England v USA - July 4th...USA independence day....

First topic message reminder :

Teams...

England
1 Genge
2 Langdon,
3 Heyes,
4 McInally,
5 Ewels,
6 Ludlow, (Captain)
7 Underhill,
8 Chick,

9 Randall,
10 Smith,
11 Malins,
12Lawrence,
13 Slade,
14 Cokanasiga,
15 Steward

Subs
Blamire, Obano, Davidson, Hill, B Curry, Ludlum, Robson, Umaga

United States team:

1. David Ainu'u - Toulouse (FRA) - 9 caps
2. Mikey Sosene-Feagai - Old Glory DC - 5 caps
3. Paul Mullen - Utah Warriors - 18 caps
4. Gregory Peterson - Newcastle Falcons (ENG) - 30 caps
5. Nick Civetta - Rugby United New York - 26 caps
6. Jamason Fa'anana-Schultz - Old Glory DC - 2 caps
7. Riekert Hattingh - Seattle Seawolves - Uncapped
8. Cam Dolan - NOLA Gold - 51 caps
9. Ruben de Haas - Austin Gilgronis - 17 caps
10. Luke Carty - LA Giltinis - Uncapped
11. Mika Kruse - Utah Warriors - Uncapped
12. Bryce Campbell - Austin Gilgronis - 32 caps
13. Marcel Brache - Western Force (AUS) - 23 caps
14. Mikey Te'o - Utah Warriors - 28 caps
15. Will Hooley - Saracens (ENG) - 15 caps

Subs
16. Joe Taufete'e - Lyon (FRA) - 27 caps
17. Matt Harmon - NOLA Gold - Uncapped
18. Dino Waldren - NOLA Gold - 19 caps
19. Nate Brakeley - Rugby United New York - 23 caps
20. Psalm Wooching - San Diego Legion - 4 caps
21. Hanco Germishuys - Rugby United New York - 21 caps
22. Michael Baska - Utah Warriors - Uncapped
23. Calvin Whiting - Utah Warriors - 1 cap

New defence coach needed.

It was poor defensively, but then we had a bloody scrum half on the wing for a big portion of the game.

Second rows were very poor

Has somebody slipped something into the drinks of these C4 presenters? It was a regulation win and a poor performance, stop acting like it is the WC final!

Cumbrian wrote:It was poor defensively, but then we had a bloody scrum half on the wing for a big portion of the game.

Dive and miss Umaga in midfield didn't help either. Robson seemed to relish the attacking elements of wing play and actively avoid the defensive ones.

An actual backline and a different lock pairing for next week should see some improvements.

On the upside Randall and Smith work as a halfback pairing. Langdon, Blamire and Heyes all looked good on debut up front. Obano was disappointing though. The back three combination looked good for the 10 minutes it was allowed to function, had it remained for the full 80 then a lot more tries would have been scored. Steward being solid at the back and looking to the manor born allowing how other wingers to go looking for work knowing he'd be covering in for them if need be.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:It was poor defensively, but then we had a bloody scrum half on the wing for a big portion of the game.

Dive and miss Umaga in midfield didn't help either. Robson seemed to relish the attacking elements of wing play and actively avoid the defensive ones.

An actual backline and a different lock pairing for next week should see some improvements.

On the upside Randall and Smith work as a halfback pairing. Langdon, Blamire and Heyes all looked good on debut up front. Obano was disappointing though. The back three combination looked good for the 10 minutes it was allowed to function, had it remained for the full 80 then a lot more tries would have been scored. Steward being solid at the back and looking to the manor born allowing how other wingers to go looking for work knowing he'd be covering in for them if need be.

Agreed. I would caveat that Smith looked like he was trying too hard at times, but who could blame him? He's been pushed into the background and probably felt that he had to make his mark.

Cumbrian wrote:Has somebody slipped something into the drinks of these C4 presenters?  It was a regulation win and a poor performance, stop acting like it is the WC final!

Ive put a complaint in to c4 about the standard of the commentary

What’s the Geordie equivalent of “Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells”

Cumbrian wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:It was poor defensively, but then we had a bloody scrum half on the wing for a big portion of the game.

