Would it have been called forward at Twickenham?

When you look at the luck England seem to generate for themselves at twickenham versus the lack of luck Wales seem to cop at the MS it makes a truly staggering comparison.

Against Australia, England benefited from a contentious "not quite enough" obstruction ruling and scored a 100 meter turn around when all four match officials missed Brown's feet being clearly in touch.

Wales on the other hand got a "benefit of the doubt" decision against them which probably cost them the game.

Reverse those calls and you'd have an English defeat and welsh victory, and how different the landscape would look with no changes to coaches or team selections or game plans.

Such fine margins.

Is it possible for Wales to get to the bottom of this apparent English "luck" and create some for themselves?

Ireland too might feel aggrieved at their lack of such apparent luck. We've seen some fairly shonky decision handed down to touring teams at the old cabbage patch and frankly I wouldn't be surprised to see the All Blacks last gasp try against Ireland having been called forward by an errant linesman it tmo.

Heyneke Meyer has the philosophy that you need to factor 9 points per game for refereeing errors.

That is unfortunately the reality of modern day rugby.

Most games that end within a score could realistically be won by either team, purely because of 50/50 calls.

When you look at matches where teams score the same number of tries this becomes more important.

The breakdown of which there were near 400 in the Wales vs Australia game is the biggest contributor.

Scrums in my view the next didtant second highest contributor.

If they were 50/50 calls you'd expect them to even out and have 0 points effect.

The thing is we can often all see (apart from fans of the beneficiary) that they contentious calls are often 100/0 calls, in that they all go one way.

Tbh GE, I think all WUMs on here should aspire to be you. Some of the stuff from WRFC is just terrible.

No ones knows though what would have happened had the linesman seen Brown in touch. Aus may have scored a push over try or they still may have conceded 100 m and failed to clear their lines. The players affect the game far more than the ref and it's them who are ultimately responsible.

If Barnes had incorrectly called a forward pass against Aus who's to say they wouldn't have got a penalty from the scrum and scored as well. Far to many ifs and buts.

Of course it's forward at Twickenham:

We are England.

Biltong wrote:Heyneke Meyer has the philosophy that you need to factor 9 points per game for refereeing errors.

That is unfortunately the reality of modern day rugby.

Very true Biltong...I'd say thats a conservative figure. I'd say the Ab's have built in at least 15-20 to be sure, leaving nothing to chance after the Barnes episode, where on some counts there were as much as 40+ out there.

What a complete load of fanciful rubbish. Can't believe anyone is taking this article seriously. Clearly GE hasn't got over Aus losing.

Every one is going on about this blooming forward pass. Was it forward or not?

Don't know, but one thing i would like to ask all the Welsh fans, why was Gethin Jenkins not yellow carded for taking the Aussi player so Halfpenny could make his brake. No where too be seen are they.

Look the game is over. so lets now move on.

majesticimperialman wrote:Every one is going on about this blooming forward pass. Was it forward or not?

Don't know, but one thing i would like to ask all the Welsh fans, why was Gethin Jenkins not yellow carded for taking the Aussi player so Halfpenny could make his brake. No where too be seen are they.

Look the game is over. so lets now move on.

i noticed that. this is where home team advantage really kicks in. it's the LACK of noise at home team indiscretions that fails to alert many referees as to whether there even was an incident.

gethin jenkins (shouldnt have been yellow mind) clearly runs in front of the kick chaser to protect halfpenny. which he clearly did. penalty australia.

and quade cooper's "yellow" for a tackle on a man without that ball that required 10 replays for the TMO to be sure about it? again, home team advantage get that yellow. have also read a couple of silly posts claiming he should have let play continue and allowed the try. so should wayne barnes have then completely ignored the knock-forwards that happened after the QC early tackle?

and i have no problem with home team advantage by the way. tis the nature of the beast.

but i really didnt like the fairly frequent booing that i heard. had too many spectators been reading the welsh player interviews that week, and the disappointment was too much to bear? was it the pink hatted cocktail drinking crowd who cant appreciate extraordinarily skillful rugby?

I knew it wouldn't take long. A GE classic, even after his week " off"

Some more perspective for you gents on the Autumn tours.


