England v South Africa
-
@mariner4life said in England v South Africa:
I've watched that gif a few times, i don't reckon it's even high. The only reason his chin hits the shoulder is because his head snaps forward when he gets smashed. Great hit, play on, fuck off World Rugby.
This 100%
@pukunui said in England v South Africa:
@mariner4life said in England v South Africa:
I've watched that gif a few times, i don't reckon it's even high. The only reason his chin hits the shoulder is because his head snaps forward when he gets smashed. Great hit, play on, fuck off World Rugby.
This 100% in league
FIFY
-
@pukunui said in England v South Africa:
@mariner4life said in England v South Africa:
I've watched that gif a few times, i don't reckon it's even high. The only reason his chin hits the shoulder is because his head snaps forward when he gets smashed. Great hit, play on, fuck off World Rugby.
This 100% in league
FIFY
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@pukunui said in England v South Africa:
@mariner4life said in England v South Africa:
I've watched that gif a few times, i don't reckon it's even high. The only reason his chin hits the shoulder is because his head snaps forward when he gets smashed. Great hit, play on, fuck off World Rugby.
This 100% in league
FIFY
Put it this way. If Sam Cane got carded for that tackle in a test this place would go into meltdown.
-
A question for those saying 'great hit'
If that was SBW and the penalty was given, losing the match, would you still be saying great hit?
I somehow think you'd be ripping into him for a dumb ass league tackle.
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
A question for those saying 'great hit'
If that was SBW and the penalty was given, losing the match, would you still be saying great hit?
I somehow think you'd be ripping into him for a dumb ass league tackle.
No. I would, as i consistently do, rage against world rugby and their farcical high tackle directives
-
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
A question for those saying 'great hit'
If that was SBW and the penalty was given, losing the match, would you still be saying great hit?
I somehow think you'd be ripping into him for a dumb ass league tackle.
No. I would, as i consistently do, rage against world rugby and their farcical high tackle directives
@mariner4life said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
A question for those saying 'great hit'
If that was SBW and the penalty was given, losing the match, would you still be saying great hit?
I somehow think you'd be ripping into him for a dumb ass league tackle.
No. I would, as i consistently do, rage against world rugby and their farcical high tackle directives
Nothing to do with high tackle. Just on the basis of a shoulder charge penalty level offense that would have caused no controversy at the 10 minute mark
-
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
-
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@pukunui said in England v South Africa:
@mariner4life said in England v South Africa:
I've watched that gif a few times, i don't reckon it's even high. The only reason his chin hits the shoulder is because his head snaps forward when he gets smashed. Great hit, play on, fuck off World Rugby.
This 100% in league
FIFY
Put it this way. If Sam Cane got carded for that tackle in a test this place would go into meltdown.
@pukunui said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@pukunui said in England v South Africa:
@mariner4life said in England v South Africa:
I've watched that gif a few times, i don't reckon it's even high. The only reason his chin hits the shoulder is because his head snaps forward when he gets smashed. Great hit, play on, fuck off World Rugby.
This 100% in league
FIFY
Put it this way. If Sam Cane got carded for that tackle in a test this place would go into meltdown.
Again, forget the card red herring. Simple no arms penalty. It was a league tackle in a union game.
-
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
Bias aside. I’m curious about the reason you think AG got the call correct
-
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
Bias aside. I’m curious about the reason you think AG got the call correct
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
Bias aside. I’m curious about the reason you think AG got the call correct
Not sure I can quite put the bias aside but I'll try. First off it did look dodgy in real time and I'm not surprised it went to the TMO. The replay showed initial contact with the shoulder, which is to be expected and then the left arm coming round to wrap. The force of the collision bounced both players backwards and the wrap could not be completed. Gardner's call was along the lines of saying Farrell had made enough of an attempt at wrapping. Now that is a subjective call and so each will have their own view on it. I think it was a good call, others don't. A close one either way.
Slow mo and individual frames can often tell conflicting stories, as a for instance I've seen one where it looks as though Esterhuizen had fended off Farrell with a forearm to the head. Now I don't for one moment feel that he did but in isolation it did not look good.