Dive and miss Umaga in midfield didn't help either. Robson seemed to relish the attacking elements of wing play and actively avoid the defensive ones.

An actual backline and a different lock pairing for next week should see some improvements.

On the upside Randall and Smith work as a halfback pairing. Langdon, Blamire and Heyes all looked good on debut up front. Obano was disappointing though. The back three combination looked good for the 10 minutes it was allowed to function, had it remained for the full 80 then a lot more tries would have been scored. Steward being solid at the back and looking to the manor born allowing how other wingers to go looking for work knowing he'd be covering in for them if need be.

Agreed.  I would caveat that Smith looked like he was trying too hard at times, but who could blame him? He's been pushed into the background and probably felt that he had to make his mark.  

Very much so. Randall as well. Hopefully that's just an experience thing and they learn from that. I'd give them another shot next week, they've earned that.

Plus points: Randall, Smith, Lawrence, Cokanasiga, Heyes, Malins' take from the kick-off to make Underhill's try, Blamire was a breath of fresh air in the loose after Langdon was being a bit "meh", the "double hit" tackles, Ben Curry, Lewis Ludlum, Freddie Steward, oh, and Sam Underhill was immense.

Minus points: Randall's charge-down try, the dreadful defence, both locks being poor and a bit stupid, Obano was awful, Robson's tackling ability (surely he's done at this level now? Can we have him back at Wasps next season?), Umaga had to play out of position for his first cap which wasn't ideal, Callum Chick not being particularly brilliant, Lewis Ludlow being utterly forgettable, plus Ellis Genge is not Captain or even Vice Captain material based on this showing.

Lots to work on. I am expecting a fair few changes next week - maybe Curry to start, Randall starts with Mitchell on the bench (or vice versa as I think Randall would be some impact player), with Dombrandt of course at 8. I would be interested to see if either of the young 12s will be given a start. Smith looks like he's cemented himself at 10 and I'd say Steward could be our answer at 15 - at least for next weekend! Plus Radwan on the wing - I would be expecting to see some scorching running from him - that boy has wheels.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:Has somebody slipped something into the drinks of these C4 presenters?  It was a regulation win and a poor performance, stop acting like it is the WC final!

Ive put a complaint in to c4 about the standard of the commentary

Brian Moore would have been hilarious if they'd have got him. Imagine how apoplectic he'd be with Ewels for collapsing that maul or Mcinally for batting the ball out of the 9's hands? Comedy gold right there...

England
1 Genge   Not great, would of looked  better had a couple of passes stuck but had the US scrum in all kinds of trouble
2 Langdon,  Darts were good. Standing around inspecting rucks not looking like he knew what to do not so good

3 Heyes, Solid
4 McInally, Meh
5 Ewels, Should of been better
6 Ludlow, (Captain) who? I think I saw him make one tackle
7 Underhill, Whenever he comes back he reminds everyone of how good he is. Different class to Ludlow
8 Chick, Unlucky the ball seldom came to him but made some thumping tackles

9 Randall, Sharp, inexperienced
10 Smith,  Looked very good. Not everything worked but he looked confident and was at the centre of a lot of good
11 Malins,  Razor sharp until he did his shoulder
12Lawrence, Very solid, got the chance to show his talents..... Unlucky with the clash of heads
13 Slade,  meh. Should have provided more leadership in the rejigged backline. Maybe he did. I don't know.
14 Cokanasiga, Great match. Not just ball in hand but defensively, earning a turnover and very unlucky not to make the try for Ludlam.
15 Steward.  Very strong showing. Got most things right, strong in the air.

Subs
Blamire, Opposite to Langdon. Really needs to sort the darts but otherwise a real handfull
Obano,  No chance to show much of anything
Davidson,  Had more minutes than Obano but I can't remember him doing anything
Hill,  Fairly anonymous
B Curry, Promising
Ludlum, You have to wonder why he wasn't in the squad in the 6N. Looked very good
Robson,  He's not a wing
Umaga, No idea what he is.

anyone know what was happening in the scrums as we seemed to be totally dominant and yet conceded lots of penalties?

hugehandoff wrote:anyone know what was happening in the scrums as we seemed to be totally dominant and yet conceded lots of penalties?