Australia scored 17 tries and 11 penalties in their 5 matches, they conceded 7 tries and 20 penalties

South Africa scored 8 tries and 5 penalties from their 3 matches, they conceded 1 try and 6 penalties

New Zealand scored 8 tries and 8 penalties from their 3 games, they conceded 5 tries and 10 penalties.

The SANZAR nations scored 33 tries, and only 24 penalties which equates to .7 penalty per try scored, whereas they conceded 13 tries and 36 penalties, effectively 2.8 penalties per try scored.

Another way to look at it is the SANZAR nations scored only 2.2 penalties per match compared to 3.3 penalties per match.

We better shore up our discipline for the RWC.

Biltong wrote:Some more perspective for you gents on the Autumn tours.


Australia scored 17 tries and 11 penalties in their 5 matches, they conceded 7 tries and 20 penalties

South Africa scored 8 tries and 5 penalties from their 3 matches, they conceded 1 try and 6 penalties

New Zealand scored 8 tries and 8 penalties from their 3 games, they conceded 5 tries and 10 penalties.

The SANZAR nations scored 33 tries, and only 24 penalties which equates to .7 penalty per try scored, whereas they conceded 13 tries and 36 penalties, effectively 2.8 penalties per try scored.

Another way to look at it is the SANZAR nations scored only 2.2 penalties per match compared to 3.3 penalties per match.

We better shore up our discipline for the RWC.

Especially as Australia won't have the luxury of playing a struggling Italian side...

I find it funny that 6 NH nations records always get compared to just 3 SH teams, where are your next 3 SH teams to make it 6/6 and therefore comparable?

butterfingers wrote:

Biltong wrote:Some more perspective for you gents on the Autumn tours.


Australia scored 17 tries and 11 penalties in their 5 matches, they conceded 7 tries and 20 penalties

South Africa scored 8 tries and 5 penalties from their 3 matches, they conceded 1 try and 6 penalties

New Zealand scored 8 tries and 8 penalties from their 3 games, they conceded 5 tries and 10 penalties.

The SANZAR nations scored 33 tries, and only 24 penalties which equates to .7 penalty per try scored, whereas they conceded 13 tries and 36 penalties, effectively 2.8 penalties per try scored.

Another way to look at it is the SANZAR nations scored only 2.2 penalties per match compared to 3.3 penalties per match.

We better shore up our discipline for the RWC.

Especially as Australia won't have the luxury of playing a struggling Italian side...

I find it funny that 6 NH nations records always get compared to just 3 SH teams, where are your next 3 SH teams to make it 6/6 and therefore comparable?

You can compare as many teams as you like butterfingers, I am looking at the SANZAR nations who participate in Super Rugby.

If you want you can use Samoa, Fiji, Argentina and Tonga, but these guys play their professional rugby in Europe.

Biltong wrote:

butterfingers wrote:

Biltong wrote:Some more perspective for you gents on the Autumn tours.


Australia scored 17 tries and 11 penalties in their 5 matches, they conceded 7 tries and 20 penalties

South Africa scored 8 tries and 5 penalties from their 3 matches, they conceded 1 try and 6 penalties

New Zealand scored 8 tries and 8 penalties from their 3 games, they conceded 5 tries and 10 penalties.

The SANZAR nations scored 33 tries, and only 24 penalties which equates to .7 penalty per try scored, whereas they conceded 13 tries and 36 penalties, effectively 2.8 penalties per try scored.

Another way to look at it is the SANZAR nations scored only 2.2 penalties per match compared to 3.3 penalties per match.

We better shore up our discipline for the RWC.

Especially as Australia won't have the luxury of playing a struggling Italian side...

I find it funny that 6 NH nations records always get compared to just 3 SH teams, where are your next 3 SH teams to make it 6/6 and therefore comparable?

You can compare as many teams as you like butterfingers, I am looking at the SANZAR nations who participate in Super Rugby.

If you want you can use Samoa, Fiji, Argentina and Tonga, but these guys play their professional rugby in Europe.

But your using stats from teams like Scotland and Italy (4 games?) and these skew stats, England, France and arguably Wales are the 3 strongest teams up north, for correct statistics I would compare the SANZAR in those games only.

