England vs South Africa

[Gloskarlos]

It's a borderline penalty for me at worst.

1) it is not high - you are allowed your first point of contact when making a tackle to be your shoulder and it is below the neck by enough.

2) One of his arms wraps - the other doesn't, so depending on which view you take it's a penalty or not based on this alone.

Does the law state BOTH arms need to be wrapped? I think that is the crucial part here. if not, it's legal play and nothing to see - which is what the officials decided on the day.

[Raggs]

I think the moment you consider it a penalty, it's a borderline yellow. I can understand the argument for not a penalty even, though personally I'd disagree.

[Puja]

It's a borderline penalty for me at worst.

1) it is not high - you are allowed your first point of contact when making a tackle to be your shoulder and it is below the neck by enough.

2) One of his arms wraps - the other doesn't, so depending on which view you take it's a penalty or not based on this alone.

Does the law state BOTH arms need to be wrapped? I think that is the crucial part here. if not, it's legal play and nothing to see - which is what the officials decided on the day.

You don't need to use both arms, but you do need to use the one on the shoulder that you're tackling with.

Puja

[Gloskarlos]

If this is exactly how the law is written then it is a penalty.

[Puja]

If this is exactly how the law is written then it is a penalty.

Just looked it up and it's impressively vague: "A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player."

I would posit that common sense would say that grasping with one hand and driving the shoulder in with the other side is probably against the spirit though.

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

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!

Sorry, but that really does not make any sense. If anything your arms are more likely to swing towards your opponent once your shoulder hits them.

For what’s it’s worth I thought it was a straight red on first glance and found the idea of us losing the game to an 80th minute red card for our captain absolutely hilarious. I’m still not even sure I wouldn’t have preferred that, aside from Esterheuizen (?) getting a bit more brain damage.

Farrell desperately needs to learn this lesson sooner or later, but this won’t be it. If anything this will probably encourage him, he’s come out of it looking like the hero and that kind of irks me.

When I saw the replay though, I agree that he doesn’t make contact with the head. I think it was the right call in the end, but I think it’s insane that that hit was 2 inches short of being a straight red. I don’t know what the solution is.

[Oakboy]

Does a player ever aim for the head? Surely, a high shoulder without arms is dangerous by definition. If no contact was made with the head that was just good luck for carrier and tackler. Farrell's tackle was pure intent to achieve maximum impact. In terms of stopping effectiveness it was superb. I still think he was very lucky by current GP standards.

[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

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

How do you have your arms out as you run up and across with the carrier also running across if you're going for a tackle with the inside shoulder? If his right arm is out it just gets pushed back into him or spins him around to an attacker stepping back on the inside, and with the direction of the runs of both Farrell and Esterhuizen the left shoulder and arm are wholly incidental, indeed the left arm needs to come a long way around just to be a loose flappy thing that happens to be in the picture even if not doing anything

For me the game needs to think seriously about what sort of explosive contact work it wants as the only way I can see Farrell getting a runner with that power and pace on that angle down is to wholly change his technique and sort his footwork to effect a left shoulder tackle with his head on the outside of Esterhuizen's left hip. That would be far more akin to the soak tackles from the amateur game, and would be derided by an overwhelming number of modern defence coaches

But given this particular scenario I don't see how you can use the inside shoulder and not be making a hit rather than a tackle. And I think I know what Farrell would be told had he tried to make a left shoulder tackle and been beaten for pace by what's likely a faster player

So, what should be allowed here?

(I'm not saying all inside shoulder tackles make a safe use of the arms impossible, but some do including this one so far as I can see)

[Scrumhead]

It’s over and done with now but FWIW, I thought it was definitely a penalty. IMO, the contact wasn’t high enough to warrant a yellow though and any calls for a red are outright ridiculous.

The bigger issue for me is that it’s an example of Farrell’s poor tackling technique. He regularly puts in borderline legal challenges like this and if he doesn’t change, it is going to cost us at some point.

