England vs All Blacks
-
@majorrage nah not me fella, you. Pretty damn sad you can't enjoy a perfectly legit win by your team because you feel a need to pander to the righteous opposition. Especially when it's for such an incorrect reason.
-
@catogrande said in England vs All Blacks:
@canefan said in England vs All Blacks:
Difficult to see from that shot but that "last man's foot" at the time looked to be the first man's foot - ie an AB. Not sure whether that makes any difference or not. Notwithstanding that though I have to agree that Lawes was just offside.
I think the difference on the day was our lineout not functioning in the second half added to which Retallick went into overdrive. Just couldn't get any decent possession.
Well done to NZ, winning a game that could so easily have gotten away from them. Many plus points for England though, we looked a much better team than last week - well we did for the first half anyway.
Every team lifts against the ABs, England will be much worse next weekend.
Offside last man's feet or first man's body parts, doesn't matter for defending offside line. Nicely illustrated by the offside at the tackle image from World Rugby website
Yeah after seeing @Wairau reply I had a look at the world rugby site and saw that graphic and yeah, offside. Theoretically though(looking at the graphic) the tackled guy could throw his arm out and place someone offside?
-
Yeah after seeing @Wairau reply I had a look at the world rugby site and saw that graphic and yeah, offside. Theoretically though(looking at the graphic) the tackled guy could throw his arm out and place someone offside?
@catogrande I guess so, don't know how it would be ruled in the heat of a game
-
Fark me.
Just reading Stephen Jones in the UK Sunday Times. Apparently BBBR rated 4/10 while Itoje gets 9/10. Without being sucked into an anti-Jones tirade, truly delusional.
For those who have access, David Walsh's review of the game is spot-on and well worth a read - defence and will to win got NZ the victory.
-
My take, England unlucky , not because it was incorrect but because that stuff doesn’t always get pulled up ,
But a similar type situation awarded the lions a draw against the Allblacks last year in the third test ,
And they celebrated like they had won the World Cup ,
Can’t have it both ways .
@kiwiinmelb said in England vs All Blacks:
My take, England unlucky , not because it was incorrect but because that stuff doesn’t always get pulled up ,
But a similar type situation awarded the lions a draw against the Allblacks last year in the third test ,
And they celebrated like they had won the World Cup ,
Can’t have it both ways .
Actually, I was thinking more about the 2nd test, where the Lions won on a really dodgy penalty that was probably 'correct in law' (player jumping to catch a pass).
One of the things that is starting to piss me off about rugby is the partisan nature of the fans. Feels like it used to be people would cop it, and take it as part of the game; 'yeah - bit lucky to get away with that one'. Now there is so much explaining about how the call was actually right (Itoje was onside, Farrell tried to wrap, and 'accidental offside doesn't exist as he didn't play at it and anyway Read of was offside').
It's really frustrating.
Rather than enjoy the game, and celebrate wins or losses, there is shitloads more argument about the laws we're playing under. Maybe I'm just getting older and more cynical, but it's not as much fun as it used to be
-
That's exactly what Ben Kay told the crowd I was with after the game. He went thru the whole scene in slo-mo, pointing out that Lawes was "at least a metre off-side, it wasn't even a close decision"
@victor-meldrew said in England vs All Blacks:
That's exactly what Ben Kay told the crowd I was with after the game. He went thru the whole scene in slo-mo, pointing out that Lawes was "at least a metre off-side, it wasn't even a close decision"
I agree I didn't think it was close. And with rebound that he was never onside at any time. Funny that the post match studio team on sky NZ, all rugby players disagreed. I think they all needed the HIA
-
@victor-meldrew said in England vs All Blacks:
That's exactly what Ben Kay told the crowd I was with after the game. He went thru the whole scene in slo-mo, pointing out that Lawes was "at least a metre off-side, it wasn't even a close decision"
I agree I didn't think it was close. And with rebound that he was never onside at any time. Funny that the post match studio team on sky NZ, all rugby players disagreed. I think they all needed the HIA
@canefan said in England vs All Blacks:
@victor-meldrew said in England vs All Blacks:
That's exactly what Ben Kay told the crowd I was with after the game. He went thru the whole scene in slo-mo, pointing out that Lawes was "at least a metre off-side, it wasn't even a close decision"
I agree I didn't think it was close. And with rebound that he was never onside at any time. Funny that the post match studio team on sky NZ, all rugby players disagreed. I think they all needed the HIA
I don't know how they pick the studio team, but it isn't on knowledge of rugby laws and refereeing. That said, we have Justin Marshall in commentary, so what the hell do I know.
