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

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.

Soul Requiem wrote:The whole premise of your point. Steward was taken out in the air, that the American touched the ball first doesn't make a jot of difference.

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.

9.17 A player must not tackle, charge, pull, push or grasp an opponent whose feet are off the ground
USA first to the ball, hence he is in play, Steward doesn't get to the ball and as a result they both end up on the floor. Hence foul play

Law 9.11, the referee is always entitled to issue a red or yellow card for anything that they deem to be reckless or dangerous.
When Brace reviewed it he could see that USA got to the ball but England didn't deliberately with intent foul.

Common sense prevailed. But to suggest that USA player should have had a red.......well it just shows people didn't watch it or lack of knowledge (or bias)

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.

9.17 A player must not tackle, charge, pull, push or grasp an opponent whose feet are off the ground
USA first to the ball, hence he is in play, Steward doesn't get to the ball and as a result they both end up on the floor. Hence foul play

Law 9.11, the referee is always entitled to issue a red or yellow card for anything that they deem to be reckless or dangerous.
When Brace reviewed it he could see that USA got to the ball but England didn't deliberately with intent foul.

Common sense prevailed. But to suggest that USA player should have had a red.......well it just shows people didn't watch it or lack of knowledge (or bias)

That is your interpretation of what you think the law says rather than what it actually says, you'll notice that neither law differentiates between a ball carrier and non ball carrier.

flyhalffactory wrote:

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?

FHF 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.

flyhalffactory wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that a non ball carrier can take out a ball carrier?
The ball carrier USA was "charged/pushed/grasped" when his feet was off the ground.
That's not my interpretation at all, it's the refs and his assistants interpretation after reviewing, which most people I have spoken to agree with......there has been no recourse so far but lets see by Tuesday evening after the review of the refs report.

The point is it's definitely not a red against USA

BamBam wrote:Has anyone got a link to the incident?

Old Man wrote:When played in the air, the first rule of thumb is did the player have a realistic chance to get the ball.

If the American player got to the ball first, then it is interpreted he played the ball, makes all the difference

lostinwales wrote:

Old Man wrote:When played in the air, the first rule of thumb is did the player have a realistic chance to get the ball.

If the American player got to the ball first, then it is interpreted he played the ball, makes all the difference

I am not trying to pick a side, more provoke a discussion.

We can break the incident into two parts. The first is very grey and I am interested in people's opinion.

1) The competition for the ball.
The American did not attempt to catch the ball but did knock it back, not least because he had no hope of catching it. Steward leapt to catch the ball, and would have done so except for the American's arm getting there first.
2) Aftermath.
Steward ended head first into the dirt. The American's arm was around his shoulder. There is no malice and I think there is some evidence that the American was trying to mitigate the fall at the end, but there is a good argument that the position of the man's arm contributes to what could have been a very dangerous incident.

Now the fact that Steward leapt and the American did not does feed into the perception of what happened and would naturally bias us towards thinking a foul has been committed, unless the natural bias of the observer goes another way. Is it right? There is definitely an aspect of this being a rugby incident. The concerns I have are over the nature of the competition between knocking the ball back and catching it, and the safety of the American's subsequent actions.

From the point of view of the game I am happy the USA kept 15 on the field. From a safety point of view I am not sure the American got it right.


I can understand that a rigorous view can tend towards 'rugby incident' because

Soul Requiem wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

Are you seriously suggesting that a non ball carrier can take out a ball carrier?
The ball carrier USA was "charged/pushed/grasped" when his feet was off the ground.
That's not my interpretation at all, it's the refs and his assistants interpretation after reviewing, which most people I have spoken to agree with......there has been no recourse so far but lets see by Tuesday evening after the review of the refs report.

The point is it's definitely not a red against USA

You seem to be getting quite emotional and mixing your words up so i'll respond based on what I think you mean. Yes a ball carrier can commit foul play according to law 9.11, leading with an elbow into contact for instance, the premise is the same here.

Most people you have spoken to, the unprovable argument.

doctor_grey wrote:Frankly, though, I am not very fussed about the referee.  This was about the England team performance, and England team appeared to me to be disjointed and struggled for organisation.  Someone made the point this is a scratch England team, but the Americans were playing for the first time since 2019 so that argument doesn't work here.  

