PDA

View Full Version : England v South Africa



Browner
13-11-14, 20:11
Wonder if SL feels under pressure from his asst coach not to give George Ford a start ?

Thought this might've been Fords time to start, disappointed he's not.

Mike Brown (Harlequins);
Anthony Watson (Bath),
Brad Barritt (Saracens),
Kyle Eastmond (Bath),
Jonny May (Gloucester);
Owen Farrell (Saracens),
Danny Care (Harlequins);
Joe Marler (Harlequins),
Dylan Hartley (Northampton),
David Wilson (Bath),
Dave Attwood (Bath),
Courtney Lawes (Northampton),
Tom Wood (Northampton),
Chris Robshaw (Harlequins),
Billy Vunipola (Saracens)
Replacements
Rob Webber (Bath), Matt Mullan (Wasps), Kieran Brookes (Newcastle), George Kruis (Saracens), Ben Morgan (Gloucester), Ben Youngs (Leicester), George Ford (Bath), Marland Yarde (Harlequins)

PS, is May better than Strettle week in week out?

Dixie
13-11-14, 21:11
PS, is May better than Strettle week in week out?[/FONT][/COLOR] No - but would Strettle have so comprehensively gassed NZ?

L'irlandais
14-11-14, 22:11
Jeremy Guscott reckons England will shade it, I'm not convinced for two reasons.
1 RSA have just had a Wake-up call (last week-end), since their own poor play cost them that game.
2 Some teams/styles of play are incompatible - Ireland v Oz for example. England against RSA. It's one of those things, get over it, tomorrow you lose! ;)

Not sure "comprehensive" comes into it, the scoreline was "flattering" to England.

Dan_A
15-11-14, 17:11
74 mins in and lineout to SA. England don't compete but SA still form a wedge and drive. When the first England player then makes contact it is with a non ball carrier who is in the wedge in front of the ball carrier. It's definitely not a maul so isnt that obstruction?

RobLev
15-11-14, 17:11
74 mins in and lineout to SA. England don't compete but SA still form a wedge and drive. When the first England player then makes contact it is with a non ball carrier who is in the wedge in front of the ball carrier. It's definitely not a maul so isnt that obstruction?

Because it was on TV?

Dan_A
15-11-14, 17:11
Hahaha, know what you mean!

And just to clarify, England lost fair and square and Walsh got most things right IMHO, just interested in the non competing line out ploy.

The Fat
15-11-14, 17:11
74 mins in and lineout to SA. England don't compete but SA still form a wedge and drive. When the first England player then makes contact it is with a non ball carrier who is in the wedge in front of the ball carrier. It's definitely not a maul so isnt that obstruction?

Will need to see a replay of that one to check where the ball is when the England player engages. If it's the one I'm thinking of, Lawes gets pinged for coming around the back of the maul. As Lawes starts to move, another England player engages which possibly forms the maul depending on whether he makes contact with the ball carrier or if the ball has already moved towards the back of the pack. Need to slo-mo the video to check.

Dan_A
15-11-14, 18:11
Lawes WAS offside because the England player made contact before Lawes went round BUT From what I saw that England player made first contact with a non ball carrier, so I'm thinking penalty to England immediately before Lawes was pinged?

dave_clark
15-11-14, 18:11
dylan hartley should have got a red card, rather than a yellow.

discuss.

for me, it was well away from the ball and the tap by the hand shows he knew exactly what he was stamping on. my guess (and i haven't looked up the matrix) is a six week ban, with no reduction for first offence...

RobLev
15-11-14, 18:11
Hahaha, know what you mean!

And just to clarify, England lost fair and square and Walsh got most things right IMHO, just interested in the non competing line out ploy.

Actually, to be fair to SW, there was an ?IRB? edict earlier this year that told refs to ignore the lawobstruction:


If the defenders in the lineout choose to not engage the lineout drive by “leaving the lineout as a group”. Penalty Kick to team in possession.

If the defenders in the lineout choose to not engage the line out drive by simply opening up a gap & “creating space” & not leaving the lineout, the following process should be followed:
- attackers would need to keep the ball with the front player, if they were to drive down-field (therefore play on, general play – defenders could either engage to form a maul, or tackle the ball carrier only);
- If they immediately pass it back to the player at the rear of the “group”, the referee will tell them to “use it” which they must do immediately.
- if they drive forward with the ball at the back (did not release the ball), the referee will award a scrum for “accidental offside” rather than PK for obstruction.

