RugbyRebels

I’ll just leave this here:

Mellsblue wrote:

switchskier wrote:

Puja wrote:
I have a lot to say about Farrell generally, but I thought it wasn't a penalty. He has got his arm up to wrap and, while he's not in control and lucky it's not high, I would've said it was legal.

Puja

If Ciprianis was red how is that not a penalty at the very least? It's leads with the shoulder into the very top of the chest/lower neck area with no attempt to use the arms. If that is legal then the distinction between a legal hit and a red card would appear to be more miniscule.

Cipriani’s was a hit to the head. They are not comparable. Farrell was definitely trying to wrap, even if it was a secondary concern, and he didn’t make contact with the head. Great tackle. An inch higher with the shoulder or a few inches further back for the left arm and it’s a card and probable lost match.
If you watch his reaction afterwards I think he thought it was the second scenario. It was a close call by the officials but I think it was the correct one.

Conversely Cipriani stands there and someone puts his head into his shoulder whereas Farrell launches his shoulder towards the very top of someones torso. At best I think that he's very lucky but the cynic in me says that the officials bottled it and that makes me sad.

Mellsblue wrote:I’ll just leave this here:

TBF WIlson and Kruis had decent games.

I'd be surprised if the ABs don't rest players ahead of the Ireland game and still do us comfortably.

16th man wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I’ll just leave this here:

TBF WIlson and Kruis had decent games.

I'd be surprised if the ABs don't rest players ahead of the Ireland game and still do us comfortably.

Agreed, both were very good. It was more the Shields’ namecheck. Unbelievable.

Mellsblue wrote:

16th man wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I’ll just leave this here:

TBF WIlson and Kruis had decent games.

I'd be surprised if the ABs don't rest players ahead of the Ireland game and still do us comfortably.

Agreed, both were very good. It was more the Shields’ namecheck. Unbelievable.

Well yes, but even a small bit of sense out of Eddie's mouth is to be welcomed at this point.

Jones does talk rubbish a fair bit and usually sticks up for his players. If Shields starts next week I'll be irritated but not before.

switchskier wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: He was very fortunate with that tackle decision. On another day that could have been a card (which speaks volumes about the consistency of refereeing at the moment).

I have a lot to say about Farrell generally, but I thought it wasn't a penalty. He has got his arm up to wrap and, while he's not in control and lucky it's not high, I would've said it was legal.

Puja

If Ciprianis was red how is that not a penalty at the very least? It's leads with the shoulder into the very top of the chest/lower neck area with no attempt to use the arms. If that is legal then the distinction between a legal hit and a red card would appear to be more miniscule.

Because Cipriani made contact with the head. The fact that Fazlet didn't was more luck then judgement and, if he wasn't utterly untouchable for some reason, I'd want him given a massive bollocking and warning that he'll be dropped if it happens again.

The line has got to be somewhere and the difference is direct contact to the head vs contact with the chest and never touching the head.

Puja

switchskier wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

switchskier wrote:
If Ciprianis was red how is that not a penalty at the very least? It's leads with the shoulder into the very top of the chest/lower neck area with no attempt to use the arms. If that is legal then the distinction between a legal hit and a red card would appear to be more miniscule.

Cipriani’s was a hit to the head. They are not comparable. Farrell was definitely trying to wrap, even if it was a secondary concern, and he didn’t make contact with the head. Great tackle. An inch higher with the shoulder or a few inches further back for the left arm and it’s a card and probable lost match.
If you watch his reaction afterwards I think he thought it was the second scenario. It was a close call by the officials but I think it was the correct one.

Conversely Cipriani stands there and someone puts his head into his shoulder.

Kudos. This is almost as funny as Shields’ offload.

16th man wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

16th man wrote:
TBF WIlson and Kruis had decent games.

I'd be surprised if the ABs don't rest players ahead of the Ireland game and still do us comfortably.

Agreed, both were very good. It was more the Shields’ namecheck. Unbelievable.

Well yes, but even a small bit of sense out of Eddie's mouth is to be welcomed at this point.