-
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
Bias aside. I’m curious about the reason you think AG got the call correct
Not sure I can quite put the bias aside but I'll try. First off it did look dodgy in real time and I'm not surprised it went to the TMO. The replay showed initial contact with the shoulder, which is to be expected and then the left arm coming round to wrap. The force of the collision bounced both players backwards and the wrap could not be completed. Gardner's call was along the lines of saying Farrell had made enough of an attempt at wrapping. Now that is a subjective call and so each will have their own view on it. I think it was a good call, others don't. A close one either way.
Slow mo and individual frames can often tell conflicting stories, as a for instance I've seen one where it looks as though Esterhuizen had fended off Farrell with a forearm to the head. Now I don't for one moment feel that he did but in isolation it did not look good.
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
Bias aside. I’m curious about the reason you think AG got the call correct
Not sure I can quite put the bias aside but I'll try. First off it did look dodgy in real time and I'm not surprised it went to the TMO. The replay showed initial contact with the shoulder, which is to be expected and then the left arm coming round to wrap. The force of the collision bounced both players backwards and the wrap could not be completed. Gardner's call was along the lines of saying Farrell had made enough of an attempt at wrapping. Now that is a subjective call and so each will have their own view on it. I think it was a good call, others don't. A close one either way.
Slow mo and individual frames can often tell conflicting stories, as a for instance I've seen one where it looks as though Esterhuizen had fended off Farrell with a forearm to the head. Now I don't for one moment feel that he did but in isolation it did not look good.
Fair explanation.
Do you think the same call would have been made, say, in the 10th minute?
I think he would have gone for a penalty without hesitation and everyone would have accepted it. -
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
Bias aside. I’m curious about the reason you think AG got the call correct
Not sure I can quite put the bias aside but I'll try. First off it did look dodgy in real time and I'm not surprised it went to the TMO. The replay showed initial contact with the shoulder, which is to be expected and then the left arm coming round to wrap. The force of the collision bounced both players backwards and the wrap could not be completed. Gardner's call was along the lines of saying Farrell had made enough of an attempt at wrapping. Now that is a subjective call and so each will have their own view on it. I think it was a good call, others don't. A close one either way.
Slow mo and individual frames can often tell conflicting stories, as a for instance I've seen one where it looks as though Esterhuizen had fended off Farrell with a forearm to the head. Now I don't for one moment feel that he did but in isolation it did not look good.
Fair explanation.
Do you think the same call would have been made, say, in the 10th minute?
I think he would have gone for a penalty without hesitation and everyone would have accepted it.@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
Bias aside. I’m curious about the reason you think AG got the call correct
Not sure I can quite put the bias aside but I'll try. First off it did look dodgy in real time and I'm not surprised it went to the TMO. The replay showed initial contact with the shoulder, which is to be expected and then the left arm coming round to wrap. The force of the collision bounced both players backwards and the wrap could not be completed. Gardner's call was along the lines of saying Farrell had made enough of an attempt at wrapping. Now that is a subjective call and so each will have their own view on it. I think it was a good call, others don't. A close one either way.
Slow mo and individual frames can often tell conflicting stories, as a for instance I've seen one where it looks as though Esterhuizen had fended off Farrell with a forearm to the head. Now I don't for one moment feel that he did but in isolation it did not look good.
Fair explanation.
Do you think the same call would have been made, say, in the 10th minute?
I think he would have gone for a penalty without hesitation and everyone would have accepted it.Who knows? To say he would have called it differently would suggest he bottled the call and I don't think that was the case as there would have been just as much controversy if he'd called it the other way and the Boks had scored.
God tackle or not though, it was a close call and Farrell should not have put himself in that position.
-
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
Bias aside. I’m curious about the reason you think AG got the call correct
Not sure I can quite put the bias aside but I'll try. First off it did look dodgy in real time and I'm not surprised it went to the TMO. The replay showed initial contact with the shoulder, which is to be expected and then the left arm coming round to wrap. The force of the collision bounced both players backwards and the wrap could not be completed. Gardner's call was along the lines of saying Farrell had made enough of an attempt at wrapping. Now that is a subjective call and so each will have their own view on it. I think it was a good call, others don't. A close one either way.
