RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C)
-
Just watching the highlights on ITV4
Red card incident seen from more angles than a dodecahedron.
English charge down which should have been a YC at least?
What English charge down? No mention of it.
Or Tuilagi hitting the man in the air.
-
England had to win five successive hard fought games to win the RWC. Actually, it's only four. They played slowly and saved their energy all game long. The issue was never in doubt. Let's hope France give them a real test. An England loss would be great for the All Blacks.
@cgrant said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
England had to win five successive hard fought games to win the RWC. Actually, it's only four. They played slowly and saved their energy all game long. The issue was never in doubt. Let's hope France give them a real test. An England loss would be great for the All Blacks.
Billy hurt.
-
Just watching the highlights on ITV4
Red card incident seen from more angles than a dodecahedron.
English charge down which should have been a YC at least?
What English charge down? No mention of it.
Or Tuilagi hitting the man in the air.
@MiketheSnow said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
Just watching the highlights on ITV4
Red card incident seen from more angles than a dodecahedron.
English charge down which should have been a YC at least?
What English charge down? No mention of it.
Or Tuilagi hitting the man in the air.
ITV playing to their audience. Probably didn’t expect a random Taff to watch the game live AND the highlights
Watching live, including the replays I thought the coverage was more balanced. I also thought that Owens did pretty well, the Tuilagi and Lawes incidents could have gone either way and he explained his decisions vey well in both instances. As he did when England were infringing close to the line early on.
-
On the red card discussion, there was, I thought, a very good rationale by one of the pundits. Basically saying that the coaches and the players don’t give a fuck and if it takes a metric fuckton of red cards to get the current poor technique addressed then that’s the way to go. Until there is a perceived cost to the “dominant tackle” ideal then things will not change. Sound reasoning imo.
-
On the send off . sin bin rule, I follow AFL which has none, and the players get harshly dealt with at a tribunal ,
like anything , there are positives and negatives,
you dont get games decided by the send off which is probably better from a spectacle point of view,
but you could argue the team on the receiving end of the foul play doesnt receive enough compensation , particularly if they have lost a player through that foul play , the team that plays them next it could be argued benefits , because of the suspension,
And it does open a window for a player in a big game to go a bit nuts knowing he wont be sent off
you could change it but i dont think it fixes everything
-
On the red card discussion, there was, I thought, a very good rationale by one of the pundits. Basically saying that the coaches and the players don’t give a fuck and if it takes a metric fuckton of red cards to get the current poor technique addressed then that’s the way to go. Until there is a perceived cost to the “dominant tackle” ideal then things will not change. Sound reasoning imo.
@Catogrande said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
On the red card discussion, there was, I thought, a very good rationale by one of the pundits. Basically saying that the coaches and the players don’t give a fuck and if it takes a metric fuckton of red cards to get the current poor technique addressed then that’s the way to go. Until there is a perceived cost to the “dominant tackle” ideal then things will not change. Sound reasoning imo.
I get that, but if they are serious about lowering the tackle then they need to be serious about supporting that in law. Not trying for dominant tackles at this level hurts you - and your team probably loses.
If they are serious about taclking around the waist, then strict enforcing of 'no standing up after hitting the ground while even vaguely held', and stop offloading as soon as a body part (elbow or knee) is on the ground. Simplify the fark out of it, reward tacklers chopping players down
-
@MiketheSnow said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
Just watching the highlights on ITV4
Red card incident seen from more angles than a dodecahedron.
English charge down which should have been a YC at least?
What English charge down? No mention of it.
Or Tuilagi hitting the man in the air.
ITV playing to their audience. Probably didn’t expect a random Taff to watch the game live AND the highlights
Watching live, including the replays I thought the coverage was more balanced. I also thought that Owens did pretty well, the Tuilagi and Lawes incidents could have gone either way and he explained his decisions vey well in both instances. As he did when England were infringing close to the line early on.
@Catogrande said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
@MiketheSnow said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
Just watching the highlights on ITV4
Red card incident seen from more angles than a dodecahedron.
English charge down which should have been a YC at least?
What English charge down? No mention of it.
Or Tuilagi hitting the man in the air.
ITV playing to their audience. Probably didn’t expect a random Taff to watch the game live AND the highlights
Watching live, including the replays I thought the coverage was more balanced. I also thought that Owens did pretty well, the Tuilagi and Lawes incidents could have gone either way and he explained his decisions vey well in both instances. As he did when England were infringing close to the line early on.
We just want consistency
-
@Catogrande said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
@MiketheSnow said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
Just watching the highlights on ITV4
Red card incident seen from more angles than a dodecahedron.
English charge down which should have been a YC at least?
What English charge down? No mention of it.
Or Tuilagi hitting the man in the air.
