Hindsight: A wonderful thing...

As has been noted on this site and amongst other websites and by certain ex world cup winning coaches, england should have kicked the penalties against Australia.

As the title suggests, that is all well and good looking back at the match now, but lets actually put into context what happened on the pitch. England had just been awarded a penalty after a good driving maul that made yards before the aussies pulled it down. The kick would have been from around 40m+ and out by the touchline, most definitely not a gimme. Having seen the dominance they had in the maul (and hoping that the ref had as well) England kicked to the corner to try it again, the Aussies defended better this time but gave away another penatly after Robinson interfered with Care from an offiside position. This was an easier kick but again not certain, England were clearly starting to cause Australia problems with the maul so tried once more and into the corner we went. Australia had now given away 2 penalties in quick succession based around Englands maul, they knew it, the ref knew it, the thinking was that if they set another maul, they would either be able to push over and get the try, get another penalty (and possible yellow card) or even get a penalty try. In the next maul Waldrom would have scored had he managed to hold onto the ball, then would everyone on here be talking of a naive or arrogant england? I think not.

However, the one thing that this did lead to is that later on, when we should have been kicking the penalties, we remembered how close we had got before and tried for it again. At this stage they should have kicked, to get some points for the pressure they had exerted, what had happened was that they had backed themselves into a corner somewhat, where they had to kick to the corner to show it was the right call in the first place, also not getting points the first 3 times meant there was little time to get 3 pens.

So, the first few times we went to the corner were reasonable decisions in my mind and very nearly paid off, the later penalties less so, but that was mainly due to a combination of not getting the try the first times. Basically, the right decision at first but poorly executed, leading to only one viable choice later on.

Would like to point out that at the time, i was hoping they would kick to the corner as it looked like we had a good chance of scoring from it.

It could be worse, you could be 7 points down and with 3 minutes to go kick the 3!!! Wales have done that recently!

I disagree.

The first kick to the corner was a poor choice - but after that it was the only option. Australia must have been damned close to a YC for repeated infringements on their own line.

I also screamed at care (under posts easy kick - just 2pts down) and Youngs (harder kick, 6pts down but still time) for their tap and go choices. That the TMO inexplicably awarded Manu a try still makes it a poor decision by Care - just with good results.

Fair points - if this was a training ground jaunt. It was a serious test game (with ranking points at least at stake) - always take the points. Always.

I agree with LT on this. It was'nt all the penalties, it was the first one they kicked to the corner. Had England taken the points then, it would have made the choices later much easier. By going for the corner on the first penalty it Left England no other option than to kick for the corners later in the match.

That the TMO inexplicably awarded Manu a try still makes it a poor decision by Care - just with good results.

LT why do you feel Manu's try shouldn't have counted?

The first penalty awarded was by far the hardest to convert, hence why they went to the corner.

Normally i'd say take the points, but england had the momentum and i thought they would drive over.

thebluesmancometh. Personally i thought that Manu was short of the line.
There was also suspician of double movement but on replay it didnt appear to be a double movement.

Well I argued it was double movement purely on the bases that he hits the ground then uses his knee to thrust him back up and forward toward the line.

When hitting the ground you have to offload or place the ball, any attempt to thrust forward for a second movement is deemed double.

Momentum was all but gone, the use of the knee definately got him to the line, without the knee and thrust he's well short, thats why I thought it was double movement.

Isn't it the case that the tackle isn't considered completed until the player is held? Tuilagi assisted his forward movement whilst he still had momentum, so the tackle hadn't been completed at that point and his movement was legal?

I was more dubious over whether he touched the line before he lost it forward.

mbernz

That tends to be a popular argument except by that crawling would be legal. Momentum only comes into the equation when placing is for the try line, you can't add to momentum, it takes you there or it doesn't.

In Manus case he hits the deck, realises momentum wasn't going to take him over and uses his knee to thrust him forward again.

I don't want to keep banging on about it but by the letter of the law it's double movement, but as many things in the game it's a 50/50 call as to wether it's pinged or not.

I'm no law expert, but although he hit the deck, he wasn't held stationary before his movement, so surely it wasn't considered a completed tackle up to that point? You're allowed to keep moving until the tackle is completed aren't you, otherwise we wouldn't have refs waving play on saying "not held" when players get straight back up after wriggling free as players struggle to hold them as they hit the ground?

mbernz

Well the Aus player never let go to my knowledge, and then he never tried to get to his feet, tackled or not crawling is not allowed.

I'm not saying he did let go, just that he hadn't completed the tackle prior to Tuilagi's movement. I didn't think Tuilagi had tried to get to his feet again either, I was just using that as an example of where refs drew the line of a completed tackle with the player being fully held. I don't know what the law number against crawling is or how it is defined, but players going down and then scrabbling over & round to place the ball back for the ruck, or getting back to their feet off their arms & knees whilst tumbling forward from an incomplete tackle could be deemed crawling as much as a knee thrust whilst sliding forward for a try. All seem to be regularly allowed by refs, and as you highlight, that's down to interpretations.

ay you are right mate, refs allow rolls, dive for the squeeze ball, and even getting back to their feet, which IMO is just wrong if every tackler has to let go of the ball carrier by default every ball carrier has the right to get back up!!!

thebluesmancometh wrote:That the TMO inexplicably awarded Manu a try still makes it a poor decision by Care - just with good results.

LT why do you feel Manu's try shouldn't have counted?

Sorry for delya in answering, was out. I thought after repeated viewings there was no proff that the ball had touched the line with downward pressure being applied. Certainly not enough to award a try. My own feeling was Manu was short, stretched but was still short and tried to roll the ball forward - losing it in the process.

Well hindsight is like a rear view mirror, only used when you reverse.

I wonder if Woodward applied his hindsight theory to his Lions debacle

LondonTiger wrote:

thebluesmancometh wrote:That the TMO inexplicably awarded Manu a try still makes it a poor decision by Care - just with good results.

LT why do you feel Manu's try shouldn't have counted?

Sorry for delya in answering, was out. I thought after repeated viewings there was no proff that the ball had touched the line with downward pressure being applied. Certainly not enough to award a try. My own feeling was Manu was short, stretched but was still short and tried to roll the ball forward - losing it in the process.

You don't need downward pressure if you are in possession of the ball, only if you are touching down a loose ball over the line. It was marginal, but the correct call in my view. He did enough to get some leather touching the line before he lost it forward.

I take more issue with earlier phases of the play. The quick tap was clearly taken (a) from the wrong spot and (b) before the penalty had actually been awarded. It should have been called back on that basis.


FREEZE frame at 0.037 seconds on this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZaVogod1mc

Take a look, he taps and goes before the penalty is awarded, is clearly in the wrong spot, gone before the arm is extended or the whistle blown. And although it's not clear from this angle, it's not a legal tap either, because it never leaves his hands, and aside from that no. 7 is offside on the right of the ruck.

I've only seen it once and it looked a try, my english wife thinks it wasn't a try but what the feck does she know