Slow mo and individual frames can often tell conflicting stories, as a for instance I've seen one where it looks as though Esterhuizen had fended off Farrell with a forearm to the head. Now I don't for one moment feel that he did but in isolation it did not look good.
Fair explanation.
Do you think the same call would have been made, say, in the 10th minute?
I think he would have gone for a penalty without hesitation and everyone would have accepted it.Who knows? To say he would have called it differently would suggest he bottled the call and I don't think that was the case as there would have been just as much controversy if he'd called it the other way and the Boks had scored.
God tackle or not though, it was a close call and Farrell should not have put himself in that position.
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
Bias aside. I’m curious about the reason you think AG got the call correct
Not sure I can quite put the bias aside but I'll try. First off it did look dodgy in real time and I'm not surprised it went to the TMO. The replay showed initial contact with the shoulder, which is to be expected and then the left arm coming round to wrap. The force of the collision bounced both players backwards and the wrap could not be completed. Gardner's call was along the lines of saying Farrell had made enough of an attempt at wrapping. Now that is a subjective call and so each will have their own view on it. I think it was a good call, others don't. A close one either way.
Slow mo and individual frames can often tell conflicting stories, as a for instance I've seen one where it looks as though Esterhuizen had fended off Farrell with a forearm to the head. Now I don't for one moment feel that he did but in isolation it did not look good.
Fair explanation.
Do you think the same call would have been made, say, in the 10th minute?
I think he would have gone for a penalty without hesitation and everyone would have accepted it.Who knows? To say he would have called it differently would suggest he bottled the call and I don't think that was the case as there would have been just as much controversy if he'd called it the other way and the Boks had scored.
God tackle or not though, it was a close call and Farrell should not have put himself in that position.
I'm not so certain that the levels of controversy would be so high.
Many pundits are influenced by the commentators calls (as so called experts) that's why we get so irritated with Justin Marshall when he gets it wrong.
Even the English comms instantly prepared the audience for a penalty there and said OF was very lucky.
I think fans would have turned on OF for creating the situation far more than AG for a penalty call. -
Regarding the Farrell tackle:
Me personally, I would be fine with no penalty, but considering the way tackles have been refereed in recent times I think it should have been one. England lucky. I am one hundred percent certain, if that exact same tackle would have been made by an All Black in that situation, we wouldn't hear the end of it about referees favouring the ABs.
-
-
Ugliest thing about this game was seeing Faf De Klerk watch from a corporate box. Sale Shark didn't have a game this weekend. They should have released one of the best players in the world to play international Rugby for his chosen country yesterday.
@sparky said in England v South Africa:
Ugliest thing about this game was seeing Faf De Klerk watch from a corporate box. Sale Shark didn't have a game this weekend. They should have released one of the best players in the world to play international Rugby for his chosen country yesterday.
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree, Sale would likely be fined heavily by EPR.
-
@sparky said in England v South Africa:
Ugliest thing about this game was seeing Faf De Klerk watch from a corporate box. Sale Shark didn't have a game this weekend. They should have released one of the best players in the world to play international Rugby for his chosen country yesterday.
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree, Sale would likely be fined heavily by EPR.
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@sparky said in England v South Africa:
Ugliest thing about this game was seeing Faf De Klerk watch from a corporate box. Sale Shark didn't have a game this weekend. They should have released one of the best players in the world to play international Rugby for his chosen country yesterday.
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree, Sale would likely be fined heavily by EPR.
Fined for what?
Genuine question -
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
Bias aside. I’m curious about the reason you think AG got the call correct
Not sure I can quite put the bias aside but I'll try. First off it did look dodgy in real time and I'm not surprised it went to the TMO. The replay showed initial contact with the shoulder, which is to be expected and then the left arm coming round to wrap. The force of the collision bounced both players backwards and the wrap could not be completed. Gardner's call was along the lines of saying Farrell had made enough of an attempt at wrapping. Now that is a subjective call and so each will have their own view on it. I think it was a good call, others don't. A close one either way.
