My Dad's bigger than your Dad

First topic message reminder :

Date: Saturday 10th November 2018
Time: 15:00
Location: Twickenham Stadium

Referee:       Jerome Garces (France)
Assistant 1:  Jaco Peyper (SA)
Assistant 2:  Marius Mitrea (Italy)
TMO:            Marius Jonker (SA)




Teams


England

[size=42]15 Elliot Daly (Wasps, 22 caps), 14 Chris Ashton (Sale Sharks, 40 caps), 13 Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 14 caps), 12 Ben Te’o (Worcester Warriors, 14 caps), 11 Jonny May (Leicester Tigers, 38 caps), 10 Owen Farrell (Saracens, 62 caps) co-captain, 9 Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 78 caps), 1 Ben Moon (Exeter Chiefs, 1 cap), 2 Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints, 94 caps) co-captain, 3 Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins, 14 caps), 4 Maro Itoje (Saracens, 23 caps), 5 George Kruis (Saracens, 26 caps), 6 Brad Shields (Wasps, 3 caps), 7 Sam Underhill (Bath Rugby, 6 caps), 8 Mark Wilson (Newcastle Falcons, 5 caps).[/size]
[size=42]Finishers[/size]
[size=42]16 Jamie George (Saracens, 29 caps), 17 Alec Hepburn (Exeter Chiefs, 3 caps), 18 Harry Williams (Exeter Chiefs, 12 caps), 19 Charlie Ewels (Bath Rugby, 7 caps), 20 Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 65 caps), 21 Danny Care (Harlequins, 82 caps), 22 George Ford (Leicester Tigers, 48 caps), 23 Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 27 caps).[/size]




New Zealand

1. Karl Tu'inukuafe (10)
2. Codie Taylor (39)
3. Owen Franks (104)
4. Samuel Whitelock (106)
5. Brodie Retallick (72)
6. Liam Squire (21) 
7. Ardie Savea (32)
8. Kieran Read - captain (115)
9. Aaron Smith (80)
10. Beauden Barrett (70)
11. Rieko Ioane (21)
12. Sonny Bill Williams (50)
13. Jack Goodhue (5)
14. Ben Smith (74)
15. Damian McKenzie (20)

16. Dane Coles (57)
17. Ofa Tuungafasi (23)
18. Nepo Laulala (14)
19. Scott Barrett (26)
20. Matt Todd (15)
21. TJ Perenara (52)
22. Richie Mo'unga (5)
23. Ryan Crotty (42

Taylorman wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I take that as you don't know then Taylor!  I don't.  Website is still under the old rules.

Dont know whether its the whole maul or just your own players in it. He was definitely in front of some players, who its hard to tell from the other side of the field view we were given.

It was a ruck not a maul and the laws say you have to be behind the back foot of your hindmost player AFAIK. As far as I could see Youngs was the hindmost player but he was on the floor under a bundle of ABs. Lawes was behind him so even if there were other England player in the ruck (which I can't see) then he would have still been behind them from my view.

Sorry it was Ford on the ground.

munkian wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:I just hope England hang in there and are in the game with 5 mins to go.
If they manage that and lose I think we will still be in a good place.

Saying that unless we improve our discipline then we will get thumped by the Kiwis, oh we also need to start scoring tries (minimum of 3 vs NZ)

We will score 3 tries, but will concede double that I fear.

You'll score 3 tries against NZ but couldn't score 1 against a very poor SA side ?

No-one will convince me that we did not score 3 tries today. Especially as Lawes was told by the ref that he was ok in his initial standing position. Ref just checking whether he went early, and TMO overrules him on the other.

No 7&1/2 wrote:On what is it based ebop.  I don't think any of is know?

Probably explains why you’re not an international referee. Do you think the referee and TMO cheated England? I’m glad they pinged England a few times for offside during the game. They could have a lot more to be fair.

So you don't know either ebop.

Looked offside to me 7.5

Yes ruck at that point. Havent gone back to check it but as I said, pedantic and if incorrect all the worse. I was comfortable losing to a try lime that, highlight of the match...for a few seconds...

Yeah..based on what ebop? Looked offside to before I questioned what I was basing it on.

7.5, what did you say this week about ‘idiots’ focusing on one moment in a game after Farrell’s unpenalised no-arms tackle? Can you remind us again please 7.5. Maybe you should be focusing on how England blew a 15-0 lead.

Lawes looked like he was behind was well onside. to me.

But the ref ( southern Hemisphere) ref i might add. could not Englnad truly win against the Abs now could he?

I like to pick apart decisions ebop but england lost because our lineout went to pieces with shields going off (at least that's the bit for me).
I was asking a question based on a refs decision as I like to pick through things I don't agree with or don't understand. I don't understand the current ruling on rucks since they switched. You don't either it appears so don't know what your issue is?

