Current Page: 4 of 6
Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: Westy68 (IP Logged)
Date: 11 November, 2018 09:39

9, 10 is definitely a concern, I think Farrell is a very good player but a international 10 he canít seem to get his team going. I thought Youngís was very poor after the first 20 mins. Poor kicking and decision making.

Really like the back row, canít believe shields getting knocked, thought he worked like made.

Our 2nd row should not be kruis and itoje, donít understand what kruis brings to the team, definitely isnít line out calls.

Iím a lot more confident in England then I was before AI, defensively we are strong and with a couple of changes to the squad we will get better

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: RossM (IP Logged)
Date: 11 November, 2018 09:49

I kept an eye on Brad throughout and I think he had a very good game. Despite Lawes' defensive efforts, when Brad was off getting his HIA, that was when things started to go wrong.

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: Shugs (IP Logged)
Date: 11 November, 2018 10:16

Quote:
RossM
I kept an eye on Brad throughout and I think he had a very good game. Despite Lawes' defensive efforts, when Brad was off getting his HIA, that was when things started to go wrong.
Spot on Ross. I think Shields has been great last week and this. He's s genuine six and does things naturally in the game Lawes doesn't do. A lot of this can be without the ball or means the opposition get less clean ball. I don't understand the constant knocking of him.

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: rigatoni (IP Logged)
Date: 11 November, 2018 11:01

Quote:
StevieWasp
I don't know the exact laws here, but when the back foot of the ruck moved, l

Does anyone know the exact laws? I haven't seen a decent explanation of how offside lines at a "tackle" rather than a ruck are supposed to work. Excuse the long waffling below, especially as their are more interesting aspects of England's performance to talk about, but Im struggling to think it through.

If it had been a ruck then England's offside line would be defined by the hindmost England foot. Consequently the NZ feet moving forward and the movement of the upper body of the England tackler (I think Farrell) would have no effect on England's offside line.

The written rules for rucks are at least reasonably clear even if there is some grey about when the ball leaves the ruck or which you need guidance from convention. The people in the ruck are the people bound in, which means if there had been a ruck Perenara is not in it and its debatable whether the last NZ player to join (I think Todd) is bound on and would be in the ruck. If he was then arguably Pernara would be rendered offside by him joining and need to move and if he wasn't then when the "ruck" moves forward beyond Todd the ball is already out. Academic anyway not just because of the point about offside line above but because there was no contest and no ruck.

The new rules (post Italy's tactics) say that even if there is no ruck, offside lines are created when the first NZ player on their feet went over the ball. In that case its the hindmost point of players (including people on the floor) that creates the line not necessarily a foot. However much of the rest of how its supposed to work is pretty unclear to me from the written laws.

Is it just England's players that create the line or NZ too? Not entirely clear but I think it includes NZ as the rules don't say otherwise and presumably England can't move their offside line forward by having Farrell roll towards the opposing goal line.

Unlike a ruck there is no binding requirement in a tackle and the offside lines end when the ball leaves the "tackle area" but what is the tackle area, which players define its boundaries?

The laws put the players that define the offside line are in two categories i/ players in the tackle and ii/ players on their feet over the ball. The first category includes tackler/tackled players, those holding the tackler before they went to ground, anyone on the ground (presumably vaguely near tackle) and then the (to me unclear) sub-category "players who arrive to contest possession in the tackle". Is that last sub category just people like Pernara who are looking to pick up the ball+a jackal or does it include NZ players who defensively form a pseudo-ruck to protect the ball from counter rucks?. If it include all of the latter then that would seemingly render category ii/ superflous so I assume that it doesn't.

Movement of Farrell's head and upper body presumably does move the offside line (or is he now outside the "tackle area" and no longer counts?) but what about the NZ feet? Those players were originally "players over the ball" on their feet (so category ii rather than i) but when they move forward they are no longer over the ball so do their feet still count after they move forward? I don't imagine that it was envisaged that uncontested breakdowns would have massive distances between the two offside lines.

Curiously as well as referencing the ball leaving the tackle area. the rules also say the tackle is over when a player on their feet passes or kicks the ball which might suggest that the offside line only goes once Pernera's has completed the kick. Definitely not what TMO seem focused on (he referred to the point at which the ball was picked up) and would presumably make charge down's nearly impossible. The rules also say that they player that takes possession must pass or kick immediately, with no version the 5 second "use it" law that applies to a ruck, which I've never noticed be enforced.

Ultimately I guess little of this should matter because the breakdown is an area of the game build around the ref's proactive vocal calls - "balls out", "leave it" "no 5!", "get back 3" etc. Which is why I agree with posters above that the TMO was out of order. Given the new instructions about the relationship between TMO and Ref its bizarre that the TMO has elected to intervene at all on something a subjective as the breakdown when the ref was right by Lawes and called the try. There was also no two way conversation with the ref and Garces seemed unconvinced by the footage either way as even after the TMO' first explanation he had to ask whether its a try or not.