ITV playing to their audience. Probably didn’t expect a random Taff to watch the game live AND the highlights
Watching live, including the replays I thought the coverage was more balanced. I also thought that Owens did pretty well, the Tuilagi and Lawes incidents could have gone either way and he explained his decisions vey well in both instances. As he did when England were infringing close to the line early on.
We just want consistency
Consistency would be good but not easy when you have different instances, different refs, TMOs and interpretations. Trial by a single frame shot is not really supportive of consistency either. I’m assuming the second shot was the Piers Francis thing? If so, I’d say he was lucky but also that it was nowhere in the same league as the Quill one or the Argie today.
-
@Catogrande said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
On the red card discussion, there was, I thought, a very good rationale by one of the pundits. Basically saying that the coaches and the players don’t give a fuck and if it takes a metric fuckton of red cards to get the current poor technique addressed then that’s the way to go. Until there is a perceived cost to the “dominant tackle” ideal then things will not change. Sound reasoning imo.
I get that, but if they are serious about lowering the tackle then they need to be serious about supporting that in law. Not trying for dominant tackles at this level hurts you - and your team probably loses.
If they are serious about taclking around the waist, then strict enforcing of 'no standing up after hitting the ground while even vaguely held', and stop offloading as soon as a body part (elbow or knee) is on the ground. Simplify the fark out of it, reward tacklers chopping players down
@nzzp said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
If they are serious about taclking around the waist, then strict enforcing of 'no standing up after hitting the ground while even vaguely held', and stop offloading as soon as a body part (elbow or knee) is on the ground. Simplify the fark out of it, reward tacklers chopping players down
I like that. It worked for Dan Carter.
Go further and and make it place the ball immediately once on the ground - get rid of "not held" altogether. I've never liked that law as it can easily go one of two ways - penalty to defending team as ball carrier didn't immediately place ball while held, or penalty to attacking team as tackler tries to pilfer ball without a clear release. It's almost contradictory - got to let him go to steal the ball, or not let him go and he can get up and run again.
Passing off the ground is a more recent (several decades ago - I'm getting old) law change anyway, but does increase the speed of the game and the scoring opportunity so I'd leave that and would be considered "placing" or releasing the ball.
It can also be quite simple if you make it the "one knee" law like a maul becoming a tackle.
Probably heaps of unintended consequences in some of that so I will appreciate the criticism and ridicule and say GFYs in advance.
-
@nzzp said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
If they are serious about taclking around the waist, then strict enforcing of 'no standing up after hitting the ground while even vaguely held', and stop offloading as soon as a body part (elbow or knee) is on the ground. Simplify the fark out of it, reward tacklers chopping players down
I like that. It worked for Dan Carter.
Go further and and make it place the ball immediately once on the ground - get rid of "not held" altogether. I've never liked that law as it can easily go one of two ways - penalty to defending team as ball carrier didn't immediately place ball while held, or penalty to attacking team as tackler tries to pilfer ball without a clear release. It's almost contradictory - got to let him go to steal the ball, or not let him go and he can get up and run again.
Passing off the ground is a more recent (several decades ago - I'm getting old) law change anyway, but does increase the speed of the game and the scoring opportunity so I'd leave that and would be considered "placing" or releasing the ball.
It can also be quite simple if you make it the "one knee" law like a maul becoming a tackle.
Probably heaps of unintended consequences in some of that so I will appreciate the criticism and ridicule and say GFYs in advance.
-
No dominant tackles, nothing above the waist, pass immediately when you're on the ground. Might as well ban the ruck and cleaning out also, and voila, we have have touch rugby ladies and gentlemen!
-
No dominant tackles, nothing above the waist, pass immediately when you're on the ground. Might as well ban the ruck and cleaning out also, and voila, we have have touch rugby ladies and gentlemen!
-
@Snowy said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
@voodoo I don't think you actually read or understood the whole thing?
Clearly I'm exaggerating for effect. But I think the "tackle below the waist" thing is a game wrecker. Losing the dominant tackle will totally change the game. And I still haven't figured out how you tackle a forward running with perfect body height. Imagine trying to tackle Keew Meeuws 1m out from the line!!!
Does run cage v waist make a difference? Maybe, I dunno
-
@Snowy said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
@voodoo I don't think you actually read or understood the whole thing?
Clearly I'm exaggerating for effect. But I think the "tackle below the waist" thing is a game wrecker. Losing the dominant tackle will totally change the game. And I still haven't figured out how you tackle a forward running with perfect body height. Imagine trying to tackle Keew Meeuws 1m out from the line!!!
Does run cage v waist make a difference? Maybe, I dunno
@voodoo said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
Clearly I'm exaggerating for effect. But I think the "tackle below the waist" thing is a game wrecker.