Again idiots would focus on 1 decision and say that's why the match was lost. As I said there weren't many idiots last week.

Plenty this week though huh

7.5 lineout fell apart before Shields went off, as he lost one of them. Him going off had nothing to do with it. Issue was a mix of Rettalick reading the calls and getting up in front, and George underthrowing.

Well it appears that none of us can say that the offside laws have changed prior to the new ruck rules? That was my question.

Not sure any of that happened before he went off for the hia lt.

I have just noticed that the ( TMO) Was South African.

Could he be that England beat South Africa last week by 1 point. He decided it was not going to happen this week against New Zealand.

Not being a sore loser you understand. It is just my opinion that in situations like this( Lawes being on/off side) The call all ways seem to go against "ENGLAND" when a Southern Hemisphere TMO is invovled.

Add in Care spinning it wide when we needed a drop goal, and Farrell kicking out on the full leading to NZs goal at the end of first half, and there are plenty of reasons we lost.

What in my opinion was a shocking call by the TMO is one of those reasons. Perhaps we will still be bleating about it over a decade later as happens with games lost due to a forward pass?

What is missing from what I can see is clarification of where the offside line is if there are no players from one side on their feet ....

Oh agree lt. I'd throw in the hasty knock on lineout and mistake in the knock on in the 1st half. Think it was sinckler or moon possibly can't remember. England mistakes stopped us winning. But I'm genuinely unsure of the offside line if there no longer needs to be a opposition player in the ruck.

Yes heaf. I can't find it. Purely a question. May well be the ref is right.

I'd assume it's either the back of the body of the player on the ground or the ball ... but it could do with clarifying ...

majesticimperialman wrote:I have just noticed that the ( TMO) Was South African.

Could he be that England beat South Africa last week by 1 point. He decided it was not going to happen this week against New Zealand.

Not being a sore loser you understand. It is just my opinion that in situations like this( Lawes being on/off side) The call all ways seem to go against "ENGLAND" when a Southern Hemisphere TMO is invovled.

Interesting, cos 7.5 told us all week he didnt want to hear us talking about one bad refs decision. Oh and norovirus, and food poisoning.

Funny how that sometimes plays out. I didnt like it either mind you. I thought it was well deserved.

If you want to accuse someone Taylor of blaming 1 decision on a 80 min plus game as I have done feel free to do so as it makes that person a bit of an idiot a smile said. Just back me next time.

majesticimperialman wrote:I have just noticed that the ( TMO) Was South African.

Could he be that England beat South Africa last week by 1 point. He decided it was not going to happen this week against New Zealand.

Not being a sore loser you understand. It is just my opinion that in situations like this( Lawes being on/off side) The call all ways seem to go against "ENGLAND" when a Southern Hemisphere TMO is invovled.

Last year the lions change of decision came with a french linesman, oddly adter the tmo and ref had agreed on the penalty. 2007 came with a south african linesman doing nothing on the obvious pass and barnes doing a ghost impression, white as one all match, couldnt make a single decision.

South Africa has been done by refs, as have Scotland under Joubert. England are not alone in this. You just think you are. Everyone only cares when its them. Nature of the beast.

Oh. You are still trying to blame 1 off decisions on results. Oh dear. Including the lions one where the read offside was missed.

OK back to the question ...

"Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line."

So I think my assumption that it would be the hindmost point of Ford who went to ground as part of the tackle was correct ... and Lawes for me was behind Ford.

That's the old ruck laws though isn't it heaf?

No 7&1/2 wrote:If you want to accuse someone Taylor of blaming 1 decision on a 80 min plus game as I have done feel free to do so as it makes that person a bit of an idiot a smile said. Just back me next time.

Not accusing, just an observation. Truth is we ALL get done by refs, and for me its due to the complexity of the rules rather than the refs themselves, and possibly the interpretation between the hemispheres. Watch tennis and you get hawkeye and all looking at a single round green ball, and a white line. Not a lot of ambiguity there.

Watch a rugby replay and you have several players, standing, running, lying down, a ball somewhere else, several moveents happening at once. How one can be definitive enough to apply a ruling in front of up to 80,000 people correctly every time in seconds is never going to be 100% correct.

Having looked at it again, I still think Lawes is onside, though the laws are unclear.

Lawes is clearly behind George Ford's foot (as the law states, the 'hindmost foot') for the entire process, but is the foot still counted when the player in question (Ford) is lying the wrong way (i.e. with his feet pointing toward the All Black try line)?

If it's instead the head of George Ford that is counted as the offside line, then's it marginal, and with the angle of the television cameras probably deceptive (i.e. it's not a straight angle), though it still looks as though Lawes is behind Ford's head at the crucial moment.

So, for me, a try and England cruelly denied. I agree that an entire 80 minute match shouldn't come down to one decision, but when it happens so late, there is little opportunity for the wronged team to rectify the officials error.

