England still winning the RWC at a canter - The RWC phase

First topic message reminder :

Assuming and currently it is quite a big assumption England get through group I can't see them winning QF against whoever they face. Bloody hopeless

Amongst the gloom it's exciting to see Arundell back fit. He hasn't looked at home on the wing yet but remains one of the most naturally talented players we've seen in years. That acceleration, top end pace and power are rare skill sets. If the dual playmakers can get him some space then hopefully he can show what's made him so exciting. That debut try with his first touch against Oz feels a long time ago now given the change of coaches and a RWC build up.

Team as expected, good to see likes of Itoje and Steward getting a rest.
I'd have rather seen Arundell or even Malins at 15 but anyway.

I reckon we'll see some good tries with backs picked, won't mean a lot given opposition but still be nice to see.

Really like that team, even of people are out of position. Still not sold on Malins at this level but hey ho.

The back 5 of the pack have a real powerful look about them.

Away from the backs discussion though...I think we need to see Theo Dan have a big game.....show some solidity in the set piece but also his ability in the open (one of the big reasons he's in this squad)

And I want to see George Martin really dominating...he's inexperienced but against this opposition he should be looking to be bossing the game physically....

Well Martin is one who for me has so far been unimpressive. He was talked up a lot pre RWC but so far hasn't been anything like good enough so he needs to prove himself and this could be a game to start.

I agree MM and I think this is the game he needs to really put a marker down to show he can be the powerful lock we hope and are looking for.

king_carlos wrote:True to be fair. "Alex, we need to test you out for international rugby. You're going to defend in the 13 channel, we want you stand there like a scarecrow whilst a crossfield kick goes to the opposition winger. Then, once he's already gone you need to half heartedly jog after him to make it appear like you tried". It does seem like a perfect tactical nuance for the Premierships current standards I must say.

This made me laugh but it is a bit harsh on Dombrandt.

He was poor in an incredibly poor England side. His replacements haven't really looked much better a lot of the time. I don't think he should be at 8, but he's shown before he can improve and I hope he does because he's a very talented rugby player who obviously just took time to adapt to International rugby.

I quite like Smith being trialled at 15.

The best defences are now so good that it's very difficult to develop a functioning attack without multiple playmakers.

France have Ntamack/Jalibert and Ramos, not to mention Dupont. NZ have Mo'unga and Barrett x 2. South Africa with Pollard/Libbok and Willemse/le Roux. Italy are using Garbisi and Allan together.

Even Scotland who try to run as much as possible through Russell have also had Hogg and now Kinghorn.

Ireland are a bit of an outlier in that they often use forwards with very good hands in first receiver roles. They also build preplanned, multiphase moves better than any other side currently playing. Even so, Hansen and Keenan have both increasingly stepped into playmaker roles. Farrell and Catt's systems have shown it's possible if extremely difficult to build that sort of system still with one standout playmaker. 

Fiji are the other outlier. They simply have so many carriers and jackal threats that they've built an attack around that. Both cause very high penalty counts due to the pressure it imposes in attack and defence. Both also cause broken field to attack in, which feeds into their insane offloading game. I'm not sure any other nation has that same number of carriers and jackals across the pitch though. Tuisova is far from a perfect 12 but he's a freak carrier and jackal. The same with Botia as a flanker. Nayacalevu isn't the most powerful 13 or the best defensive general, but he's pretty darn excellent at both. Radrada has huge flaws in his game but his carrying is immense. Mawi and Revai aren't the greatest LHs but they are now very good ones and great in contact. Raiwalui has stacked his side with freak athletes. It's a lot of fun but I'm not sure how replicable it is without Fiji's athletes!

In time I think we will see this England team shift to two playmakers as I've said a few times. They seem to be building a structure for that. In the short term they are clearly trying to prioritise being as solid as possible from the start, then bringing the second playmaker on for the final quarter when teams tire.

Ford and Farrell might be how they try to get two playmakers from the start in the short term. Smith taking a Willemse type role at 15 could be another option. I'm happy we'll see more of it from the start on Saturday even if the latter remains something they'd only use from the bench in big games.