Ref tried to even things up and make it a contest. USA were allowed to not take the hit, stand up and fold in half. England had to be perfectly straight even if the USA were crumbling and not apply an ounce of pressure before the USA had the ball into the second row.

For me;

Front row - worked well, hampered by a pedantic referee who was looking to level the game up. When allowed to scrum demolished their opposite numbers. When he went off Heyes was the England top tackler, Genge carried often and hard and Langdon was good with his darts.

Lock - dumb penalties, seemed unable to exert an presence at either attacking or defending the rolling maul. They were really poor.

Backrow - Ludlow and Chick were to quiet and didn't do enough to really be noticed. Underhill got through a lot of work and was obviously the capped international.

Half backs - tried to hard and made unnecessary errors at times. When they backed themselves and just played within the system they were very good. Smith off the tee wasn't great which was not what we saw in the Prem final and Randall's charge down really just fatigue leading to last technique.

Centres - looked good for the short time they played together. Slade vanished from the game when Lawrence went to the wing. Lawrence looked good ball in hand though really isn't a winger, shame he could have stayed on longer.

Back three - looked very dangerous early doors. Malins really unlucky. Steward looked to the manor born instead of a youth on his debut, two assists as well. Big Joe looked dangerous hoping he's finally refinding his form.

Replacements - Blamire very impressive round the park but throwing in was not the best. Obano and Davison made no impact and both looked weaker than those they replaced, particularly disappointing as we know what Obano is capable of. Hill anonymous, Ludlum and Curry were very busy and Ludlum scored a nice try but neither are demanding inclusion past this summer at the minute. Robson out is position on the wing relished the attacking role and actively avoided the defensive aspects. Umaga couldn't tackle and did little to nothing ball in hand.

6-2 split hurt us. Can't get around that. Hopefully we see Radwan, Marchant and Dombrandt come in for the next game and give us a little more spark.

hugehandoff wrote:anyone know what was happening in the scrums as we seemed to be totally dominant and yet conceded lots of penalties?

Yep - the officials were clueless ...

Well comfortable with a few good performances and a few guys looking like the fill ins they are. Should well have been a better scoreline as for me there's a clear red card in the first half and risk of a 6 2 bench clearly demonstrated. Reckon we will get Radwan and Kelly next week?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well comfortable with a few good performances and a few guys looking like the fill ins they are. Should well have been a better scoreline as for me there's a clear red card in the first half and risk of a 6 2 bench clearly demonstrated. Reckon we will get Radwan and Kelly next week?

9. Randall
10. Smith
11. Radwan
12. Kelly
13. Marchant
14. Cockasiga
15. Steward

I could get behind that as a backline. Mitchell, Slade and Hassell-Collins on the bench?

I like that Sam. Not sure H-C s is in the squad anymore? Of course could be called up as injury replacement.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I like that Sam. Not sure H-C s is in the squad anymore? Of course could be called up as injury replacement.

No H-C. Of course they could decide to use marchant on the wing....

lostinwales wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I like that Sam. Not sure H-C s is in the squad anymore? Of course could be called up as injury replacement.

No H-C. Of course they could decide to use marchant on the wing....

Possibly but that would bring Slade back in to start whereas he could quite conceivably cover 10/12/13/15 from the bench with equal input into the output of the game. Bassett instead of OHC maybe though that's a little bland albeit you can rely on Bassett to play well enough.

I was out this morning and missed the match. Please don't tell me what happened....

I was joking. I was out playing Touch Rugby when the game was on and everyone had the score updates...

I am going to watch this evening. How do you think the American boys did? Anyone stand out from your point of view.

Yeah, their sub 21, South African boytjie

doctor_grey wrote:I was joking.  I was out playing Touch Rugby when the game was on and everyone had the score updates...

I am going to watch this evening.  How do you think the American boys did?  Anyone stand out from your point of view.  

Cam Dolan the Eagles number 8 was the pick of their players. All day effort from him. Te'o at the back is a class act for USA and Carty at 10 looked like he could develop into a handy player. 

For England Heyes was the England top tackler when he went off and looked dominant at scrum time. Only one big carry though, need more if he wants to oust Stuart and Sinckler. Smith and Randall were raw but exciting as expected, will need to tidy their games up before they displace the incumbents but very positive signs. Randall has overtaken Robson already. Steward looked to the manor born and Blamire off the bench very much caught the eye.