I thought South Africa were unfortunate last week, I think England were unlucky this time.

And I'm happy we can all argue over interpetation Taylor. Love it. I'm simply saying I don't know the clear law here. It doesn't appear anyone does?

Duty281 wrote:Having looked at it again, I still think Lawes is onside, though the laws are unclear.

Lawes is clearly behind George Ford's foot (as the law states, the 'hindmost foot') for the entire process, but is the foot still counted when the player in question (Ford) is lying the wrong way (i.e. with his feet pointing toward the All Black try line)?

If it's instead the head of George Ford that is counted as the offside line, then's it marginal, and with the angle of the television cameras probably deceptive (i.e. it's not a straight angle), though it still looks as though Lawes is behind Ford's head at the crucial moment.

So, for me, a try and England cruelly denied. I agree that an entire 80 minute match shouldn't come down to one decision, but when it happens so late, there is little opportunity for the wronged team to rectify the officials error.

I thought South Africa were unfortunate last week, I think England were unlucky this time.

Good summary, tend to agree.

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's the old ruck laws though isn't it heaf?

No it's listed as part of the 2018 amendments ...

Great effort by England, so so very close. Performed far better than some predictions by certain folk on here. Could (and probably should) have won that. A lot of positives to take away from today and I’m sure lessons will be learnt. I’ll not dwell on the obvious game changing decision but, that would have been a fitting end to the game for me. A step forwards as far as I’m concerned. Let’s look forward.

You're right. I was reading it as a player from each side so yeah. Lawes is onside from that?

No 7&1/2 wrote:And I'm happy we can all argue over interpetation Taylor.  Love it. I'm simply saying I don't know the clear law here. It doesn't appear anyone does?

I think I just cleared that up?

I think so. Bar the fact the refs seem to think otherwise!

Ref/TMO is what counts unfortunately.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You're right. I was reading it as a player from each side so yeah. Lawes is onside from that?

From my view yes - TMO either didn't know the laws or was boss-eyed. It was certainly close but not 'clear and obvious' so should not have been able to overrule the try based on that. Still thems the breaks ...but tough on Underhill who could potentially say he scored the winning try against the ABs on one of the rare occasions we beat them - and a well taken one at that, not just a flop over the line.

The weather was a great leveller and since Ireland played poorly too, next week
is another game that will be very interesting.

Hopefully no controversy over decisions by refs.Aus lost to Wales and it looked
like rubbish.

The law states....“Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball”.

Lawes looked in front of the hindmost point of the English player lying on the ground. Not by as much as it first appeared given the defensive line was further back but he was in front. That’s the reality. Shame for England because it was a nice play by the No7 but it was offside.

Steve Hansen thought so to

Don't hold your breath for no controversy Taylor is right, with the complexity of the laws etc it's more likely than not ...

Taylorman wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote:I have just noticed that the ( TMO) Was South African.

Could he be that England beat South Africa last week by 1 point. He decided it was not going to happen this week against New Zealand.

Not being a sore loser you understand. It is just my opinion that in situations like this( Lawes being on/off side) The call all ways seem to go against "ENGLAND" when a Southern Hemisphere TMO is invovled.

Last year the lions change of decision came with a french linesman, oddly adter the tmo and ref had agreed on the penalty. 2007 came with a south african linesman doing nothing on the obvious pass and barnes doing a ghost impression, white as one all match, couldnt make a single decision.

South Africa has been done by refs, as have Scotland under Joubert. England are not alone in this. You just think you are. Everyone only cares when its them. Nature of the beast.

It is absolutely human nature that we tend to remember the things that went against us much more than those which went for us

Lawes was offside but if it hadn't led to a try there would have been no penalty

Lat week it was all the buzz that with the OF tackle England were lucky to win. Fair do's. This week the talk will be about how NZ got lucky with the dubious offside call. Won't it?

alanmackie6 wrote:The weather was a great leveller and since Ireland played poorly too, next week
is another game that will be very interesting.

Hopefully no controversy over decisions by refs.Aus lost to Wales and it looked
like rubbish.

Yes. Welsh defense was good, and that is about all you can say about the game. Australia can be fantastic to watch. All the switch moves and reverse passes to try and shift the point of attack are very impressive but didn't actually add up to anything. When they were in the Welsh 22 and had run out of space to try the flashy stuff they looked slow and pretty hopeless.

And I heard from some people that wet weather would favour new zealand as they were the best in the world in it.

Barney, you’d like to hope so in the cause of consistency but sadly I doubt it.

7.5, you would think it would favour them.

The Great Aukster wrote:Lawes was offside but if it hadn't led to a try there would have been no penalty

Indeed, that's one of the crueller aspects of the TMO system. Had Underhill been tackled by Barrett, and England go through another 10 phases before getting over the line, then almost certainly a try.