The Silver Fern

@cgrant said in England v Canada:

@sparky said in England v Canada:

@bones Favourites for 2023 RWC iMHO.

Not if Eddie Jones is their coach.

I think he is trying to unfurl a very long joke/setup about how unbeatable England would be if they played the ABs again.
At the moment I think that is a rather dangerous ploy.

@Catogrande said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

@Smuts said in RWC - how the poms beat us..:

@antipodean that is some very tough marking.

But pretty much true. Eddie virtually admitted as much during an evening audience with him. From the word go he was targeting NZ in RWC 2019. It was the same in 2003 and both times it worked but maybe came a game too early.

I think the opening line of the vid summed it up well - he’s the master of the upset.

I wonder if he thought to himself (secretly) that he could afford to do that because England would have enough talent to beat whoever made it to the final from the other side of the draw without giving them as much focus as the All Blacks (certainly a year out I thought that might be his approach just looking at the way draw was likely to pan out)

@Crucial I never said he was ok with it. There's been a few comments pointing at his response showing that he wanted the book thrown at Marler, and similar. He never said any such thing.

But yeah make up a rant about something else.

@NTA said in England Vs Ireland, Six Nations 2020:

Intensity from the Poms was great but Ireland didn't adapt or adjust to any of it.

Not the only team in recent history for that to happen to!

@Catogrande said in Scotland vs England, Six Nations 2020:

@sparky Nah mate, you can tell it was bad. some of the Scots had got their long sleeve shirts on.

Ah yes. Saturday night then.

nig.jpg

@NTA From 2007 to 2011 my TSF moniker was "Winning Ugly is still Winning." I think I might put it back

@Catogrande said in [Poll] Who would you prefer to win?:

@Tim said in [Poll] Who would you prefer to win?:

@booboo No, @Catogrande is having consolation sex with Katie Hopkins.

Which would explain my lack of posting yesterday, It took me ages to escape from her cellar.

She must watch too many movies

alt text

That is rather amusing.

I wonder what the Lions did to him?

Intercept passes are classified as turnovers.

d02b1239-0655-4d34-908e-4b2f08243319-UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_dbc.jpg /Users/harrybailey/Pictures/Photos Library.photoslibrary/resources/proxies/derivatives/0d/00/dbc/UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_dbc.jpg

@kiwiinmelb said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):

@westcoastie said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):

@kiwiinmelb said in RWC: England v Argentina (Pool C):

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

What about, automatic 7pt try, red player gets replaced, and sent to tribunal for a heavy suspension

I personally would like this given a trial, a 10 minute sin bin , except that player is gone for good, when the 10 is up he is replaced by someone from the bench.

It’s a bit of a compromise, games won’t be so harshly ruined so to speak, and that player cops a harsh punishment personally.

I like what was suggested above too, and add an automatic penalty try 7 points

Also posted in the "Judidial Happenings" thread:

England centre Piers Francis cleared to play - citing not upheld

England centre Piers Francis attended a disciplinary hearing on 29 September having been cited for an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.13 (dangerous high tackle) in England’s Rugby World Cup 2019 match against USA on 26 September. The independent Judicial Committee was chaired by Nigel Hampton QC (New Zealand), joined by former international coach Frank Hadden (Scotland) and former international player John Langford (Australia). The player admitted that he had committed an act of foul play but denied that it reached the red card threshold. Having considered all the angles of the incident, together with evidence from the player and submissions from his legal counsel, the panel determined that the act ought to have resulted in a yellow card on-field. Since the threshold for upholding a citing is ‘red card’, the Committee did not uphold the citing and the player is free to play again immediately. The Committee followed the High Tackle Sanction Framework (HTSF) in order to make its decision. The player accepted that it was a high tackle that made contact with the head of the opposition ball carrier. He also accepted that a high degree of danger was present. Following the HTSF, this results in a starting point of a red card. The Committee then considered whether mitigating factors should result in the sanction being decreased. The Committee decided that there was significant and sufficient mitigation to be found: * in the sudden change of height by the USA player immediately before contact. It was only at the time of that sudden change that the clear line of sight factor (against mitigation) came in to play and could become of relevance; and that line of sight factor, therefore, was somewhat limited in its application, and the weight to be given to it; * in that the Player, being in control of the tackle, attempted to avoid the opponent’s head by making a definite attempt to change his own height and his body position; * in the Player’s initial contact being with his own head on the ball carrier’s left shoulder (and which initial contact absorbed a large degree of force), with the Player’s left shoulder then slipping up to make indirect and minor contact to the ball carrier’s head, causing no apparent injury. The Committee weighed up the factors for and against mitigation and on the balance of probabilities, decided that the mitigating factors outweighed the factors against mitigation and so the appropriate on-field sanction was a yellow card. The citing was therefore not upheld.