Glad to see Cam Dolan, former Saint, looking good. The MLR is finally giving some real structure and better coaching to America. As the league beds in, along with relationships with their universities, their next step is recruiting more and better athletes.

Duty281 wrote:Andrew Brace is a hopeless referee.

Welcome to the refereeing standards that we have in the Pro14.

Duty281 wrote:Andrew Brace is a hopeless referee.

Brace seems to be once bitten twice shy with England - he was unnecessarily badly criticised for missing a knock-on v France in the final Autumn Nations cup game and now seems to penalise England too much to make sure that doesn't happen again.

I think the overall standard of refereeing is becoming worse, or the referee role is being lost somewhat. What are they there to do - referee a match or dictate what happens?

Its gone from being a contest for the ball to 'playing' the referee the best.

I'm still scratching my head on the challenge on Steward in the first half. Winning an initial aerial ball does no give free reign to pull a player down on his head. Perhaps the tmo could have been a bit more forceful there.

From Planet Rugby:

World Rugby have admitted openly that they’re anxious to develop a new layer of elite referees. They will therefore be delighted by yet another outstanding afternoon from the improving Andy Brace, a man who shows great empathy and refreshing honesty with the whistle.

https://www.planetrugby.com/five-takeaways-from-england-v-usa/

I cannot be bothered to register. Does it mention the potential red?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm still scratching my head on the challenge on Steward in the first half. Winning an initial aerial ball does no give free reign to pull a player down on his head. Perhaps the tmo could have been a bit more forceful there.

Even though the USA player gets a paw to it first I still think Steward lands with the ball if he's not dragged from the air. How Brace decided that wasn't even a penalty is incredibly out of touch with how the game is currently officiated.

Rugby Fan wrote:From Planet Rugby:

World Rugby have admitted openly that they’re anxious to develop a new layer of elite referees. They will therefore be delighted by yet another outstanding afternoon from the improving Andy Brace, a man who shows great empathy and refreshing honesty with the whistle.

https://www.planetrugby.com/five-takeaways-from-england-v-usa/

I read that, all things being subjective accepted, I still can't see how they have reached that conclusion.

Cumbrian wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:From Planet Rugby:

World Rugby have admitted openly that they’re anxious to develop a new layer of elite referees. They will therefore be delighted by yet another outstanding afternoon from the improving Andy Brace, a man who shows great empathy and refreshing honesty with the whistle.

https://www.planetrugby.com/five-takeaways-from-england-v-usa/

I read that, all things being subjective accepted, I still can't see how they have reached that conclusion.

I think there's some genuinely good refs coming through. Brace isn't one of them I don't think.

In the Prem we've seen Pearce step up a level and Leal get given more games which he's thoroughly deserved. I've been impressed with both and I think CMK has improved as well.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm still scratching my head on the challenge on Steward in the first half. Winning an initial aerial ball does no give free reign to pull a player down on his head. Perhaps the tmo could have been a bit more forceful there.

Even though the USA player gets a paw to it first I still think Steward lands with the ball if he's not dragged from the air. How Brace decided that wasn't even a penalty is incredibly out of touch with how the game is currently officiated.

The USA player totally focused on play not the England player, got his hands to the ball first hence by the letter of the law the England player committed a mid air infringement, the England player was higher that why it looked like he won it and was fouled. The perception of a higher player falling awkwardly after colliding with a lower player invariably is that the lower player drags down him down, the problem is it's incredible difficult almost impossible when in mid flight in a split second when your eyes are firmly on the ball to adjust yourself.

100% the correct decision

Steward has history of mid air collisions, having already been sent off and banned for dangerous play in an U20s game v Wales

What England should worry about is their own coaching strategy. They seem to be carrying on from the 6Ns regarding discipline around the breakdown and their obsession with dominant scrum and tackles "bordering on the edge". 17 (should have been a lot more) infringements is horrendous, I believe the ERU has an ‘allowable’ target of 9 in a game. Add to that how disciplined the England Lions have been on tour compared to their performances during the 6Ns

You can see there is a common denominator here

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm still scratching my head on the challenge on Steward in the first half. Winning an initial aerial ball does no give free reign to pull a player down on his head. Perhaps the tmo could have been a bit more forceful there.