-
Fark me.
Just reading Stephen Jones in the UK Sunday Times. Apparently BBBR rated 4/10 while Itoje gets 9/10. Without being sucked into an anti-Jones tirade, truly delusional.
For those who have access, David Walsh's review of the game is spot-on and well worth a read - defence and will to win got NZ the victory.
@victor-meldrew said in England vs All Blacks:
Fark me.
Just reading Stephen Jones in the UK Sunday Times. Apparently BBBR rated 4/10 while Itoje gets 9/10. Without being sucked into an anti-Jones tirade, truly delusional.
For those who have access, David Walsh's review of the game is spot-on and well worth a read - defence and will to win got NZ the victory.
This is from another forum
"In the Sunday Times Stephen Jones gave the following player ratings and comments
Itoje 9/10 Man of the match by a distance.
Retallick 6/10 Bewilderingly made man of the match when Itoje was way ahead. Decent show in the loose but hardly irresistible."Giving BBBR 6 is laughable enough, but 4? He's a great troll.
Can you copy and paste the other article?
-
@chester-draws said in England vs All Blacks:
How many penalties did the ABs give?
A couple on the line when we were desperate, but almost no mid-field soft stuff. That's game winning in the rain.
Thought Garces was excellent.
We made it hard by dropping ball with the line in sight a couple of times, and Beauden consistently hitting it too hard early, so giving them 22s.
As pointed out, the backs entering a maul before the lineout has moved off the line is illegal. That's why the tactic isn't used very much.
Thanks Chester.
Was going to come back to that. I was wondering if the law had changed at all because to me that was bleeding obvious.
My memory of the law is from the 1980s so wondered if it was still right.
Summary of my recollection is that players not in the lineout shall stay 10m off the line of touch until the lineout ends as follows:
- ball is tapped or fed to the halfback (receiver)
- ball or maul travels beyond 15m line or into the 5m
- last foot of maul travels beyond line of touch
If that hasn't changed, why
a. The deliberate disregard for the laws by England? Cynical much?
b. The ignorance by the officials? Incompetence much?@booboo said in England vs All Blacks:
@chester-draws said in England vs All Blacks:
How many penalties did the ABs give?
A couple on the line when we were desperate, but almost no mid-field soft stuff. That's game winning in the rain.
Thought Garces was excellent.
We made it hard by dropping ball with the line in sight a couple of times, and Beauden consistently hitting it too hard early, so giving them 22s.
As pointed out, the backs entering a maul before the lineout has moved off the line is illegal. That's why the tactic isn't used very much.
Thanks Chester.
Was going to come back to that. I was wondering if the law had changed at all because to me that was bleeding obvious.
My memory of the law is from the 1980s so wondered if it was still right.
Summary of my recollection is that players not in the lineout shall stay 10m off the line of touch until the lineout ends as follows:
- ball is tapped or fed to the halfback (receiver)
- ball or maul travels beyond 15m line or into the 5m
- last foot of maul travels beyond line of touch
If that hasn't changed, why
a. The deliberate disregard for the laws by England? Cynical much?
b. The ignorance by the officials? Incompetence much?I had to go back and rewatch this to see what the point was.
If we are talking about the maul try, it was a clever bit of coaching I suspect. As far as backs joining it was legal. No backs joined until the maul was over the 15 metre line. The ABs set up their defence perfectly except the Poms then ran sideways meaning no one could join with any effect without getting pinged for coming in the side. Once over the 15m line extra players piled into the unstably defended maul and drove it forward. Well played.