I was very confident England would get bonus point win against Chile then I realised referee is Peyper and TMO Jonker.

I know this will be accused of making excuses before match but Jonker should be nowhere near a rugby match involving England.

England will get a red this game...i guarentee...they'll make sure we do.

mountain man wrote:I was very confident England would get bonus point win against Chile then I realised referee is Peyper and TMO Jonker.

I know this will be accused of making excuses before match but Jonker should be nowhere near a rugby match involving England.

Some might argue that Jonker should be nowhere near a rugby match.

mountain man wrote:I was very confident England would get bonus point win against Chile then I realised referee is Peyper and TMO Jonker.

I know this will be accused of making excuses before match but Jonker should be nowhere near a rugby match involving England.

Your making excuses before the match has even kicked off.


Here to help

carpet baboon wrote:

mountain man wrote:I was very confident England would get bonus point win against Chile then I realised referee is Peyper and TMO Jonker.

I know this will be accused of making excuses before match but Jonker should be nowhere near a rugby match involving England.

Your making excuses before the match has even kicked off.


Here to help

Erm try and pay attention, I did actually write that. The clue is in the well, writing :


"I know this will be accused of making excuses before match".

So before match does in fact mean before match kicks off.

I'm also here to help those who don't read posts properly.

Big wrote:

mountain man wrote:I was very confident England would get bonus point win against Chile then I realised referee is Peyper and TMO Jonker.

I know this will be accused of making excuses before match but Jonker should be nowhere near a rugby match involving England.

Some might argue that Jonker should be nowhere near a rugby match.

How do other teams feel about him?

My view is that he has a tendency to overreach the TMO's authority and be overconfident in his pronouncements (as happened with Steward). And he does seem to do both of those more often against England than he does against our opposition.

But it would be interesting to know if fans of other teams have the same view.

I think in general theres a lot being missed by tmos. It must be difficult to catch absolutely everything as if you're asking for one thing something else is happening. I also bang the drum quite a lot to say it's always the players and the coaches who impact the match the most, a ref and his team will get things wrong but it's just must easier to focus on them than your own team. Teams can only focus on themselves and reducing their mistakes and optimising their opportunities. I always love picking apart decisions etc but the officials never decide games.

mountain man wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

mountain man wrote:I was very confident England would get bonus point win against Chile then I realised referee is Peyper and TMO Jonker.

I know this will be accused of making excuses before match but Jonker should be nowhere near a rugby match involving England.

Your making excuses before the match has even kicked off.


Here to help

Erm try and pay attention, I did actually write that. The clue is in the well, writing :


"I know this will be accused of making excuses before match".

So before match does in fact mean before match kicks off.

I'm also here to help those who don't read posts properly.

I don't know, but I think he may have been joking?

I'm sure he was.

However, if anyone thinks there hasn't been bias by Jonker against England then they haven't been watching matches.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think in general theres a lot being missed by tmos. It must be difficult to catch absolutely everything as if you're asking for one thing something else is happening. I also bang the drum quite a lot to say it's always the players and the coaches who impact the match the most, a ref and his team will get things wrong but it's just must easier to focus on them than your own team. Teams can only focus on themselves and reducing their mistakes and optimising their opportunities. I always love picking apart decisions etc but the officials never decide games.

Except that's not always true. Carley had a massive impact on Wales Fiji and did decide game really. Likewise officials in Eng Ire 6N.

It does happen.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think in general theres a lot being missed by tmos. It must be difficult to catch absolutely everything as if you're asking for one thing something else is happening. I also bang the drum quite a lot to say it's always the players and the coaches who impact the match the most, a ref and his team will get things wrong but it's just must easier to focus on them than your own team. Teams can only focus on themselves and reducing their mistakes and optimising their opportunities. I always love picking apart decisions etc but the officials never decide games.

Wasn't Jonker the one that overruled a try to stop England beating the AB's a few years back - that supposed offside by Lawes that took 10 minutes and 67 different angles to decide it was 'clear and obvious' even though even after the event no-one was really sure either way?

mountain man wrote:I'm sure he was.

However, if anyone thinks there hasn't been bias by Jonker against England then they haven't been watching matches.