I wasn't having a pop btw, just making the case weaker teams score less tries and hit more goals, sometimes taking longer efforts at goal too, so whereas NZ could play SA and give a pen on half way, SA would pump it to the corner and look to drive whereas Scotland would take the pot shot at goal.

Staticians never take results they know would manipulate an outcome.

Biltong wrote:Some more perspective for you gents on the Autumn tours.


Australia scored 17 tries and 11 penalties in their 5 matches, they conceded 7 tries and 20 penalties

South Africa scored 8 tries and 5 penalties from their 3 matches, they conceded 1 try and 6 penalties

New Zealand scored 8 tries and 8 penalties from their 3 games, they conceded 5 tries and 10 penalties.

The SANZAR nations scored 33 tries, and only 24 penalties which equates to .7 penalty per try scored, whereas they conceded 13 tries and 36 penalties, effectively 2.8 penalties per try scored.

Another way to look at it is the SANZAR nations scored only 2.2 penalties per match compared to 3.3 penalties per match.

We better shore up our discipline for the RWC.

Well that is obvious you SH cheating barstewards, as you would rather give away 3 points rather than 7:D 

OK, excluding Italy and Scotland.

OZ (3 matches)
Tries scored 8
Penalties scored 7

Tries conceded 4
Penalties conceded 11

SA (2 matches)
Tries scored 4
Penalties scored 5

Tries conceded 1
Penalties conceded 6

NZ (nz 3 matches)
Tries scored 8
Penalties scored 8

Tries conceded 5
Penalties conceded 10

SANZAR
Tries scored 20
Penalties scored 20

Europe
Tries scored 10
Penalties scored 27

I'm confused, what are those stats for?

Bit surprized the kiwis conceded 5 tries up here!

butterfingers wrote:I'm confused, what are those stats for?

excluding Italy and Scotland

Biltong wrote:Heyneke Meyer has the philosophy that you need to factor 9 points per game for refereeing errors.

That is unfortunately the reality of modern day rugby.

Most games that end within a score could realistically be won by either team, purely because of 50/50 calls.

When you look at matches where teams score the same number of tries this becomes more important.

The breakdown of which there were near 400 in the Wales vs Australia game is the biggest contributor.

Scrums in my view the next didtant second highest contributor.

That's a very interesting post Biltong...

You should make that a thread.

maestegmafia wrote:

Biltong wrote:Heyneke Meyer has the philosophy that you need to factor 9 points per game for refereeing errors.

That is unfortunately the reality of modern day rugby.

Most games that end within a score could realistically be won by either team, purely because of 50/50 calls.

When you look at matches where teams score the same number of tries this becomes more important.

The breakdown of which there were near 400 in the Wales vs Australia game is the biggest contributor.

Scrums in my view the next didtant second highest contributor.

That's a very interesting post Biltong...

You should make that a thread.

It could make interesting debate Maes, problem is I first ave to analyse a couple of games to take ligitimate examples out of them.

Will see if I have the time to do it during the week.

How about start with the Australia/England game at twickenham BT?

Haha, I know where you are going with that.....

let's not start with friendlies, why not start with the last RWC final?

The RWC final has been done to death, a franchman did it and had a french lady explain it all, unfortunately it is a cery biased piece of video, however it does explain the point of interpretation well.

Lets not use the term friendlies please. It seems like it is only used by a small number of NH fans when they lose so not a representative sample of rugby games.

nganboy wrote:Lets not use the term friendlies please. It seems like it is only used by a small number of NH fans when they lose so not a representative sample of rugby games.

ok, let's just reserve the "friendly" term for Eng's 1st test against NZ in June when Eng are likely to be without 12-15 first choice players? surely that is grounds for it being downgraded from test status, no?

quinsforever wrote:

nganboy wrote:Lets not use the term friendlies please. It seems like it is only used by a small number of NH fans when they lose so not a representative sample of rugby games.

ok, let's just reserve the "friendly" term for Eng's 1st test against NZ in June when Eng are likely to be without 12-15 first choice players? surely that is grounds for it being downgraded from test status, no?

Why will England be without 12-15 of their players?

Because of domestic rugby, am I correct?

Then why schedule a test that early?

Biltong wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Biltong wrote:Heyneke Meyer has the philosophy that you need to factor 9 points per game for refereeing errors.

That is unfortunately the reality of modern day rugby.