-
@kiwiinmelb said in England vs All Blacks:
My take, England unlucky , not because it was incorrect but because that stuff doesn’t always get pulled up ,
But a similar type situation awarded the lions a draw against the Allblacks last year in the third test ,
And they celebrated like they had won the World Cup ,
Can’t have it both ways .
Actually, I was thinking more about the 2nd test, where the Lions won on a really dodgy penalty that was probably 'correct in law' (player jumping to catch a pass).
One of the things that is starting to piss me off about rugby is the partisan nature of the fans. Feels like it used to be people would cop it, and take it as part of the game; 'yeah - bit lucky to get away with that one'. Now there is so much explaining about how the call was actually right (Itoje was onside, Farrell tried to wrap, and 'accidental offside doesn't exist as he didn't play at it and anyway Read of was offside').
It's really frustrating.
Rather than enjoy the game, and celebrate wins or losses, there is shitloads more argument about the laws we're playing under. Maybe I'm just getting older and more cynical, but it's not as much fun as it used to be
@nzzp said in England vs All Blacks:
@kiwiinmelb said in England vs All Blacks:
My take, England unlucky , not because it was incorrect but because that stuff doesn’t always get pulled up ,
But a similar type situation awarded the lions a draw against the Allblacks last year in the third test ,
And they celebrated like they had won the World Cup ,
Can’t have it both ways .
Actually, I was thinking more about the 2nd test, where the Lions won on a really dodgy penalty that was probably 'correct in law' (player jumping to catch a pass).
One of the things that is starting to piss me off about rugby is the partisan nature of the fans. Feels like it used to be people would cop it, and take it as part of the game; 'yeah - bit lucky to get away with that one'. Now there is so much explaining about how the call was actually right (Itoje was onside, Farrell tried to wrap, and 'accidental offside doesn't exist as he didn't play at it and anyway Read of was offside').
It's really frustrating.
Rather than enjoy the game, and celebrate wins or losses, there is shitloads more argument about the laws we're playing under. Maybe I'm just getting older and more cynical, but it's not as much fun as it used to be
In part I blame internet fan forums (Not intended as a facetious remark). I also blame endless punditry pre, during and post games, rather than good old-fashioned comms, also the exponentially expanded 24hr media - gotta keep feeding that beast - and the far greater access for the everyday joe to reams of video footage support their arguments, be they rational or tinhatted.
Whatever's drIven it, I share your dislike of the trend, but I think it's here to stay.
-
@canefan said in England vs All Blacks:
@victor-meldrew said in England vs All Blacks:
That's exactly what Ben Kay told the crowd I was with after the game. He went thru the whole scene in slo-mo, pointing out that Lawes was "at least a metre off-side, it wasn't even a close decision"
I agree I didn't think it was close. And with rebound that he was never onside at any time. Funny that the post match studio team on sky NZ, all rugby players disagreed. I think they all needed the HIA
I don't know how they pick the studio team, but it isn't on knowledge of rugby laws and refereeing. That said, we have Justin Marshall in commentary, so what the hell do I know.
@nzzp said in England vs All Blacks:
@canefan said in England vs All Blacks:
@victor-meldrew said in England vs All Blacks:
That's exactly what Ben Kay told the crowd I was with after the game. He went thru the whole scene in slo-mo, pointing out that Lawes was "at least a metre off-side, it wasn't even a close decision"
I agree I didn't think it was close. And with rebound that he was never onside at any time. Funny that the post match studio team on sky NZ, all rugby players disagreed. I think they all needed the HIA
I don't know how they pick the studio team, but it isn't on knowledge of rugby laws and refereeing. That said, we have Justin Marshall in commentary, so what the hell do I know.
He's not just "in commentary" he provides "expert comments"
-
@canefan said in England vs All Blacks:
I love that the red line goes even beyond the TV screen just to emphasise the point.
AB fans turned twitter geometrical experts. Aura working overtime on social media
-
We have had similar arguments, complete with jpgs with sqiggles, for over 15 years. It’s not a new phenomenon.
It’s also just a visible medium of what fans have been doing since forever.