The Americans seemed fairly well structured on defence, though did leave gaps which were exploited and reacted to the game slower, such as Malins great play from the kickoff.  They did very well to get those scores at the end.  The English subs were not tired so fair play to the Eagles.  

Thinking about England, though, I think it is very hard to pick that guy, or guys, who are dead nuts ready to step up.  More like those not ready or won't make the step up.  And nothing was helped by the injuries forcing players out of position (is Robson a better winger than a 9?)

Players I thought did well were:
Steward (obviously)
Cokanasiga, and was happy for him  
Marcus Smith, though not his best game
Underhill, of course
Ludlum, though it's hard to judge a replacement at times.  

Randall showed promise and also that he is not ready.  Yet.

By the way, was Slade on the pitch??????
I do feel for Umaga being out of position, but he showed nothing at IC.  

I think the next game will be more interesting assuming Dombrandt starts and does his thing.  We saw the Canada score with Wales, and without tougher opposition, will be tough to make real hard and fast conclusions.  Hoping Smith retains the 10 shirt and would like to see him paired with Mitchell.  Not sure Mitchell is the answer for England, but will provide a point of difference.  

flyhalffactory wrote:

Nothing to do with emotion, I am quite calm lad. I am quite succinct, don't try to imply I'm not
I didn't say a ball carrier can't commit a foul, read what I said, don't try to set an agenda, you'll simply fail.

When it was reviewed from various angles for quite a while, then considered by all the officials, it could only be interpreted one way. You might not like it but that's your issue, doesn't alter anything

doctor_grey wrote:Frankly, though, I am not very fussed about the referee.  This was about the England team performance, and England team appeared to me to be disjointed and struggled for organisation.  Someone made the point this is a scratch England team, but the Americans were playing for the first time since 2019 so same or worse for them.  

The Americans seemed fairly well structured on defence, though did leave gaps which were exploited and reacted to the game slower, such as Malins great play from the kickoff.  They did very well to get those scores at the end.  The English subs were not tired so fair play to the Eagles.  

Thinking about England, though, I think it is very hard to pick that guy, or guys, who are dead nuts ready to step up.  More like those not ready or won't make the step up.  And nothing was helped by the injuries forcing players out of position (is Robson a better winger than a 9?)

Players I thought did well were:
Steward (obviously)
Cokanasiga, and was happy for him  
Marcus Smith, though not his best game
Underhill, of course
Ludlum, though it's hard to judge a replacement at times.  

Randall showed promise and also that he is not ready.  Yet.

By the way, was Slade on the pitch??????
I do feel for Umaga being out of position, but he showed nothing at IC.  

I think the next game will be more interesting assuming Dombrandt starts and does his thing.  We saw the Canada score with Wales, and without tougher opposition, will be tough to make real hard and fast conclusions.  Hoping Smith retains the 10 shirt and would like to see him paired with Mitchell.  Not sure Mitchell is the answer for England, but will provide a point of difference.

Soul Requiem wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:

Nothing to do with emotion, I am quite calm lad. I am quite succinct, don't try to imply I'm not
I didn't say a ball carrier can't commit a foul, read what I said, don't try to set an agenda, you'll simply fail.

When it was reviewed from various angles for quite a while, then considered by all the officials, it could only be interpreted one way. You might not like it but that's your issue, doesn't alter anything

I'm going to say that based on your insistence of using words like lad that you are anything but calm. I'll imply as I wish if I believe it to be true and in this instance that it was I believe. I've read what you said and based my comments upon that, it's your usual i'm right you're wrong style of debate.

It can be interpreted two ways, that it was interpreted in a certain way doesn't mean that it was the right way.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Blamire was lively and physical when he came on Doc, and scored...

Once he gets his arrows sorted he'll have to be in the mix for the full Senior Squad.

flyhalffactory wrote:

That's the whole point, when reviewed from all angles, it can only be interpreted one way. Was there any deliberate intent to take out the ball carrier? Answer no, play on.

I have provided you all the qualifications on why the ref made the decision, I have closed all the doors. I have also said the ref used common sense and didn't penalise any player.

I'll close by saying there is no way it was a USA red and the ref made the correct decision.