Even though the USA player gets a paw to it first I still think Steward lands with the ball if he's not dragged from the air. How Brace decided that wasn't even a penalty is incredibly out of touch with how the game is currently officiated.

The USA player definitely won the battle for the ball - it was knocked back long before both men hit the ground and was a good contest for the ball; in that respect Brace was right. What I would have liked him to look harder at was what happened subsequently - the USA player ends up with an arm over Steward's shoulder that can't help but tip him forward. However, the TMO didn't raise any factual disagreement with how Brace described it, so I have to assume that by the current interpretation it was OK.

More broadly, I thought Brace had a good game. He was very clear about what he wanted, decisive, and not afraid to change his mind if the replay suggested otherwise. I don't have a problem with how he refereed the scrum: he was clear and consistent from the first one that he wanted a stable platform, no early shove and straight driving from all the props. When England did that, he was quite happy to give them the penalties. For me, it's on the props that it took several goes for them to listen to what they were being told and adapt - it's one thing if the ref is making random calls, but if he or she makes it clear what's needed and sticks to that then it's down to the players to adapt. England had a big enough edge that they could afford to have a fairly passive engagement and just drive through once the ball went in.

Poorfour wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm still scratching my head on the challenge on Steward in the first half. Winning an initial aerial ball does no give free reign to pull a player down on his head. Perhaps the tmo could have been a bit more forceful there.

Even though the USA player gets a paw to it first I still think Steward lands with the ball if he's not dragged from the air. How Brace decided that wasn't even a penalty is incredibly out of touch with how the game is currently officiated.

The USA player definitely won the battle for the ball - it was knocked back long before both men hit the ground and was a good contest for the ball; in that respect Brace was right. What I would have liked him to look harder at was what happened subsequently - the USA player ends up with an arm over Steward's shoulder that can't help but tip him forward. However, the TMO didn't raise any factual disagreement with how Brace described it, so I have to assume that by the current interpretation it was OK.

More broadly, I thought Brace had a good game. He was very clear about what he wanted, decisive, and not afraid to change his mind if the replay suggested otherwise. I don't have a problem with how he refereed the scrum: he was clear and consistent from the first one that he wanted a stable platform, no early shove and straight driving from all the props. When England did that, he was quite happy to give them the penalties. For me, it's on the props that it took several goes for them to listen to what they were being told and adapt - it's one thing if the ref is making random calls, but if he or she makes it clear what's needed and sticks to that then it's down to the players to adapt. England had a big enough edge that they could afford to have a fairly passive engagement and just drive through once the ball went in.

Brace by the letter of the law got it wrong. The USA player got to the ball first, (irrespective of the height and who was higher) he was taken out by Steward. It should have been at the minimum pen USA, it could have been a lot worse for Steward, luckily Brace saw there was no intent by either player

Poorfour wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm still scratching my head on the challenge on Steward in the first half. Winning an initial aerial ball does no give free reign to pull a player down on his head. Perhaps the tmo could have been a bit more forceful there.

Even though the USA player gets a paw to it first I still think Steward lands with the ball if he's not dragged from the air. How Brace decided that wasn't even a penalty is incredibly out of touch with how the game is currently officiated.

The USA player definitely won the battle for the ball - it was knocked back long before both men hit the ground and was a good contest for the ball; in that respect Brace was right. What I would have liked him to look harder at was what happened subsequently - the USA player ends up with an arm over Steward's shoulder that can't help but tip him forward. However, the TMO didn't raise any factual disagreement with how Brace described it, so I have to assume that by the current interpretation it was OK.

More broadly, I thought Brace had a good game. He was very clear about what he wanted, decisive, and not afraid to change his mind if the replay suggested otherwise. I don't have a problem with how he refereed the scrum: he was clear and consistent from the first one that he wanted a stable platform, no early shove and straight driving from all the props. When England did that, he was quite happy to give them the penalties. For me, it's on the props that it took several goes for them to listen to what they were being told and adapt - it's one thing if the ref is making random calls, but if he or she makes it clear what's needed and sticks to that then it's down to the players to adapt. England had a big enough edge that they could afford to have a fairly passive engagement and just drive through once the ball went in.