When people in the media write their opinion, and try to present their opinion as fact, the fans have the write of reply.
It helps in this case that it’s super clear he was offside.
-
@kiwiinmelb said in England vs All Blacks:
My take, England unlucky , not because it was incorrect but because that stuff doesn’t always get pulled up ,
But a similar type situation awarded the lions a draw against the Allblacks last year in the third test ,
And they celebrated like they had won the World Cup ,
Can’t have it both ways .
Actually, I was thinking more about the 2nd test, where the Lions won on a really dodgy penalty that was probably 'correct in law' (player jumping to catch a pass).
One of the things that is starting to piss me off about rugby is the partisan nature of the fans. Feels like it used to be people would cop it, and take it as part of the game; 'yeah - bit lucky to get away with that one'. Now there is so much explaining about how the call was actually right (Itoje was onside, Farrell tried to wrap, and 'accidental offside doesn't exist as he didn't play at it and anyway Read of was offside').
It's really frustrating.
Rather than enjoy the game, and celebrate wins or losses, there is shitloads more argument about the laws we're playing under. Maybe I'm just getting older and more cynical, but it's not as much fun as it used to be
@nzzp said in England vs All Blacks:
@kiwiinmelb said in England vs All Blacks:
My take, England unlucky , not because it was incorrect but because that stuff doesn’t always get pulled up ,
But a similar type situation awarded the lions a draw against the Allblacks last year in the third test ,
And they celebrated like they had won the World Cup ,
Can’t have it both ways .
Actually, I was thinking more about the 2nd test, where the Lions won on a really dodgy penalty that was probably 'correct in law' (player jumping to catch a pass).
One of the things that is starting to piss me off about rugby is the partisan nature of the fans. Feels like it used to be people would cop it, and take it as part of the game; 'yeah - bit lucky to get away with that one'. Now there is so much explaining about how the call was actually right (Itoje was onside, Farrell tried to wrap, and 'accidental offside doesn't exist as he didn't play at it and anyway Read of was offside').
It's really frustrating.
Rather than enjoy the game, and celebrate wins or losses, there is shitloads more argument about the laws we're playing under. Maybe I'm just getting older and more cynical, but it's not as much fun as it used to be
There's more scope and ability to argue with the interweb.
-
@booboo said in England vs All Blacks:
@chester-draws said in England vs All Blacks:
How many penalties did the ABs give?
A couple on the line when we were desperate, but almost no mid-field soft stuff. That's game winning in the rain.
Thought Garces was excellent.
We made it hard by dropping ball with the line in sight a couple of times, and Beauden consistently hitting it too hard early, so giving them 22s.
As pointed out, the backs entering a maul before the lineout has moved off the line is illegal. That's why the tactic isn't used very much.
Thanks Chester.
Was going to come back to that. I was wondering if the law had changed at all because to me that was bleeding obvious.
My memory of the law is from the 1980s so wondered if it was still right.
Summary of my recollection is that players not in the lineout shall stay 10m off the line of touch until the lineout ends as follows:
- ball is tapped or fed to the halfback (receiver)
- ball or maul travels beyond 15m line or into the 5m
- last foot of maul travels beyond line of touch
If that hasn't changed, why
a. The deliberate disregard for the laws by England? Cynical much?
b. The ignorance by the officials? Incompetence much?I had to go back and rewatch this to see what the point was.
If we are talking about the maul try, it was a clever bit of coaching I suspect. As far as backs joining it was legal. No backs joined until the maul was over the 15 metre line. The ABs set up their defence perfectly except the Poms then ran sideways meaning no one could join with any effect without getting pinged for coming in the side. Once over the 15m line extra players piled into the unstably defended maul and drove it forward. Well played.
@crucial said in England vs All Blacks:
@booboo said in England vs All Blacks:
@chester-draws said in England vs All Blacks:
How many penalties did the ABs give?
A couple on the line when we were desperate, but almost no mid-field soft stuff. That's game winning in the rain.
Thought Garces was excellent.