100% agree on that

mountain man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think in general theres a lot being missed by tmos. It must be difficult to catch absolutely everything as if you're asking for one thing something else is happening. I also bang the drum quite a lot to say it's always the players and the coaches who impact the match the most, a ref and his team will get things wrong but it's just must easier to focus on them than your own team. Teams can only focus on themselves and reducing their mistakes and optimising their opportunities. I always love picking apart decisions etc but the officials never decide games.

Except that's not always true. Carley had a massive impact on Wales Fiji and did decide game really. Likewise officials in Eng Ire 6N.

It does happen.

Really? I saw Radradra drop the ball with a really good chance. Why does Carley's perceived errors impact more than that? Or more than the other litany of mistakes from players and coaches throughout the game?

My impression is that he's one of those TMOs that thinks they have to be seen to be doing something. I've definitely seen him get a bit trigger happy with his interventions with other teams, so I'd be surprised if we are alone in our disappointment when we see he's TMO.

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think in general theres a lot being missed by tmos. It must be difficult to catch absolutely everything as if you're asking for one thing something else is happening. I also bang the drum quite a lot to say it's always the players and the coaches who impact the match the most, a ref and his team will get things wrong but it's just must easier to focus on them than your own team. Teams can only focus on themselves and reducing their mistakes and optimising their opportunities. I always love picking apart decisions etc but the officials never decide games.

Wasn't Jonker the one that overruled a try to stop England beating the AB's a few years back - that supposed offside by Lawes that took 10 minutes and 67 different angles to decide it was 'clear and obvious' even though even after the event no-one was really sure either way?  

Yeah really close call. Didn't agree with that at all. But I'm not sure that was the only error (if you agree it was,) in the game or why that is deemed more important than any other.

It's not about which impacts more -just because a team may have had an opportunity to still win besides the officials doesn't mean if they didn't take that opportunity the officials still didn't impact them adversely and affect the result ....

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think in general theres a lot being missed by tmos. It must be difficult to catch absolutely everything as if you're asking for one thing something else is happening. I also bang the drum quite a lot to say it's always the players and the coaches who impact the match the most, a ref and his team will get things wrong but it's just must easier to focus on them than your own team. Teams can only focus on themselves and reducing their mistakes and optimising their opportunities. I always love picking apart decisions etc but the officials never decide games.

Except that's not always true. Carley had a massive impact on Wales Fiji and did decide game really. Likewise officials in Eng Ire 6N.

It does happen.

Really? I saw Radradra drop the ball with a really good chance. Why does Carley's perceived errors impact more than that? Or more than the other litany of mistakes from players and coaches throughout the game?

Because Wales should have had at least 2 yellow cards before then and didnt. How Carley didn't card Biggar and Liam Williams is a mystery to even the Welsh pundits.
Yes Radradra could/should scored but Fiji were really hard done by.

But anyway, that match aside officials do decide matches unfortunately.

Heaf wrote:It's not about which impacts more -just because a team may have had an opportunity to still win besides the officials doesn't mean if they didn't take that opportunity the officials still didn't impact them adversely and affect the result ....

In which case I agree then. As long as we agree to ignore all things but a decision we disagree with and alter the wording slightly from decide to affect then yes the refs are at fault!

mountain man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think in general theres a lot being missed by tmos. It must be difficult to catch absolutely everything as if you're asking for one thing something else is happening. I also bang the drum quite a lot to say it's always the players and the coaches who impact the match the most, a ref and his team will get things wrong but it's just must easier to focus on them than your own team. Teams can only focus on themselves and reducing their mistakes and optimising their opportunities. I always love picking apart decisions etc but the officials never decide games.

Except that's not always true. Carley had a massive impact on Wales Fiji and did decide game really. Likewise officials in Eng Ire 6N.

It does happen.

Really? I saw Radradra drop the ball with a really good chance. Why does Carley's perceived errors impact more than that? Or more than the other litany of mistakes from players and coaches throughout the game?

Because Wales should have had at least 2 yellow cards before then and didnt. How Carley didn't card Biggar and Liam Williams is a mystery to even the Welsh pundits.
Yes Radradra could/should scored but Fiji were really hard done by.