I don't think the correct interpretation is that you can pull players down deliberate or not. Its one of those where I think when the ref says something and reinforces his view as Brace did most tmos will go with it and not challenge. For me it's a clear red.

I thought Brace reffed the scrum at double standards it was all in England. They had to keep it straight irrelevant of whether the USA were folding like deckchairs or trying things. The first scrum being a prime example with the USA loosehead falling apart entirely but Heyes getting pinged as he didn't scrum straight. That was probably good for England as it made it harder and more of a contest. Good opportunity to practice for when the ref is not on your side, with Farrell as captain that happens.

At the breakdown I actually thought Brace was ok. Lineout a bit hit and miss on the rolling mauls but that's not unusual. The Steward challenge in the air and then the Lawrence high tackle are officiated very differently at Prem level, the TMO I think was Ben Whitehouse who I've seen ref some games previously and not been impressed.

I'd be concerned if Brace was being held up as an elite level ref, if they want to describe him as a ref they think they can raise to elite standard then ok maybe I can see that.

formerly known as Sam wrote:I thought Brace reffed the scrum at double standards it was all in England. They had to keep it straight irrelevant of whether the USA were folding like deckchairs or trying things. The first scrum being a prime example with the USA loosehead falling apart entirely but Heyes getting pinged as he didn't scrum straight. That was probably good for England as it made it harder and more of a contest. Good opportunity to practice for when the ref is not on your side, with Farrell as captain that happens.

At the breakdown I actually thought Brace was ok. Lineout a bit hit and miss on the rolling mauls but that's not unusual. The Steward challenge in the air and then the Lawrence high tackle are officiated very differently at Prem level, the TMO I think was Ben Whitehouse who I've seen ref some games previously and not been impressed.

I'd be concerned if Brace was being held up as an elite level ref, if they want to describe him as a ref they think they can raise to elite standard then ok maybe I can see that.

What do you mean Sam, its Brace and Dickson as the new Barnes and Owens...

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm still scratching my head on the challenge on Steward in the first half. Winning an initial aerial ball does no give free reign to pull a player down on his head. Perhaps the tmo could have been a bit more forceful there.

Even though the USA player gets a paw to it first I still think Steward lands with the ball if he's not dragged from the air. How Brace decided that wasn't even a penalty is incredibly out of touch with how the game is currently officiated.

The USA player definitely won the battle for the ball - it was knocked back long before both men hit the ground and was a good contest for the ball; in that respect Brace was right. What I would have liked him to look harder at was what happened subsequently - the USA player ends up with an arm over Steward's shoulder that can't help but tip him forward. However, the TMO didn't raise any factual disagreement with how Brace described it, so I have to assume that by the current interpretation it was OK.

More broadly, I thought Brace had a good game. He was very clear about what he wanted, decisive, and not afraid to change his mind if the replay suggested otherwise. I don't have a problem with how he refereed the scrum: he was clear and consistent from the first one that he wanted a stable platform, no early shove and straight driving from all the props. When England did that, he was quite happy to give them the penalties. For me, it's on the props that it took several goes for them to listen to what they were being told and adapt - it's one thing if the ref is making random calls, but if he or she makes it clear what's needed and sticks to that then it's down to the players to adapt. England had a big enough edge that they could afford to have a fairly passive engagement and just drive through once the ball went in.

I don't think the correct interpretation is that you can pull players down deliberate or not. Its one of those where I think when the ref says something and reinforces his view as Brace did most tmos will go with it and not challenge. For me it's a clear red.

He got to the ball first, hence he was brought down, that's the letter of the law, Steward was lucky to get away with it.

The yank was totally forecasted on the ball, they both were leaping forward at speed concentrating on the ball, the whole movement took less than 2 seconds. Have you ever leapt static in a line-out, that's difficult to know where the other and often you drag, it's much worse when you are leaping at speed for a ball that's 3-4 times higher.