We had a discussion (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?17929-LINEOUT-to-MAUL-%96-DEFENCE&p=278139&viewfull=1#post278139) about it...

The Fat
15-11-14, 18:11
Hahaha, know what you mean!

And just to clarify, England lost fair and square and Walsh got most things right IMHO, just interested in the non competing line out ploy.

Agree.
However, there were a couple of things to question.
1. SA call for a mark and SW blows for half time.
2. AR is perfectly positioned and seems to be concentrating on Habana's timing of the catch near the touch line and judges that Habana caught the ball and then plants his left foot in touch. TV replay shows that he plants his foot just before the catch. A couple of phases later, England score. Tough to call at full speed probably at ground level and close to the play. The TV view high shot in real time always looked like Habana got it right.
3. Not long after #2, Habana chases a kick down the left side line and makes contact with a couple of England players. He gets a PK awarded against him. I missed what happened there. Can anyone enlighten me please?

There were a couple of other things but can't remember specifics.

Threatening YCs for next maul collapse offenders certainly helps to keep mauls alive:biggrin:

The Fat
15-11-14, 18:11
Lawes WAS offside because the England player made contact before Lawes went round BUT From what I saw that England player made first contact with a non ball carrier, so I'm thinking penalty to England immediately before Lawes was pinged?

6 of one, half a dozen of the other.
If the ball had already moved to the back before the other England player engaged, then Lawes was not offside. If that was the case, then yes Lawes is legal and PK to England for obstruction technically speaking however, I believe that the guidance of this situation to refs was to award a scrum for accidental offside (controversial) by the team in possession. In this case, a good referee would take a breath and see what happens with a player in Lawes' position before awarding the scrum.
Obviously on this occasion, SW deemed that a maul had formed.


Edit:
RobLev's all over it.:biggrin:

Dan_A
15-11-14, 19:11
Agree.
However, there were a couple of things to question.
1. SA call for a mark and SW blows for half time.

Is this wrong then? I played at fullback for our Veterans team last night and this exact thing happened. I made a mark and the referee blew for halftime. Didn't think anything more of it. As an aside the referee told us that in 30+ years of refereeing we were his first ever 0-0 draw :biggrin:

The Fat
15-11-14, 23:11
Is this wrong then? I played at fullback for our Veterans team last night and this exact thing happened. I made a mark and the referee blew for halftime. Didn't think anything more of it. As an aside the referee told us that in 30+ years of refereeing we were his first ever 0-0 draw :biggrin:

5.7(e) If time expires and the ball is not dead, or an awarded scrum or lineout has not been completed, the referee allows play to continue until the next time that the ball becomes dead. The ball becomes dead when the referee would have awarded a scrum, lineout, an option to the non-infringing team, drop out or after a conversion or successful penalty kick at goal. If a scrum has to be reset, the scrum has not been completed. If time expires and a mark, free kick or penalty kick is then awarded, the referee allows play to continue.

FightOrFlight
16-11-14, 01:11
England v South Africa today. Steve Walsh blew the 1st half up after a mark was caught by a player. The ball was not kicked to touch he just blew the mark and then blew the half time whistle. Now no doubt the ball would be stabbed dead from the mark but still in a test match is this proper procedure?

If time expires and a mark, free kick or penalty kick is then awarded, the referee allows play to continue.

didds
16-11-14, 02:11
Its Steve Walsh. He makes it up as he goes along.

didds

leaguerefaus
16-11-14, 02:11
Its Steve Walsh. He makes it up as he goes along.

didds
And yet he is consistently chosen to referee test matches. I guess he must be very good at making it up as he goes along...

FightOrFlight
16-11-14, 04:11
And yet he is consistently chosen to referee test matches. I guess he must be very good at making it up as he goes along...

Just the best the IRB allow his union put forward...then sack...then rehire from a different Union!

He's calls it fairly decent but his show pony antics lead to game control issues and however insignificant it is, blowing it up on a mark is poor form for a test ref.

Daftmedic
16-11-14, 09:11
Thought Steve Walsh had a good game.

crossref
16-11-14, 10:11
Thought Steve Walsh had a good game.

so did I

The Fat
16-11-14, 10:11
Just the best the IRB allow his union put forward...then sack...then rehire from a different Union!