Which is why I mentioned in my clarification below the ribs. Hit Kees in the belly he still stops, and don't let them get that close because it gets harder to defend, for sure. Maybe more close to the line tries for props. They need the help, don't score too many now.
Yeah I think a little higher makes a difference, it is the ball carry area and you can still knock a guy over, knock the ball out, rather than just cut him down.
-
@voodoo said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
Clearly I'm exaggerating for effect. But I think the "tackle below the waist" thing is a game wrecker.
Which is why I mentioned in my clarification below the ribs. Hit Kees in the belly he still stops, and don't let them get that close because it gets harder to defend, for sure. Maybe more close to the line tries for props. They need the help, don't score too many now.
Yeah I think a little higher makes a difference, it is the ball carry area and you can still knock a guy over, knock the ball out, rather than just cut him down.
Yep, a bit higher def helps. I'm just concerned withbthe general direction and think we are losing sight of what we are solving for.
Player safety is obviously paramount, and things like tip tackles that can cause neck injuries and paralysis had to go. Likewise no-arm tackles and head contact that can massively increase concussion occurrences.
But tackling below the shoulders, where a possible mistake can lead to a high shot which is rightly penalised (let's not open that again), I just don't know that we need to solve further for that
-
Yep, a bit higher def helps. I'm just concerned withbthe general direction and think we are losing sight of what we are solving for.
Player safety is obviously paramount, and things like tip tackles that can cause neck injuries and paralysis had to go. Likewise no-arm tackles and head contact that can massively increase concussion occurrences.
But tackling below the shoulders, where a possible mistake can lead to a high shot which is rightly penalised (let's not open that again), I just don't know that we need to solve further for that
@voodoo I guess that is why they are trying the "nipple line" at lower levels. Just trying to get players to attack lower without too much end result on the game. It's certainly not touch.
Have another look at what I said about the tackle laws, rather than height. It was a more valuable comment I think.
-
@westcoastie said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
this is very true - hadn't considered that angle - but a win tonight doesn't mean they top the pool does it. Plus a loss to France, puts them into a quarter with Wales compared to Australia. They want and need to win the pool.
If the Aussie forwards play like they did in the 2nd half against Wales and Cheika starts To'omua they can beat England.
@Bovidae said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
@westcoastie said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):
this is very true - hadn't considered that angle - but a win tonight doesn't mean they top the pool does it. Plus a loss to France, puts them into a quarter with Wales compared to Australia. They want and need to win the pool.
If the Aussie forwards play like they did in the 2nd half against Wales and Cheika starts To'omua they can beat England.
Yeah I think Wales are far more predictable than the Aussies and that would probably suit England’s game more.
-
@voodoo I guess that is why they are trying the "nipple line" at lower levels. Just trying to get players to attack lower without too much end result on the game. It's certainly not touch.
Have another look at what I said about the tackle laws, rather than height. It was a more valuable comment I think.
Sorry mate, I'll admit I did skip over your tackle comments - i blame daylight savings and my lost your of sleep ...
I guess you're right in that the entire tackle has to be looked at so it works together. The held/release concepts are pretty interesting, I'm not sure I'd want to see us go full NFL-style where you can't keep going after you hit the deck. What if you trip over or are ankle-tapped? I think there needs to be some concept of a made tackle, not sure how you deal with releasing etc after that .
Bloody minefield, and I guess I'm just a bit loathe to tinker with rules repeatedly when I'm not really sure there is a huge issue we need to solve for.
-
One thing I would add is tackling lower is more dangerous for the tackler. Either knees to the head or get your head in slightly the wrong position and you can be KO'd/pick up a neck injury very easily. There's always consequences to whatever laws you have in place.
End of the day rugby is a physical game and injuries will happen.
-
Sorry mate, I'll admit I did skip over your tackle comments - i blame daylight savings and my lost your of sleep ...
I guess you're right in that the entire tackle has to be looked at so it works together. The held/release concepts are pretty interesting, I'm not sure I'd want to see us go full NFL-style where you can't keep going after you hit the deck. What if you trip over or are ankle-tapped? I think there needs to be some concept of a made tackle, not sure how you deal with releasing etc after that .
Bloody minefield, and I guess I'm just a bit loathe to tinker with rules repeatedly when I'm not really sure there is a huge issue we need to solve for.
@voodoo Clarifying laws, removing ambiguity for refs, players, and spectators can only be a good thing surely?
If a player must release / pass immediately once one knee on ground, it will mean that he has to have a support player there, or turnover.
If you have been ankle tapped, you have effectively been tackled, taken off your feet you need support players. It's a team game.
If you trip over you have fcked up and should be forced to cede possession anyway.Some of the basic premises of rugby - play on your feet - like contesting the ball (and not being league).
Sometimes change is good.