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: westwaleswasp (IP Logged)
Date: 11 November, 2018 11:05

Quote:
RossM
I kept an eye on Brad throughout and I think he had a very good game. Despite Lawes' defensive efforts, when Brad was off getting his HIA, that was when things started to go wrong.

Not sure it went wrong because of that. NZ were always going to have some pressure in the first half, I think it was largely a coincidence.


Was absence of players an issue in the lineout or was it the change of hooker? Seemed to me a combination, they knew where it was going.

Thought very little went wrong with the back row in open play all afternoon. As I said earlier, without the Billy plan England seemed to have a back row with balance.

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: RossM (IP Logged)
Date: 11 November, 2018 11:18

Not sure it went wrong because of that. NZ were always going to have some pressure in the first half, I think it was largely a coincidence.

It may well have been a coincidence. However it is (IMO) a fact that NZ started to come back when Brad went off for his HIA.

Was absence of players an issue in the lineout or was it the change of hooker? Seemed to me a combination, they knew where it was going.


Indeed they did. Once Brad and Kruis were subbed, England did not seem to have any real alternative than try and chuck it in to Itoje. Did they try and use Wilson or Underhill as catchers? The latter certainly would have been easy to lift.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2018 11:19 by RossM.

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: John Tee (IP Logged)
Date: 11 November, 2018 12:34

We would have had Ewells and Lawes at that point....
I think we got schooled by a premium line out operator.
Not enough nous at peak pressure times and that is the difference.
I think their game experience massively trumps ours.
The only leaders I can recall that probably would have dealt with it would have been Lol and MJ.
The problem I have with that tends to be that we have 70 cap players that are held up as leaders....and aren't.

Which is fine, that is the deal... Just let's not pretend they are.

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: Geoff P (IP Logged)
Date: 11 November, 2018 13:20

Actually I think the departure of Moon might have had a lot to do with the line out meltdown. The team comments suggest they have been mightily impressed by his lifting.

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: Speach (IP Logged)
Date: 11 November, 2018 14:14

It looked like Lawes was in line with Faz (?) in the ruck/tackle. In either case that is offside. The key moment is when 9 lifts the ball off the ground as that is the moment the ball is back in play (assuming It has not come 'out beforehand).

Correct decision but agree it was tight. A bit like the still looks to me wrong decision last week.



"Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."
Sun Tzu

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: Rob Smith (IP Logged)
Date: 11 November, 2018 14:24

The ball being out is not important. Lawes is offside and cannot move forward and should retreat until he is played onside. Bit like if he was in front of the kicker, he cannot move forward. Offside but also never onside. If he impacts the ball ref needs to call it.



[robsbl0g.blogspot.co.uk]
@robsmithrugby

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: Sara'sman (IP Logged)
Date: 11 November, 2018 14:27

Quote:
rigatoni
Curiously as well as referencing the ball leaving the tackle area. the rules also say the tackle is over when a player on their feet passes or kicks the ball which might suggest that the offside line only goes once Pernera's has completed the kick.

Just to help out, this is incorrect as the law also states:

b. A player on their feet from either team gains possession of the ball and moves away or passes or kicks the ball.
c. The ball leaves the tackle area.

b. by convention occurs when the SH lifts the ball
c. by convention is when the ball is behind the rearmost foot or no longer in the vicinity(!) of the area but ahead of the rearmost foot (a convention not followed during Wales v Oz!)

The Laws in isolation can be impenetrable; there is much advice/convention/example to add if they are to be fully understood.

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: Geoff P (IP Logged)
Date: 11 November, 2018 16:36

Jonathan Kaplan in the 'referee's view' in the Telegraph today calls it as the wrong decision (as he did on the Farrell tackle last week).

He says a TMO has to be certain to overrule and was really surprised the try was chalked off.

Kaplan viewed the ball as out of the ruck for some time while the 9 held onto it on the ground.

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: Rob Smith (IP Logged)
Date: 11 November, 2018 17:00

But Lawes didnít go early, so the ball being out or not is not the issue. The penalty was for not being behind the offside line. He cannot go forward until he is played onside.

If a team counter ruck and one of the opposition is standing by the side of the ruck they cannot simply go and pick up the ball if the counter ruck drives right past the ball. That player must retreat before they move forward or have a team mate run past them.



[robsbl0g.blogspot.co.uk]
@robsmithrugby

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: Beckenham Bandit (IP Logged)
Date: 11 November, 2018 17:11

Quote:
Rob Smith
The ball being out is not important. Lawes is offside and cannot move forward and should retreat until he is played onside. Bit like if he was in front of the kicker, he cannot move forward. Offside but also never onside. If he impacts the ball ref needs to call it.