He's calls it fairly decent but his show pony antics lead to game control issues and however insignificant it is, blowing it up on a mark is poor form for a test ref.

He may have his little quirks but in games where the players can go more than 2 phases without dropping a pass or knocking on, he usually manages a fast, quality match. Can't ask for much more than that.

The Fat
16-11-14, 10:11
Just the best the IRB allow his union put forward...then sack...then rehire from a different Union!

He's calls it fairly decent but his show pony antics lead to game control issues and however insignificant it is, blowing it up on a mark is poor form for a test ref.

He may have his little quirks but in games where the players can go more than 2 phases without dropping a pass or knocking on, he usually manages a fast, quality match. Can't ask for much more than that.

- - - Updated - - -

Damn stutter is back

winchesterref
16-11-14, 10:11
I thought he had a decent game. A few instances I thought the break down ball was being slowed, and the YC for DH could have gone either way - slow mo exaggerated it, but can't complain really (England specs!). Thought he managed the game well.

crossref
16-11-14, 12:11
Hartley stamp was worse than Coles last week, I think if you stamp on a joint you expect a YC. . It was rather petulant also totally pointless..

Browner
16-11-14, 12:11
Post match comment isn't great here ........

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11233276/England-28-South-Africa-31-Utterly-awful-home-team-lose-for-fifth-straight-game.html

menace
16-11-14, 13:11
Bodes well for a eng vs Aus scrap. 2 shitty teams trying to figure it out.

winchesterref
16-11-14, 14:11
Quade C and Genia made a difference to Aus speed behind the breakdown, and created more momentum - expect them to start next time out? Or at least a Genia/Foley combo?

menace
16-11-14, 14:11
True...or now that Kurtly Beale and Quade C are in camp together, expect them to catch up with old buddy O'connor at a London night club! Party time. :bday: :chair::chair:
:sarc:

didds
16-11-14, 18:11
And yet he is consistently chosen to referee test matches. I guess he must be very good at making it up as he goes along...

Well, I suppose the other scenario is that as an international referee he doesnt know the most basic of laws and the IRB is happy with that.

Whatever.

didds

didds
16-11-14, 18:11
Thought Steve Walsh had a good game.

FTR I thought it was probably the best game I've seen him do. No total howlers or too many "WTF?" moments.

didds

SimonSmith
17-11-14, 00:11
I was impressed, particularly his use of AR and TMO

Lee Lifeson-Peart
17-11-14, 09:11
It was rather petulant also totally pointless..

Dylan Hartley? - Geddaway!

Antipodean
18-11-14, 04:11
Was a bit surprised to see no comment on this thread regarding the legality of Schalk Burger's try for Saffies to get the lead back after England drew level 20-20.

I didn't see the game live and was only idly watching the replay on cable when I noticed the replay of that said try...Coeztee had peeled off the back of the maul after giving the ball to Burger, and only had to amble 2 metres to the line right near the corner post in full view of the AR. Burger was still bound to him when Coeztee ran into two defenders (or was it one?), allowing Burger an easy try.

Isn't that a truck and trailer situation? Given that Coeztee had peeled right off the maul and only had air in front of him in moving forward to the goal line.

Lee Lifeson-Peart
18-11-14, 07:11
Was a bit surprised to see no comment on this thread regarding the legality of Schalk Burger's try for Saffies to get the lead back after England drew level 20-20.

I didn't see the game live and was only idly watching the replay on cable when I noticed the replay of that said try...Coeztee had peeled off the back of the maul after giving the ball to Burger, and only had to amble 2 metres to the line right near the corner post in full view of the AR. Burger was still bound to him when Coeztee ran into two defenders (or was it one?), allowing Burger an easy try.

Isn't that a truck and trailer situation? Given that Coeztee had peeled right off the maul and only had air in front of him in moving forward to the goal line.

I agree. I posted so in the other thread - I forgot this one was running.

Antipodean
20-11-14, 03:11
I agree. I posted so in the other thread - I forgot this one was running.

I couldn't find if anyone had posted something about it in other threads, so forgive me, pls send me a link to your post in question, cheers

Lee Lifeson-Peart
20-11-14, 07:11
I couldn't find if anyone had posted something about it in other threads, so forgive me, pls send me a link to your post in question, cheers

There you go - Post#10 (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?18329-England-s-first-try-against-South-Africa&highlight=Coetzee)