Anyway this will go round in circles

lostinwales wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Frankly, though, I am not very fussed about the referee.  This was about the England team performance, and England team appeared to me to be disjointed and struggled for organisation.  Someone made the point this is a scratch England team, but the Americans were playing for the first time since 2019 so that argument doesn't work here.  

The Americans seemed fairly well structured on defence, though did leave gaps which were exploited and reacted to the game slower, such as Malins great play from the kickoff.  They did very well to get those scores at the end.  The English subs were not tired so fair play to the Eagles.  

Thinking about England, though, I think it is very hard to pick that guy, or guys, who are dead nuts ready to step up.  More like those not ready or won't make the step up.  And nothing was helped by the injuries forcing players out of position (is Robson a better winger than a 9?)

Players I thought did well were:
Steward (obviously)
Cokanasiga, and was happy for him  
Marcus Smith, though not his best game
Underhill, of course
Ludlum, though it's hard to judge a replacement at times.  

Randall showed promise and also that he is not ready.  Yet.

By the way, was Slade on the pitch??????
I do feel for Umaga being out of position, but he showed nothing at IC.  

I think the next game will be more interesting assuming Dombrandt starts and does his thing.  We saw the Canada score with Wales, and without tougher opposition, will be tough to make real hard and fast conclusions.  Hoping Smith retains the 10 shirt and would like to see him paired with Mitchell.  Not sure Mitchell is the answer for England, but will provide a point of difference.  

Definitely a game for proving negatives instead of positives, if that makes sense.

doctor_grey wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:Frankly, though, I am not very fussed about the referee.  This was about the England team performance, and England team appeared to me to be disjointed and struggled for organisation.  Someone made the point this is a scratch England team, but the Americans were playing for the first time since 2019 so that argument doesn't work here.  

The Americans seemed fairly well structured on defence, though did leave gaps which were exploited and reacted to the game slower, such as Malins great play from the kickoff.  They did very well to get those scores at the end.  The English subs were not tired so fair play to the Eagles.  

Thinking about England, though, I think it is very hard to pick that guy, or guys, who are dead nuts ready to step up.  More like those not ready or won't make the step up.  And nothing was helped by the injuries forcing players out of position (is Robson a better winger than a 9?)

Players I thought did well were:
Steward (obviously)
Cokanasiga, and was happy for him  
Marcus Smith, though not his best game
Underhill, of course
Ludlum, though it's hard to judge a replacement at times.  

Randall showed promise and also that he is not ready.  Yet.

By the way, was Slade on the pitch??????
I do feel for Umaga being out of position, but he showed nothing at IC.  

I think the next game will be more interesting assuming Dombrandt starts and does his thing.  We saw the Canada score with Wales, and without tougher opposition, will be tough to make real hard and fast conclusions.  Hoping Smith retains the 10 shirt and would like to see him paired with Mitchell.  Not sure Mitchell is the answer for England, but will provide a point of difference.  

Definitely a game for proving negatives instead of positives, if that makes sense.

It must make sense if we both thought it!  A numbers of players were below expectation, which in hindsight, was probably always going to happen.  So, not saying these guys played themselves out of contention, but I thought were not terribly good in the game:  Slade (anonymous), McNally, Ewels, Chick, Randall (both good and not so much in equal measure), Umaga (out of position), Langdon (excellent throws, but seemed to me absent around the pitch).  

Moe fun to come next week.

doctor_grey wrote:Frankly, though, I am not very fussed about the referee.  This was about the England team performance, and England team appeared to me to be disjointed and struggled for organisation.  Someone made the point this is a scratch England team, but the Americans were playing for the first time since 2019 so same or worse for them.  

The Americans seemed fairly well structured on defence, though did leave gaps which were exploited and reacted to the game slower, such as Malins great play from the kickoff.  They did very well to get those scores at the end.  The English subs were not tired so fair play to the Eagles.  

Thinking about England, though, I think it is very hard to pick that guy, or guys, who are dead nuts ready to step up.  More like those not ready or won't make the step up.  And nothing was helped by the injuries forcing players out of position (is Robson a better winger than a 9?)

Players I thought did well were:
Steward (obviously)
Cokanasiga, and was happy for him  
Marcus Smith, though not his best game
Underhill, of course
Ludlum, though it's hard to judge a replacement at times.  

