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.
@chester-draws Four and two of those were deep in attack.
-
there was that one scrum late in the game, it was in action while the aerial camera was in action you could clearly see the English LH boring in, next minute we get pinged for wheeling.
Obviously easy for us to see like that, but shows how much of a lottery alot of scrum penalties are.
-
Thought BB kicking was off in first 10-20mins due to trying to push ball a little more than useual because of wet conditions. Glad Crotty coming on and possibly getting call to keep ball in hand.
If England secured more lineout ball it may have been a different result. -
I’ll take that. Terrible conditions that suited England’s style of game.
Then we dominated their line out and scrum! Amazing comeback from 15-0 down.
Brodie was immense in the line out, had England panicking there. When was the last time you saw a baulk called?
And how good was Ofa at loosehead? Done his WC squad chances to harm there.
Was expecting the TMO to bottle the offside call, glad the right call was made there. Offside all day.
Proper Test match and the good guys won.
-
A question to any that think Lawes was onside.
Are the rest of the England side stupid? Because they all stood in the same line and Lawes had both feet well in front of where they had worked out the offside line to be.
@crucial said in England vs All Blacks:
A question to any that think Lawes was onside.
Are the rest of the England side stupid? Because they all stood in the same line and Lawes had both feet well in front of where they had worked out the offside line to be.
Yeah, pretty clear IMO. Your graphics are awesome BTW. Do you do it for a living?
-
A question to any that think Lawes was onside.
Are the rest of the England side stupid? Because they all stood in the same line and Lawes had both feet well in front of where they had worked out the offside line to be.
@crucial if they had called the guy 2nd form the top as offside, while techinically correct, I think they could feel hard done by, but not Lawes.
-
I think it's well past time the lawbooks are updated regarding what constitutes a ruck and offside rules at it. It's obviously not ruled the way it's written
A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
No, that's not how it's ruled, one player over the ball and an opposition player (often the tackler) lying on the ground is usually ruled a ruck.
At a ruck or maul, the offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the player of the same team
Once again, not how it is refereed. Ruck offside lines are usually deemed to be at either end of the ruck, no matter the body part or team.
Additionally, sometimes players, who are bound in to the ruck, ofte detach and pick up the ball, even though they are not behind the offside line, as they are in front of the hindmost part of the ruck when picking up the ball. This is especially egregious, when there's another player behind the player picking up the ball. This often results in easy metres as the defence is unaware of a player in the middle of the ruck suddenly being part of play again - should be ruled illegal by referees, almost never is.In short: rucks are a mess and the most difficult thing to referee, but the laws are far behind of what is being played, it's a bit annoying
-
@crucial said in England vs All Blacks:
A question to any that think Lawes was onside.
Are the rest of the England side stupid? Because they all stood in the same line and Lawes had both feet well in front of where they had worked out the offside line to be.
Yeah, pretty clear IMO. Your graphics are awesome BTW. Do you do it for a living?
@jc said in England vs All Blacks:
@crucial said in England vs All Blacks:
A question to any that think Lawes was onside.
Are the rest of the England side stupid? Because they all stood in the same line and Lawes had both feet well in front of where they had worked out the offside line to be.
Yeah, pretty clear IMO. Your graphics are awesome BTW. Do you do it for a living?
Is it not obvious?
-
My hope is that TJP and AS both look at the disallowed try as a near missed disaster and reevaluate the whole box kick strategy. I get that they want to try and make the opposition second guess themselves to depower the rush defence but jesus your execution has to be top notch. At the very least there needs to be competition for every one, especially in your own half otherwise it’s just giving away possession.
-
That about sums the over use of the box kick,and we dodge a bullet
@steven-harris said in England vs All Blacks:
That about sums the over use of the box kick,and we dodge a bullet
The high kicks didn’t work. The long sliding kicks worked well when the space was there. Overall I don’t like what we are doing with our kicking game.We just look so much better carrying the ball.
The strategy of kicking the ball more in the first half should be dropped. We seem to get a set play kicking mindset and stop playing what is in front of us. Mostly I think we have been average because of it rather than it justifying an improved 2nd half.
-
A question to any that think Lawes was onside.