Given the amount of controversy this tackle has generated, he’ll be under additional scrutiny so he needs to sort it out sharpish.

[Oakboy]

Given the amount of controversy this tackle has generated, he’ll be under additional scrutiny so he needs to sort it out sharpish.

Jerome Garces is the ref v NZ. Is it the case that NH refs are stricter on this sort of thing?

[Numbers]

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

How do you have your arms out as you run up and across with the carrier also running across if you're going for a tackle with the inside shoulder? If his right arm is out it just gets pushed back into him or spins him around to an attacker stepping back on the inside, and with the direction of the runs of both Farrell and Esterhuizen the left shoulder and arm are wholly incidental, indeed the left arm needs to come a long way around just to be a loose flappy thing that happens to be in the picture even if not doing anything

For me the game needs to think seriously about what sort of explosive contact work it wants as the only way I can see Farrell getting a runner with that power and pace on that angle down is to wholly change his technique and sort his footwork to effect a left shoulder tackle with his head on the outside of Esterhuizen's left hip. That would be far more akin to the soak tackles from the amateur game, and would be derided by an overwhelming number of modern defence coaches

But given this particular scenario I don't see how you can use the inside shoulder and not be making a hit rather than a tackle. And I think I know what Farrell would be told had he tried to make a left shoulder tackle and been beaten for pace by what's likely a faster player

So, what should be allowed here?

(I'm not saying all inside shoulder tackles make a safe use of the arms impossible, but some do including this one so far as I can see)

I'm not sure who taught you how to tackle but if a player is running across you then you don't use the inside shoulder as your head will be on the wrong side, this was a blatant no arms tackle whichever way you look at it.

[Mellsblue]

Times ratings today:

Daly - 5
Nowell - 6
Slade - 6
Te’o - 6
May - 6
Farrell - 8
Youngs - 7

Hepburn - 5
Hartley - 6
Sinckler - 6
Itoje - 6
Kruis - 7
Shields - 6
Curry - 6
Wilson - 6

Mercer - 7
George - 6


‘How he loves these scraps. One telling tackle in closing stages before that late hit on Esterhuizen’. 8
Our no10 and playmaker in chief lauded to the high heavens for his love of a scrap and his tackles. Everything that is wrong with English rugby in two sentences. Ffs. The irony being I thought it was of his better games ball in hand.

[Raggs]

I loved Barnes commentary. Near silence when Farrell missed a kick, but then he gets the final one and it's gushing praise how he may miss a few when sarries are up by 20, but gets the important ones...

[Mellsblue]

I disagree but:

“Owen Farrell’s tackle on Andre Esterhuizen was illegal and should have been a penalty. Just about every senior referee to whom I have spoken agrees with me.”
Rob Debney

[fivepointer]

Faz was great. We all said so on here, didnt we?
I do sometimes wonder if i'm watching the same game as people in the media.

[Raggs]

I do have to say I thought apart from the awful pass, I thought he was OK in attack. Taking it to the line, varying his passes. The problem is he's robotic, so at times those long pull back passes to the midfield meant that the midfielder was basically taking man and ball. You get the feeling that Ford/Cips would have either made the pass earlier, and not take it to the line, or simply chosen differently.

[p/d]

still cant understand how Wilson only bags a 6, considering which other players hit the same mark.

[Scrumhead]

One of the few things we all agree on is that rugby journalists in this country are absolutely appalling. Clueless to a man.

[Stom]

One of the few things we all agree on is that rugby journalists in this country are absolutely appalling. Clueless to a man.

I'm looking forward to seeing some of Charlie Morgan's breakdown. He's the only one who consistently talks sense.

[Mikey Brown]

I do have to say I thought apart from the awful pass, I thought he was OK in attack. Taking it to the line, varying his passes. The problem is he's robotic, so at times those long pull back passes to the midfield meant that the midfielder was basically taking man and ball. You get the feeling that Ford/Cips would have either made the pass earlier, and not take it to the line, or simply chosen differently.