This is my view. Lawes hadn't retreated back onside before he moved forward. He was clearly ahead of the rest of the English defensive line aligned with the back foot of the ruck.

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: HoboAl (IP Logged)
Date: 11 November, 2018 17:20

Quote:
Mellie
TMO decision was a disgrace. Lawes did not move until ball left the ground by scrum half. Nowhere near clear there was any offside so cannot give that decision.

It is not movement it is where his feet are. A marginal decision either way. To be honest it wasn't the only reason England were edged out.

Progress by England though and there are more important matches ahead.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2018 17:40 by HoboAl.

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: Andy1210 (IP Logged)
Date: 11 November, 2018 22:21

Quote:
Shugs
Quote:
RossM
I kept an eye on Brad throughout and I think he had a very good game. Despite Lawes' defensive efforts, when Brad was off getting his HIA, that was when things started to go wrong.
Spot on Ross. I think Shields has been great last week and this. He's s genuine six and does things naturally in the game Lawes doesn't do. A lot of this can be without the ball or means the opposition get less clean ball. I don't understand the constant knocking of him.

Totally agree with both these points. I thought he was class and caused all kinds of problems for the ABs at and around the breakdown. Could definitely see things freeing up when he went off and the ABs starting to get the breakdown the way they wanted it, especially for their try.

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: John Tee (IP Logged)
Date: 12 November, 2018 13:18

Not too sure about pinning all our hopes on a bad call or not, as the case may be.

You get them in all sports and no one has negated their impact. Football has limited var experiments but there are limits to how you can use it.

I think we lost it on critical decisions and that is what we need to address.

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: Nigel Med (IP Logged)
Date: 12 November, 2018 13:48

Under the new interpretations following the debacle at the England v Italy match, a tackle is now deemed to be a ruck as soon as a player from either side joins and is on his or her feet. the Lawes incident therefore was definitely a ruck in spite of there being no English players bound on. When Lawes arrives he is definitely on side, you can use the lines in the grass to determine that he is behind the hind-most foot which is actually two All Black players. One of those takes a pace forward which appears to put Lawes off side however if you look closely, the moment the All Black steps forward is preceded by the 9 picking the ball up. It is split second but the sequence is definitely in that order. That is what the TMO should have been looking at. Once the ball is picked up the ruck is over, it is open play and Lawes position is irrelevant and therefore his charge down was entirely legal.

I don't see how this is open to "interpretation" lake the Farrell decision last week, a players body position and whether his arms are reaching to grasp a player is pretty subjective. Offside is pretty black and white (pun intended) and the TMO didn't look at the precise timing of events, he just looked at the moment Lawes started to move forward, at that point he was in front of the hindmost foot and looked offside but there was no longer a ruck and he got it wrong.

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: Geoff P (IP Logged)
Date: 12 November, 2018 16:18

Quote:
Nigel Med
Under the new interpretations following the debacle at the England v Italy match, a tackle is now deemed to be a ruck as soon as a player from either side joins and is on his or her feet. the Lawes incident therefore was definitely a ruck in spite of there being no English players bound on. When Lawes arrives he is definitely on side, you can use the lines in the grass to determine that he is behind the hind-most foot which is actually two All Black players. One of those takes a pace forward which appears to put Lawes off side however if you look closely, the moment the All Black steps forward is preceded by the 9 picking the ball up. It is split second but the sequence is definitely in that order. That is what the TMO should have been looking at. Once the ball is picked up the ruck is over, it is open play and Lawes position is irrelevant and therefore his charge down was entirely legal.
I don't see how this is open to "interpretation" lake the Farrell decision last week, a players body position and whether his arms are reaching to grasp a player is pretty subjective. Offside is pretty black and white (pun intended) and the TMO didn't look at the precise timing of events, he just looked at the moment Lawes started to move forward, at that point he was in front of the hindmost foot and looked offside but there was no longer a ruck and he got it wrong.

That was certainly Kaplan's take on it. And that was the way it looked to me. By the time Lawes becomes 'offside' the ball is out of the ruck. Hence it is over and the offside law no longer applies.

But maybe it was just karma after they were so lucky with the decision last week. The saddest thing about it is Underhill's brilliant, brilliant finish won't now get the adulation it deserved.

However, as has been said above, the stronger-finishing England should have won the game anyway if their line out had not imploded or they had displayed some cooler thinking at the death. So bearing in mind you learn by your mistakes, and also there were some really encouraging performances from players relatively or completely new to the side, there is a lot they can take from that game.

Re: Eng NZ
Posted by: StevieWasp (IP Logged)
Date: 12 November, 2018 16:54

Maybe starting with Jamie George, and having Dylan Hartley come on in the 2nd half is a better way to ensure that our lineout doesn't fall apart at the end of games.

Current Page: 4 of 6
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net