Randall showed promise and also that he is not ready.  Yet.

By the way, was Slade on the pitch??????
I do feel for Umaga being out of position, but he showed nothing at IC.  

I think the next game will be more interesting assuming Dombrandt starts and does his thing.  We saw the Canada score with Wales, and without tougher opposition, will be tough to make real hard and fast conclusions.  Hoping Smith retains the 10 shirt and would like to see him paired with Mitchell.  Not sure Mitchell is the answer for England, but will provide a point of difference.

LordDowlais wrote:
Wales put 68 points on Canada on the weekend, England have them next don't they ? If you need to gauge England, although I think you are being a little harsh on them in your analysis, then the game against Canada is the perfect one for you to do so.

BamBam wrote:Putting a proper set of backs on the bench might help too

BamBam wrote:Putting a proper set of backs on the bench might help too

BamBam wrote:Yeah true, I’m just grumpy about 6-2 splits on benches. What if someone was to have their nose broken by a wayward Frenchman? They’d never live it down if their team subsequently lost!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Thought Randall was very good myself. Hard to draw too much from USA but he's pushed himself up the reckoning surely? If he can replicate that against Australia or South Africa in the Autumn we may finally be able to move the team on.

king_carlos wrote:

BamBam wrote:Yeah true, I’m just grumpy about 6-2 splits on benches. What if someone was to have their nose broken by a wayward Frenchman? They’d never live it down if their team subsequently lost!

Goes both ways to be fair.

What if a team was to unload 6 forwards from their bench in a RWC to finish off an absolute battering of a team that comprehensively outplayed NZ the week before? That'd make the 'traditional' side going with 3 backs on their bench who's introduction had absolutely no impact on the game look a bit old fashioned wouldn't it...

MichaelT wrote:I think England could make a 6-2 split work with players like Sam Simmonds or Ben Earl in there who might have the pace to be a winger as a last resort.

Or maybe Jack Nowell as a 9th forward as was somewhat mentioned a few years ago.

MichaelT wrote:I think England could make a 6-2 split work with players like Sam Simmonds or Ben Earl in there who might have the pace to be a winger as a last resort.

Or maybe Jack Nowell as a 9th forward as was somewhat mentioned a few years ago.

king_carlos wrote:

BamBam wrote:Yeah true, I’m just grumpy about 6-2 splits on benches. What if someone was to have their nose broken by a wayward Frenchman? They’d never live it down if their team subsequently lost!

Goes both ways to be fair.

What if a team was to unload 6 forwards from their bench in a RWC to finish off an absolute battering of a team that comprehensively outplayed NZ the week before? That'd make the 'traditional' side going with 3 backs on their bench who's introduction had absolutely no impact on the game look a bit old fashioned wouldn't it...

Old Man wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

BamBam wrote:Yeah true, I’m just grumpy about 6-2 splits on benches. What if someone was to have their nose broken by a wayward Frenchman? They’d never live it down if their team subsequently lost!

Goes both ways to be fair.

What if a team was to unload 6 forwards from their bench in a RWC to finish off an absolute battering of a team that comprehensively outplayed NZ the week before? That'd make the 'traditional' side going with 3 backs on their bench who's introduction had absolutely no impact on the game look a bit old fashioned wouldn't it... :whistle:

Beautiful post, I have fond memories of the Bomb Squad. :hug:

Poorfour wrote:

Old Man wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

BamBam wrote:Yeah true, I’m just grumpy about 6-2 splits on benches. What if someone was to have their nose broken by a wayward Frenchman? They’d never live it down if their team subsequently lost!

Goes both ways to be fair.

What if a team was to unload 6 forwards from their bench in a RWC to finish off an absolute battering of a team that comprehensively outplayed NZ the week before? That'd make the 'traditional' side going with 3 backs on their bench who's introduction had absolutely no impact on the game look a bit old fashioned wouldn't it...

Beautiful post, I have fond memories of the Bomb Squad.

Mine are less fond... and I can remember another, earlier, final in which a team with a 4:3 bench ended up playing their reserve scrum half at 7 after two of their back rows and one of their locks went off injured.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:That was the time of player power, the senior players could see that Ashton's game plan not working so they just about took over the side and reverted back to the "Old England". Potentially only a blind linesman's line width away from a second RWC.