Slow mo and individual frames can often tell conflicting stories, as a for instance I've seen one where it looks as though Esterhuizen had fended off Farrell with a forearm to the head. Now I don't for one moment feel that he did but in isolation it did not look good.
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
Bias aside. I’m curious about the reason you think AG got the call correct
Not sure I can quite put the bias aside but I'll try. First off it did look dodgy in real time and I'm not surprised it went to the TMO. The replay showed initial contact with the shoulder, which is to be expected and then the left arm coming round to wrap. The force of the collision bounced both players backwards and the wrap could not be completed. Gardner's call was along the lines of saying Farrell had made enough of an attempt at wrapping. Now that is a subjective call and so each will have their own view on it. I think it was a good call, others don't. A close one either way.
Slow mo and individual frames can often tell conflicting stories, as a for instance I've seen one where it looks as though Esterhuizen had fended off Farrell with a forearm to the head. Now I don't for one moment feel that he did but in isolation it did not look good.
I think that shoulder charge was about as close as I've seen to what SBW did against the lions, just OF was lucky enough to not hit on the top of the head. There was no wrapping of the arms because it was a shoulder charge, not because he bounced off to quick.
-
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@sparky said in England v South Africa:
Ugliest thing about this game was seeing Faf De Klerk watch from a corporate box. Sale Shark didn't have a game this weekend. They should have released one of the best players in the world to play international Rugby for his chosen country yesterday.
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree, Sale would likely be fined heavily by EPR.
Fined for what?
Genuine question@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@sparky said in England v South Africa:
Ugliest thing about this game was seeing Faf De Klerk watch from a corporate box. Sale Shark didn't have a game this weekend. They should have released one of the best players in the world to play international Rugby for his chosen country yesterday.
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree, Sale would likely be fined heavily by EPR.
Fined for what?
Genuine questionReleasing non-England players out of the International window.
-
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
Bias aside. I’m curious about the reason you think AG got the call correct
Not sure I can quite put the bias aside but I'll try. First off it did look dodgy in real time and I'm not surprised it went to the TMO. The replay showed initial contact with the shoulder, which is to be expected and then the left arm coming round to wrap. The force of the collision bounced both players backwards and the wrap could not be completed. Gardner's call was along the lines of saying Farrell had made enough of an attempt at wrapping. Now that is a subjective call and so each will have their own view on it. I think it was a good call, others don't. A close one either way.
Slow mo and individual frames can often tell conflicting stories, as a for instance I've seen one where it looks as though Esterhuizen had fended off Farrell with a forearm to the head. Now I don't for one moment feel that he did but in isolation it did not look good.
I think that shoulder charge was about as close as I've seen to what SBW did against the lions, just OF was lucky enough to not hit on the top of the head. There was no wrapping of the arms because it was a shoulder charge, not because he bounced off to quick.
@bones said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
Judging by the discussions on here and the twitter comments from other players there is enough doubt to suggest the call could have gone either way. I reckon Gardner got it spot on (but of course I would say that). I was, however, very nervous at the time as it could quite easily have gone the other way and if it had there would have been the same level of debate.
Bias aside. I’m curious about the reason you think AG got the call correct
Not sure I can quite put the bias aside but I'll try. First off it did look dodgy in real time and I'm not surprised it went to the TMO. The replay showed initial contact with the shoulder, which is to be expected and then the left arm coming round to wrap. The force of the collision bounced both players backwards and the wrap could not be completed. Gardner's call was along the lines of saying Farrell had made enough of an attempt at wrapping. Now that is a subjective call and so each will have their own view on it. I think it was a good call, others don't. A close one either way.
Slow mo and individual frames can often tell conflicting stories, as a for instance I've seen one where it looks as though Esterhuizen had fended off Farrell with a forearm to the head. Now I don't for one moment feel that he did but in isolation it did not look good.
I think that shoulder charge was about as close as I've seen to what SBW did against the lions, just OF was lucky enough to not hit on the top of the head. There was no wrapping of the arms because it was a shoulder charge, not because he bounced off to quick.
Like I said "Now that is a subjective call and so each will have their own view on it."