https://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/490289

Extended highlights:

Very late report from Dublin hotel. Quick chat last night to Joe Schmidt, who seems quietly confident.

Had seats with other NZ fans in the rafters behind South Stand. Amazing lateral view, which gives a totally different perspective from TV pictures.

Unexpected to find myself applauding English play in first 30, when it was bucketing...

After BBBR shells kick off, England make simple, safe, passes making a few yards each time, get close and run a decoy move to leave Ashton unmarked. He dives early to ensure try certain.

Whereas our tactical kicking was inaccurate and seemed to involve Benda making miraculous recoveries in such conditions, Poms were excellent. Young's box kick landing three metres in from touch. Runners make no attempt to catch, but know AB receiver will be vulnerable to a strong tackle on landing and can easily be bundled into touch. Thirty metres gain and put in to lineout.

Pressure on our lineout, leading to Taylor overthrow.

As they recovered ball from our kick off and AB defence hanging back to resist big runners, OF drops in to pocket for easy droppie. Three points and means ABs have to guard an extra threat next time.

Good use of touchline as extra defender. Even Benda forced out when getting within 5m of touch as very slippery.

15-0 was entirely deserved.

In contrast, ABs tried to shift ball as if it were dry. A pragmatic approach needed in the conditions.

Kicking too optimistic, and ill directed. When we get penalty BB kicks for distance, and although crosses line of touch low enough to be pulled back into play under new laws. In contrast 5m shorter and we have lineout in their 22, at a time here we desperately needed to get some momentum.

Some observations, some of which I'm sure have already been made.

Crotty coming on was pivotal. Not that SBW was that bad. Main thing was Crotty's 'grey hair' allowed him to settle BB down and play the percentages, something which SBW can't bring. Also Crotty kept it simple. In the conditions good lines and hard running paid lots of dividends. No need for the fancy dan plays.

Which brings me on to Josh Goodhue. Sitting high behind the posts I could appreciate just what good lines he ran in first half. Very Conradesque. Not given proper credit. The try was a direct result of him running a brilliant line and getting many yards up to their 22, from which point others did their part.

Not reported, but the rain stopped after 30ish and the ABs (with Crotty) were a different team. Secure handling, fast ball and the Poms were right under the pump.

Likewise, rain started to lash again in last 15 or so at which point England much more dangerous.

Not sure picked up here but Itoje said in press that when Barrett (S) came on ABs shifted from zonal lineout defence to man for man. Poms never came to grips with that. BBBR owned them, although why they kept throwing to Itoje is beyond me.

One last thought -- with today's refs you don't ever want to be within seven in last five. Had Ardie and Aaron executed that try in third quarter, TJP chargedown would have been of academic interest. Big kick up RRRs for the two As.

@Catogrande listening to Steve Tew, it was never really on the cards, and the beat up about Ritchie vetoing the Baabaa game was just that, a media beat up.

Supposedly the England option was made available by the RFU when the Baabaa fixture was supposedly in doubt.