We made it hard by dropping ball with the line in sight a couple of times, and Beauden consistently hitting it too hard early, so giving them 22s.
As pointed out, the backs entering a maul before the lineout has moved off the line is illegal. That's why the tactic isn't used very much.
Thanks Chester.
Was going to come back to that. I was wondering if the law had changed at all because to me that was bleeding obvious.
My memory of the law is from the 1980s so wondered if it was still right.
Summary of my recollection is that players not in the lineout shall stay 10m off the line of touch until the lineout ends as follows:
- ball is tapped or fed to the halfback (receiver)
- ball or maul travels beyond 15m line or into the 5m
- last foot of maul travels beyond line of touch
If that hasn't changed, why
a. The deliberate disregard for the laws by England? Cynical much?
b. The ignorance by the officials? Incompetence much?I had to go back and rewatch this to see what the point was.
If we are talking about the maul try, it was a clever bit of coaching I suspect. As far as backs joining it was legal. No backs joined until the maul was over the 15 metre line. The ABs set up their defence perfectly except the Poms then ran sideways meaning no one could join with any effect without getting pinged for coming in the side. Once over the 15m line extra players piled into the unstably defended maul and drove it forward. Well played.
No. The back to back lineouts on our line in the second half.
No score resulted but just an example of Poms having a call (two consecutive calls) go their way.
-
@crucial said in England vs All Blacks:
@booboo said in England vs All Blacks:
@chester-draws said in England vs All Blacks:
How many penalties did the ABs give?
A couple on the line when we were desperate, but almost no mid-field soft stuff. That's game winning in the rain.
Thought Garces was excellent.
We made it hard by dropping ball with the line in sight a couple of times, and Beauden consistently hitting it too hard early, so giving them 22s.
As pointed out, the backs entering a maul before the lineout has moved off the line is illegal. That's why the tactic isn't used very much.
Thanks Chester.
Was going to come back to that. I was wondering if the law had changed at all because to me that was bleeding obvious.
My memory of the law is from the 1980s so wondered if it was still right.
Summary of my recollection is that players not in the lineout shall stay 10m off the line of touch until the lineout ends as follows:
- ball is tapped or fed to the halfback (receiver)
- ball or maul travels beyond 15m line or into the 5m
- last foot of maul travels beyond line of touch
If that hasn't changed, why
a. The deliberate disregard for the laws by England? Cynical much?
b. The ignorance by the officials? Incompetence much?I had to go back and rewatch this to see what the point was.
If we are talking about the maul try, it was a clever bit of coaching I suspect. As far as backs joining it was legal. No backs joined until the maul was over the 15 metre line. The ABs set up their defence perfectly except the Poms then ran sideways meaning no one could join with any effect without getting pinged for coming in the side. Once over the 15m line extra players piled into the unstably defended maul and drove it forward. Well played.
No. The back to back lineouts on our line in the second half.
No score resulted but just an example of Poms having a call (two consecutive calls) go their way.
@booboo said in England vs All Blacks:
@crucial said in England vs All Blacks:
@booboo said in England vs All Blacks:
@chester-draws said in England vs All Blacks:
How many penalties did the ABs give?
A couple on the line when we were desperate, but almost no mid-field soft stuff. That's game winning in the rain.
Thought Garces was excellent.
We made it hard by dropping ball with the line in sight a couple of times, and Beauden consistently hitting it too hard early, so giving them 22s.
As pointed out, the backs entering a maul before the lineout has moved off the line is illegal. That's why the tactic isn't used very much.
Thanks Chester.
Was going to come back to that. I was wondering if the law had changed at all because to me that was bleeding obvious.
My memory of the law is from the 1980s so wondered if it was still right.
Summary of my recollection is that players not in the lineout shall stay 10m off the line of touch until the lineout ends as follows:
- ball is tapped or fed to the halfback (receiver)
- ball or maul travels beyond 15m line or into the 5m
- last foot of maul travels beyond line of touch
If that hasn't changed, why
a. The deliberate disregard for the laws by England? Cynical much?
b. The ignorance by the officials? Incompetence much?I had to go back and rewatch this to see what the point was.