Can’t argue with that!

Puja wrote:

TheDasher wrote:God it's negative on here... we defended well in 1st half, penalty count WAY lower than usual and we were the better team 2nd half. Farrell played extremely well imo.

He consistently missed tackles, didn't engage the line, continually chose the wrong option and passed to men standing still, memorably passed to the floor to give up the position after May's break from his 22, kicked too long when he kicked high, and the backline that he organised scored no tries and made only one clean break in ordinary play. Granted, he made that break, but there was nothing else whatsoever.

What did he do that made you think he played extremely well?

Puja

According to ESPN stats, he only missed 2 tackles

Although Slade missed 7.

Watching the vid of the Fazlet ‘tackle’ he thinks it was worthy of at least a penalty, watch him straight after.
Apart from one scrum when England got the shove on, SA plainly had absolute dominance, England’s were being twisted all over at least until the bench came on. I can’t understand why SA didn’t crush them at scrum time, whoever’s put in. They looked for quick ball off their own scrums which I echo they didn’t know what to do with, they could have completely demoralised the England pack had they chosen to.

Just watched the extended highlights. The first half went exactly as I imagined it would.

Considering how shit I thought we would be, and how much we would lose by, I'm not particularly unhappy about the second half. I know highlights don't tell the whole story, and I'm peeved we failed to score a try, but it was improved.

Yes, SA probably should've been a couple of converted tries ahead at half time, and no doubt NZ would've punished us severely on that showing, but I'd give that performance a polished turd rating.

It was a bit shit, but it was shiny shit.

The hugely annoying thing is the press will report that Farrell won that match and should be knighted as no-one else turned up.

More fake news.

I've watched that Farrell tackle over and over and can't quite work out how anyone can think he was trying to use his arms. It was a straight shoulder charge. He's very very lucky the man didn't duck slightly before impact as it was have been a nailed on red then.

Spiffy wrote:The second half was exciting enough, but those looked like two very average teams, lacking in basic skills, rugby smarts, organisation and leadership. England will never be able to play a high tempo attacking game with Youngs and Farrell as halfbacks. Teo offers only bulk, which is clearly not enough at this level.

One of those ‘very average teams, lacking in basic skills, rugby smarts, organisation and leadership’ nearly went back to back on the AB’s literally 2 weeks ago, so y’know, you’re probably just chatting rubbish.

Beasties wrote:I've watched that Farrell tackle over and over and can't quite work out how anyone can think he was trying to use his arms. It was a straight shoulder charge. He's very very lucky the man didn't duck slightly before impact as it was have been a nailed on red then.

Agree, definite penalty from the Teflon messiah.

But for a bit of better execution, I felt we actually looked more like scoring a try than SA did.

I’m pleased Wilson is getting some recognition but how Eddie can name check Shields is beyond me. He was truly awful. I just can’t fathom what part of his performance warranted any kind of positive comment? He was terrible in defence and his involvement killed at least two good attacks (one laughably badly).

WaspInWales wrote:

Puja wrote:

TheDasher wrote:God it's negative on here... we defended well in 1st half, penalty count WAY lower than usual and we were the better team 2nd half. Farrell played extremely well imo.

He consistently missed tackles, didn't engage the line, continually chose the wrong option and passed to men standing still, memorably passed to the floor to give up the position after May's break from his 22, kicked too long when he kicked high, and the backline that he organised scored no tries and made only one clean break in ordinary play. Granted, he made that break, but there was nothing else whatsoever.

What did he do that made you think he played extremely well?

Puja

According to ESPN stats, he only missed 2 tackles

That doesn't immediately look correct, although it may be that the ones where he just waved Pollard through don't count because he didn't even attempt them.

Puja

Timbo wrote:

Spiffy wrote:The second half was exciting enough, but those looked like two very average teams, lacking in basic skills, rugby smarts, organisation and leadership. England will never be able to play a high tempo attacking game with Youngs and Farrell as halfbacks. Teo offers only bulk, which is clearly not enough at this level.