Am I wilfully just not remembering this? It's so infrequent that it reaches the point where he made his break and SA seemed to have given up on the idea he might attack the line. I saw a journo earlier talking about him "getting the backline flowing beautifully" and I just don't have a clue what he could have been referring to.

[Which Tyler]

I do have to say I thought apart from the awful pass, I thought he was OK in attack. Taking it to the line, varying his passes. The problem is he's robotic, so at times those long pull back passes to the midfield meant that the midfielder was basically taking man and ball. You get the feeling that Ford/Cips would have either made the pass earlier, and not take it to the line, or simply chosen differently.

Am I wilfully just not remembering this? It's so infrequent that it reaches the point where he made his break and SA seemed to have given up on the idea he might attack the line. I saw a journo earlier talking about him "getting the backline flowing beautifully" and I just don't have a clue what he could have been referring to.

Yeah, he makes a nice line break about once a year; because the rest of the time he offers so little threat that defenders don't bother marking him.

[Stom]

I do have to say I thought apart from the awful pass, I thought he was OK in attack. Taking it to the line, varying his passes. The problem is he's robotic, so at times those long pull back passes to the midfield meant that the midfielder was basically taking man and ball. You get the feeling that Ford/Cips would have either made the pass earlier, and not take it to the line, or simply chosen differently.

Am I wilfully just not remembering this? It's so infrequent that it reaches the point where he made his break and SA seemed to have given up on the idea he might attack the line. I saw a journo earlier talking about him "getting the backline flowing beautifully" and I just don't have a clue what he could have been referring to.

When we were playing reasonably in the 2nd half, he was playing passes. But our gainline successes seemed to be more about a sudden up in pace and our forwards actually suddenly both clearing rucks quickly and sucking in defenders.

Which coincided - and this may just be me, who knows, all those journos can't be wrong - with George and Mercer arriving...

[Raggs]

I do have to say I thought apart from the awful pass, I thought he was OK in attack. Taking it to the line, varying his passes. The problem is he's robotic, so at times those long pull back passes to the midfield meant that the midfielder was basically taking man and ball. You get the feeling that Ford/Cips would have either made the pass earlier, and not take it to the line, or simply chosen differently.

Am I wilfully just not remembering this? It's so infrequent that it reaches the point where he made his break and SA seemed to have given up on the idea he might attack the line. I saw a journo earlier talking about him "getting the backline flowing beautifully" and I just don't have a clue what he could have been referring to.

Yeah, he makes a nice line break about once a year; because the rest of the time he offers so little threat that defenders don't bother marking him.

It's a bit more than once a year, but I do agree. He does take it to the line, but the defence tends to leave one man half watching him, whilst the rest drift/blitz aggressively. He's doing what he's supposed to do, in taking to the line, because he's trained himself to do it, it's not natural for him, and it's rare that it'll lead to a break because he's not looking for it.

[Stom]

I do have to say I thought apart from the awful pass, I thought he was OK in attack. Taking it to the line, varying his passes. The problem is he's robotic, so at times those long pull back passes to the midfield meant that the midfielder was basically taking man and ball. You get the feeling that Ford/Cips would have either made the pass earlier, and not take it to the line, or simply chosen differently.

Am I wilfully just not remembering this? It's so infrequent that it reaches the point where he made his break and SA seemed to have given up on the idea he might attack the line. I saw a journo earlier talking about him "getting the backline flowing beautifully" and I just don't have a clue what he could have been referring to.

Yeah, he makes a nice line break about once a year; because the rest of the time he offers so little threat that defenders don't bother marking him.

Here it is, Morgan calls it as Te'o, Mercer and Slade doing the good work.

[Oakboy]

still cant understand how Wilson only bags a 6, considering which other players hit the same mark.

Quite. Can anybody with a brain give Shields the same score as Wilson?