Most games that end within a score could realistically be won by either team, purely because of 50/50 calls.

When you look at matches where teams score the same number of tries this becomes more important.

The breakdown of which there were near 400 in the Wales vs Australia game is the biggest contributor.

Scrums in my view the next didtant second highest contributor.

That's a very interesting post Biltong...

You should make that a thread.

It could make interesting debate Maes, problem is I first ave to analyse a couple of games to take ligitimate examples out of them.

Will see if I have the time to do it during the week.

Any fan taking the time to do that sorta thing is always massively appreciated...

Biltong wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

nganboy wrote:Lets not use the term friendlies please. It seems like it is only used by a small number of NH fans when they lose so not a representative sample of rugby games.

ok, let's just reserve the "friendly" term for Eng's 1st test against NZ in June when Eng are likely to be without 12-15 first choice players? surely that is grounds for it being downgraded from test status, no?

Why will England be without 12-15 of their players?

Because of domestic rugby, am I correct?

Then why schedule a test that early?

whichever union is to blame (AP schedule was fixed before the intl dates), NZRFU refused to entertain moving the 3 match series back by a week in spite of the RFU asking the IRB to step in. Home nation union has control.

whose fault is that? not the clubs thats for sure. either RFU or NZRFU. i couldnt really care which to be honest. but it's still pretty embarrassing.

Biltong wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

nganboy wrote:Lets not use the term friendlies please. It seems like it is only used by a small number of NH fans when they lose so not a representative sample of rugby games.

ok, let's just reserve the "friendly" term for Eng's 1st test against NZ in June when Eng are likely to be without 12-15 first choice players? surely that is grounds for it being downgraded from test status, no?

Why will England be without 12-15 of their players?

Because of domestic rugby, am I correct?

Then why schedule a test that early?

Greed. The NZRU wanted to move the game by a week, but that makes the final test clash with a sporting event which the broadcaster wishes to prevent clashing with.

it usually is about money for someone. not surprised. not disappointed.

but think england should get the 1st test downgraded to a Saxons match. either officially, or unofficiallly.

Bkuuuuurk! Buk buk buk buk bkuuuuuuurk!

A two test series loss sounds better than a three - zip black wash? Or just because the rating won't be dinged as badly?

no, because i'd really like to see the Saxons open a can of whup-ass on yer boys

Bilt wrote:"Heyneke Meyer has the philosophy that you need to factor 9 points per game for refereeing errors.

That is unfortunately the reality of modern day rugby.

Most games that end within a score could realistically be won by either team, purely because of 50/50 calls.

When you look at matches where teams score the same number of tries this becomes more important.

The breakdown of which there were near 400 in the Wales vs Australia game is the biggest contributor.

Scrums in my view the next didtant second highest contributor."

Exactly . I made the point earlier that the majority of these games (close ones , including many of the AI games) in football would end in a draw, and as FANS we need to recognize that if your team DOESNT win big then its in the lap of the gods and you shouldnt complain.

However the reality is this isn't about Modern day rugby. I am sure we have actually got better as time has gone on with refereeing decisions. Its just that there are highlighted more due to technology

Well in your dream world where that happens, you could just call them the Saxons? Doesn't that solve the problem?

GE why have you made this thread bud?

Isnt it about time you just got over the Eng NZ loss last year

Because I thought it was an interesting comparison that Wales got no favours from Englishman Barnes, but England got a number of helpful lucky interpretations and blind spots out of clown shoes and his cohorts, and then the normally impeccable Joubert the next week.

Was just wondering what the "twickenham factor" is that seems to be such a lucky charm for England?

Well if you cant see the decisons that went for Wales and for Australia(v eng) then I can only assume you have an issue with England. Which off course 100% of the forum know anyway.

mystiroakey wrote:Well if you cant see the decisons that went for Wales and for Australia(v eng) then I can only assume you have an issue with England. Which off course 100% of the forum know anyway.

Decisions that went for Australia? Hmm, let's see...England were only allowed 15 players on the pitch at once this time. Any others?

Wow you really have it bad .

Good night mate

Dont get to annoyed with the English commuters on your way to work tommorow.

Didn't think you'd be able to point one out.