If we are talking about the maul try, it was a clever bit of coaching I suspect. As far as backs joining it was legal. No backs joined until the maul was over the 15 metre line. The ABs set up their defence perfectly except the Poms then ran sideways meaning no one could join with any effect without getting pinged for coming in the side. Once over the 15m line extra players piled into the unstably defended maul and drove it forward. Well played.
No. The back to back lineouts on our line in the second half.
No score resulted but just an example of Poms having a call (two consecutive calls go their way).
Thanks for clarifying. There were few different topics going on at once and I couldn’t be arsed trying to work it out.
-
@booboo said in England vs All Blacks:
@crucial said in England vs All Blacks:
@booboo said in England vs All Blacks:
@chester-draws said in England vs All Blacks:
How many penalties did the ABs give?
A couple on the line when we were desperate, but almost no mid-field soft stuff. That's game winning in the rain.
Thought Garces was excellent.
We made it hard by dropping ball with the line in sight a couple of times, and Beauden consistently hitting it too hard early, so giving them 22s.
As pointed out, the backs entering a maul before the lineout has moved off the line is illegal. That's why the tactic isn't used very much.
Thanks Chester.
Was going to come back to that. I was wondering if the law had changed at all because to me that was bleeding obvious.
My memory of the law is from the 1980s so wondered if it was still right.
Summary of my recollection is that players not in the lineout shall stay 10m off the line of touch until the lineout ends as follows:
- ball is tapped or fed to the halfback (receiver)
- ball or maul travels beyond 15m line or into the 5m
- last foot of maul travels beyond line of touch
If that hasn't changed, why
a. The deliberate disregard for the laws by England? Cynical much?
b. The ignorance by the officials? Incompetence much?I had to go back and rewatch this to see what the point was.
If we are talking about the maul try, it was a clever bit of coaching I suspect. As far as backs joining it was legal. No backs joined until the maul was over the 15 metre line. The ABs set up their defence perfectly except the Poms then ran sideways meaning no one could join with any effect without getting pinged for coming in the side. Once over the 15m line extra players piled into the unstably defended maul and drove it forward. Well played.
No. The back to back lineouts on our line in the second half.
No score resulted but just an example of Poms having a call (two consecutive calls go their way).
Thanks for clarifying. There were few different topics going on at once and I couldn’t be arsed trying to work it out.
@crucial said in England vs All Blacks:
There were few different topics going on at once and I couldn’t be arsed trying to work it out.
BAU on the fern!! You already went over and above by reading at least one post in the thread
-
they use technology to make the decisions these days, so why cant people use technology to express thier opinion of it?
A picture is worth a thousand words, surely that saves an awful lot of rambling?
As fans we only want the correct decisions made, sometimes these will go against us, but ultimately you get over those quicker than the ones that were blatantly wrong and go against you.
I watched the game on the early replay, I had glanced at social media and saw a comment about how good england were...so I watched the game not knowing the result but expecting the worst, especially when we were down by 15.
But I still enjoyed it, as I said earlier, I thought it was a good game, England played well, we had our moments, we played well within ourselves and a style we dont often play, but did so and won.
I especially love the fact we won with BB's boot off the tee, I imagine the calls of Kiwi arrogance had we turned down those penalties and then lost 1 though, so it was a somewhat satisfying way to win.
-
The Walrus also marked down Ioane hugely. I think he just likes to dismiss anyone with a reputation from NZ.
Says Ioane was well out of position for the first try. He wasn’t, he was in position for the setup the ABs were playing.
They have been using a narrow defence with the widest defender about 15 metres from the side on the blindside and 20metres on the open side. Ioane didn’t move at all from his channel during all the build up.
Contrary to the Pom commentary, they didn’t suck the defence in, they moved across to the point where we wrap (see that pre game video) then flung a ball past Ioane into the wide channel. DMac had started to cover the wrap as coached but saw what was happening and came back as sweeper. Too late though as he couldn’t target the wing except sideways.
Have to give this one to Eddie as well. He used our defensive system against us and the players executed it perfectly.