One of those ‘very average teams, lacking in basic skills, rugby smarts, organisation and leadership’ nearly went back to back on the AB’s literally 2 weeks ago, so y’know, you’re probably just chatting rubbish.

Well you saw them play today. They dominated the first half and should have gone in at halftime about 20 points up, and the match in the bag. But they could not do it because of their sloppy play, particularly in the lineout, and their determination to have every ball die with de Allende. Not much invention at all from either side. The Boks are certainly physically powerful but not that smart.

I dont think it is the same as Cipriani's but I think it is a clear penalty. Part of "attempting to wrap" must include using a technique where you have a hope in hell of wrapping. He just went for a big hit with the point of his right shoulder with his right arm down and then post-hit he vaguely brought his arms up and tried to grab the guy.

That sort of hit is exactly what the no arms rule is trying to avoid.

It looks to me that his arms start to come round only as a consequence of the momentum of the hit rather than him vaguely trying to actually you know wrap them. The look on his face said it all, he knew he was in bother. But I don't want to bang on about it, we see several of these in every game. He got away with it this time. Again. The main thing is that Eddie needs to give him a proper dressing down for this. It could cost a massively important game at some point. I'm not sure Eddie will though.

suitable for the Sunday eye-brow work-out session..

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... yers-rated

Oakboy wrote:

twitchy wrote:Calls for brown to be recalled.

I said before the game that Daly is a world class winger but an ordinary FB. Nothing today made me think otherwise.

I wondered why Nowell was taken off just as he was getting involved effectively but I'd still pick Daly on the wing.

Daly playing fullback didnt work - not commanding under the high ball and stepped inside twice when the ball should have gone out (one of them would have been a sublime piece of skill - to step and commit a man at the time delivering a 7 or 8 meter pass - but he is supposed to be the England Fullback....).

Puja wrote:

twitchy wrote:It will probably be rhodes for shields people are speculating. Also how much longer is loz suspended for?

While I don't like Rhodes as a player or as an "Englishman", he's certainly a better selection than Shields at the moment. Of course Armand is better than both and a significant case could be made for a Mercer, Wilson, Morgan back row from the squad we have.

Puja

Shields payed generally ok IMO - but was exposed at crucial times in a schoolboy error type way.
Its the kind of muppetery Johhny May can regress to at times - and nearly did once yesterday.

Wilson was excellent IMO - proper hard as nails back row player, definite no.6 when we get either of our star 8's back.

I think the scrummage - though screwed a couple of times in the first half - did ok in the circumstances i.e. playing the boks.

My opinion is it was Sinkler who was getting screwed at TH and should have gone off first - it wasnt as if he was giving it all that round the park to warrant him staying on.

richy678 wrote:

Puja wrote:

twitchy wrote:It will probably be rhodes for shields people are speculating. Also how much longer is loz suspended for?

While I don't like Rhodes as a player or as an "Englishman", he's certainly a better selection than Shields at the moment. Of course Armand is better than both and a significant case could be made for a Mercer, Wilson, Morgan back row from the squad we have.

Puja

Shields payed generally ok IMO - but was exposed at crucial times in a schoolboy error type way.
Its the kind of muppetery Johhny May can regress to at times - and nearly did once yesterday.

Wilson was excellent IMO - proper hard as nails back row player, definite no.6 when we get either of our star 8's back.

I think the scrummage - though screwed a couple of times in the first half - did ok in the circumstances i.e. playing the boks.

My opinion is it was Sinkler who was getting screwed at TH and should have gone off first - it wasnt as if he was giving it all that round the park to warrant him staying on.

I agree Sinckler was the one getting done in the scrums, but disagree that he wasn't adding much around the park. I thought he was superb - carried well, tackled well (including one massive hit on Etzebeth to stop an attack dead) and was good at getting to and clearing out rucks.

The props should've been the other way round though - have the more solid, but staid Moon and Williams start, with Hepburn and Sinckler coming off the bench angry to prove a point against tirin defences.

Puja