Night! (I don't mingle with commuters)

No.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg&feature=youtu.be

but my biggest problem is the momentum being stopped in the tackle and the pass moving forward after that or during i.e. an offload in the tackle.

Biltong wrote:OK, excluding Italy and Scotland.

OZ (3 matches)
Tries scored 8
Penalties scored 7

Tries conceded 4
Penalties conceded 11

SA (2 matches)
Tries scored 4
Penalties scored 5

Tries conceded 1
Penalties conceded 6

NZ (nz 3 matches)
Tries scored 8
Penalties scored 8

Tries conceded 5
Penalties conceded 10

SANZAR
Tries scored 20
Penalties scored 20

Europe
Tries scored 10
Penalties scored 27

Perhaps we could say the following

NZ
PLayed ENG, FRA & IRE ranked 4,5 & 7 (ave. 5.33)
Scored 8 or 2.66 per match
Conceded 5 or 1.66 per match

AUS
Played ENG, IRE & WAL ranked 4,6 & 7 (ave. 5.66)
Scored 8 or 2.66 per match
Conceded 4 or 1.33 per match

Boks
Played WAL & FRA ranked 5 & 6 (ave. 5.5)
Scored 4 or 2.00 per match
Conceded 1 or 0.50 per match

ENG
Played NZ, ARG & AUS ranked 1,10 & 3 (ave. 4.66)
Scored 7 or 2.33 per match
Conceded 4 or 1.33 per match

WAL
Played SA, ARG & AUS ranked 2,10 & 3 (ave. 5.00)
Scored 6 or 2.00 per match
Conceded 6 or 2.00 per match

IRE
Played NZ & AUS ranked 1 & 3 (ave. 2.00)
Scored 3 or 1.50 per match
Conceded 7 or 3.50 per match

From that you could say that Sanzar scored 19 tries in 8 games or 2.37 per game (RC or 6N sides only ex. SCO & ITA). ENG, IRE & WAL scored 16 tries in 8 games or 2.00 per gameso only 3 down over the same number of games. The diff being -0.37 tries per game between Sanzar & ENG, IRE & WAL.
Additionally, whereas Sanzar played 8 matches against sides on ave. ranked 5.5 in the world, ENG, IRE & WAL played  teams on ave. ranked 4.1 in the world so they played a better calibre of opposition so it would be natural to assume their tries scored would be less.

However, whereas ENG, IRE & WAL conceded 17 tries or 2.13 per match, Sanzar only conceded 10 tries 1.25 per match. A deficit of -0.88 per match.

From that it would suggest that the difference between ENG, IRE & WAL and Sanzar lies not in tries scored (-0.37), but tries conceded (-0.88).... but as I said before... they played 8 games where the opposition was ranked significantly higher then Sanzars opposition so their task was more difficult.

England conceded 1.33 tries per match. Australia conceded 1.33 and New Zealand conceded 1.66.

From your numbers.

Also, why were Samoa discounted? They're ranked higher than Argentina (is it because they're not in the RC?).

You could get rid of Argentina to make the number betteer/worse but they then played the equivalent of 2nd.

Edit: so

ENG
Played NZ & AUS ranked 1 & 3 (ave. 2.00)
Scored 4 or 2.00 per match
Conceded 4 or 2.00 per match

and the defensive team of the autumn iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisssssssssss: SA

Biltong wrote:and the defensive team of the autumn iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisssssssssss: SA

That's what happens when you play teams ranked 5th and below  

HammerofThunor wrote:England conceded 1.33 tries per match. Australia conceded 1.33 and New Zealand conceded 1.66.

From your numbers.

Also, why were Samoa discounted? They're ranked higher than Argentina (is it because they're not in the RC?).

You could get rid of Argentina to make the number betteer/worse but they then played the equivalent of 2nd.

Edit: so

ENG
Played NZ & AUS ranked 1 & 3 (ave. 2.00)
Scored 4 or 2.00 per match
Conceded 4 or 2.00 per match

Hi Hammer, yeah I just took looked at RC and 6N sides ex. Italy and Scotland. When I saw the samoa team against Ireland it looked like they were missing quite a few key players and looked under-strength... i mean they lost to Georgia!!!

England did quite well I have to say even though they were slammed/not taken seriously by most pundits i.e. Guscott, Barnes etc.