone or holding them, it's designed so that you can't just shove the pointy shoulder into someone.

What Farrell does (having seen a replay) is throw his shoulder in and then whip his arm round to try and hold, which is not okay. What he should have done is have his arm out as he tackles - it's not as strong or forceful and there is a chance he might get beaten for going so high, but it is a) legal and b) not dangerous.

Puja

[Renniks]

The frames before the photo above show he is lifting his arms to wrap them. The force of the hit pushes the arm against the side making it look 10x worse

I’m not an advocate of Farrell (far from it) but I’m pretty sure the rule is to attempt to grasp the player. Not succeed in doing so.

I understand why it was no penalty. Even if I’d have given one!

[Raggs]

I think that if the Farrell tackle had occurred in the GP with the way that is being refereed currently it would have been a red card. It was a dangerous, high, shoulder charge with no arms. Farrell's demeanour during the video review suggests he was expecting the worst.

I'm not arguing that it should have been a red but it had to be a penalty.

It wasn't high.