If you can see there was intent in real time then it beggars belief. The female commentator (totally biased all match) got it wrong

So its all Steward's fault that he went head first into the dirt with the American's arm around his shoulders? Or that Steward should not have leapt for the ball?

I am wary about the card issue, but as far as I can tell Steward's actions were textbook and the only truly saving grace is that the American got a hand up and hit the ball (back) first. He had no hope of catching it.

Boys, Brace is one of the worst refs I have ever seen, but to put it into context, he is not the worst in the league.

lostinwales wrote:So its all Steward's fault that he went head first into the dirt with the American's arm around his shoulders? Or that Steward should not have leapt for the ball?

I am wary about the card issue, but as far as I can tell Steward's actions were textbook and the only truly saving grace is that the American got a hand up and hit the ball (back) first. He had no hope of catching it.

Nothing at fault with Steward at all.

flyhalffactory wrote:

He got to the ball first, hence he was brought down, that's the letter of the law, Steward was lucky to get away with it.

The yank was totally forecasted on the ball, they both were leaping forward at speed concentrating on the ball, the whole movement took less than 2 seconds. Have you ever leapt static in a line-out, that's difficult to know where the other and often you drag, it's much worse when you are leaping at speed for a ball that's 3-4 times higher.

If you can see there was intent in real time then it beggars belief. The female commentator (totally biased all match) got it wrong

Can you point me in the direction of the relevant law.

I hadn't thought about it until writing it but when competing for the ball in the air is knocking the ball back vs catching it an issue? It will depend a lot on the supporting players, but it does have a huge impact on how things play out.

In our scenario with Steward only one player has a chance of catching that ball, yet according to FHF he's in the wrong for trying to.

I do think this does have a significant impact on our perception of what happened.

Soul Requiem wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

He got to the ball first, hence he was brought down, that's the letter of the law, Steward was lucky to get away with it.

The yank was totally forecasted on the ball, they both were leaping forward at speed concentrating on the ball, the whole movement took less than 2 seconds. Have you ever leapt static in a line-out, that's difficult to know where the other and often you drag, it's much worse when you are leaping at speed for a ball that's 3-4 times higher.

If you can see there was intent in real time then it beggars belief. The female commentator (totally biased all match) got it wrong

Can you point me in the direction of the relevant law.

What you don't know!,

Ok there you go
Laws 9.11 (reckless or dangerous acts) and 9.17 (tackling in the air)

lostinwales wrote:I hadn't thought about it until writing it but when competing for the ball in the air is knocking the ball back vs catching it an issue? It will depend a lot on the supporting players, but it does have a huge impact on how things play out.

In our scenario with Steward only one player has a chance of catching that ball, yet according to FHF he's in the wrong for trying to.

I do think this does have a significant impact on our perception of what happened.

Where have I said that?

flyhalffactory wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

He got to the ball first, hence he was brought down, that's the letter of the law, Steward was lucky to get away with it.

The yank was totally forecasted on the ball, they both were leaping forward at speed concentrating on the ball, the whole movement took less than 2 seconds. Have you ever leapt static in a line-out, that's difficult to know where the other and often you drag, it's much worse when you are leaping at speed for a ball that's 3-4 times higher.

If you can see there was intent in real time then it beggars belief. The female commentator (totally biased all match) got it wrong

Can you point me in the direction of the relevant law.

What you don't know!,

Ok there you go
Laws 9.11 (reckless or dangerous acts) and 9.17 (tackling in the air)

I'm aware of what law 9.17 is, I just don't see how it and your post match up.

Soul Requiem wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

He got to the ball first, hence he was brought down, that's the letter of the law, Steward was lucky to get away with it.

The yank was totally forecasted on the ball, they both were leaping forward at speed concentrating on the ball, the whole movement took less than 2 seconds. Have you ever leapt static in a line-out, that's difficult to know where the other and often you drag, it's much worse when you are leaping at speed for a ball that's 3-4 times higher.

If you can see there was intent in real time then it beggars belief. The female commentator (totally biased all match) got it wrong

Can you point me in the direction of the relevant law.

What you don't know!,

Ok there you go
Laws 9.11 (reckless or dangerous acts) and 9.17 (tackling in the air)

I'm aware of what law 9.17 is, I just don't see how it and your post match up.

What don't you understand?