Are the rest of the England side stupid? Because they all stood in the same line and Lawes had both feet well in front of where they had worked out the offside line to be.
@crucial said in England vs All Blacks:
A question to any that think Lawes was onside.
Are the rest of the England side stupid? Because they all stood in the same line and Lawes had both feet well in front of where they had worked out the offside line to be.
Your line is not perpendicular to the side line, but yes, miles offside
-
I think it's well past time the lawbooks are updated regarding what constitutes a ruck and offside rules at it. It's obviously not ruled the way it's written
A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
No, that's not how it's ruled, one player over the ball and an opposition player (often the tackler) lying on the ground is usually ruled a ruck.
At a ruck or maul, the offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the player of the same team
Once again, not how it is refereed. Ruck offside lines are usually deemed to be at either end of the ruck, no matter the body part or team.
Additionally, sometimes players, who are bound in to the ruck, ofte detach and pick up the ball, even though they are not behind the offside line, as they are in front of the hindmost part of the ruck when picking up the ball. This is especially egregious, when there's another player behind the player picking up the ball. This often results in easy metres as the defence is unaware of a player in the middle of the ruck suddenly being part of play again - should be ruled illegal by referees, almost never is.In short: rucks are a mess and the most difficult thing to referee, but the laws are far behind of what is being played, it's a bit annoying
@tordah said in England vs All Blacks:
I think it's well past time the lawbooks are updated regarding what constitutes a ruck and offside rules at it. It's obviously not ruled the way it's written
A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
No, that's not how it's ruled, one player over the ball and an opposition player (often the tackler) lying on the ground is usually ruled a ruck.
At a ruck or maul, the offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the player of the same team
Once again, not how it is refereed. Ruck offside lines are usually deemed to be at either end of the ruck, no matter the body part or team.
Additionally, sometimes players, who are bound in to the ruck, ofte detach and pick up the ball, even though they are not behind the offside line, as they are in front of the hindmost part of the ruck when picking up the ball. This is especially egregious, when there's another player behind the player picking up the ball. This often results in easy metres as the defence is unaware of a player in the middle of the ruck suddenly being part of play again - should be ruled illegal by referees, almost never is.In short: rucks are a mess and the most difficult thing to referee, but the laws are far behind of what is being played, it's a bit annoying
Jackson ruled out an Italian try in the Georgian game for a guy not last in the ruck picking up the ball and crashing over.
-
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.
@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? -
@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 you expect Garces to know a rule like that when he has only recently learned the accidental offside play?
-
Thought BB kicking was off in first 10-20mins due to trying to push ball a little more than useual because of wet conditions. Glad Crotty coming on and possibly getting call to keep ball in hand.
If England secured more lineout ball it may have been a different result.@paj said in England vs All Blacks:
Thought BB kicking was off in first 10-20mins due to trying to push ball a little more than useual because of wet conditions. Glad Crotty coming on and possibly getting call to keep ball in hand.
If England secured more lineout ball it may have been a different result.Paj, you're alive!
-
My hope is that TJP and AS both look at the disallowed try as a near missed disaster and reevaluate the whole box kick strategy. I get that they want to try and make the opposition second guess themselves to depower the rush defence but jesus your execution has to be top notch. At the very least there needs to be competition for every one, especially in your own half otherwise it’s just giving away possession.
@jc said in England vs All Blacks:
My hope is that TJP and AS both look at the disallowed try as a near missed disaster and reevaluate the whole box kick strategy. I get that they want to try and make the opposition second guess themselves to depower the rush defence but jesus your execution has to be top notch. At the very least there needs to be competition for every one, especially in your own half otherwise it’s just giving away possession.
You think the individual players decide on the strategy? That's a coaching call.
In saying that Ima hate the box kick
-
@paj said in England vs All Blacks:
Thought BB kicking was off in first 10-20mins due to trying to push ball a little more than useual because of wet conditions. Glad Crotty coming on and possibly getting call to keep ball in hand.
If England secured more lineout ball it may have been a different result.Paj, you're alive!
-
assuming SBW is fit next week, does he start again?
Thought Crotty looked good when he came on, as did Goodhue (although TBF we had more ball then too so makes it easier to look better)