But anyway, that match aside officials do decide matches unfortunately.

That kind of thinking ignores the fact that as soon as 1 thing alters so does everything else. If Carley had issued a yellow earlier what's to say that Fiji wouldn't have picked up a red card and be thrashed the play after? Placing the burden on officials to agree with exactly how individual fans see the game (and lets face it there's plenty of moaning which is incorrect from people too) is based in fantasy.

But you're assuming by default the officials must have made errors in both teams favours equally?

Suppose a match happens with two teams playing equally well or badly, both missing potential scoring opportunities and the officials have been even handed all the way through. But in the last play one team scores a try that is incorrectly overruled by the TMO - would you still insist it was the team's fault for not taking their opportunities?

That kind of thinking ignores the fact that as soon as 1 thing alters so does everything else. If Carley had issued a yellow earlier what's to say that Fiji wouldn't have picked up a red card and be thrashed the play after? Placing the burden on officials to agree with exactly how individual fans see the game (and lets face it there's plenty of moaning which is incorrect from people too) is based in fantasy.

No 7&1/2

Posts : 29681
Join date : 2012-10-20

View user profile

Yes it is hypothetical in we'll never know what would have happened if said Welsh players had been (rightly) carded but I do think Fiji were really hard done by and I'm not only one.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think in general theres a lot being missed by tmos. It must be difficult to catch absolutely everything as if you're asking for one thing something else is happening. I also bang the drum quite a lot to say it's always the players and the coaches who impact the match the most, a ref and his team will get things wrong but it's just must easier to focus on them than your own team. Teams can only focus on themselves and reducing their mistakes and optimising their opportunities. I always love picking apart decisions etc but the officials never decide games.

Wasn't Jonker the one that overruled a try to stop England beating the AB's a few years back - that supposed offside by Lawes that took 10 minutes and 67 different angles to decide it was 'clear and obvious' even though even after the event no-one was really sure either way?  

Yeah really close call. Didn't agree with that at all. But I'm not sure that was the only error (if you agree it was,) in the game or why that is deemed more important than any other.

Jonker, to my mind, looked at the wrong thing. Lawes's foot was clearly and obviously ahead of the other England feet in the line, but as I recall there was no discussion about whether it was clearly and obviously ahead of the back foot of the ruck, which is what should have been looked at.

And then in the semifinal, he was right about Underhill benefiting from an obstruction, but wrong when he ruled that Jamie George had knocked on in the maul - the only thing that the ball clearly touches that isn't George's arm is George's leg.

Refs And TMOs, just like players gave good days and bad days.

If you seriously think that any ref is intentionally out to get your team you need to give your head a wobble.

mountain man wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

mountain man wrote:I was very confident England would get bonus point win against Chile then I realised referee is Peyper and TMO Jonker.

I know this will be accused of making excuses before match but Jonker should be nowhere near a rugby match involving England.

Your making excuses before the match has even kicked off.


Here to help

Erm try and pay attention, I did actually write that. The clue is in the well, writing :


"I know this will be accused of making excuses before match".

So before match does in fact mean before match kicks off.

I'm also here to help those who don't read posts properly.

I'm sorry a little light hearted humour went right over your head.

I get that the once mighty England are a bit rubbish right now, but don't let it drag you down.
You shouldn't let their performance been seen as a reflection of your own self worth.

Chin up you have Chile, that should lighten the mood

You shouldn't let their performance been seen as a reflection of your own self worth.

Lol, that's really good. Honest.

And I know full well you were attempting humour as I also mentioned in reply to Heaf.

mountain man wrote:I'm sure he was.

However, if anyone thinks there hasn't been bias by Jonker against England then they haven't been watching matches.

There hasn't. And I have

carpet baboon wrote:

mountain man wrote:I'm sure he was.

However, if anyone thinks there hasn't been bias by Jonker against England then they haven't been watching matches.

There hasn't. And I have

What was the last England match he TMO'd that didn't contain a controversial decision?

Heaf wrote:But you're assuming by default the officials must have made errors in both teams favours equally?

Nope. Merely that players will always make more.

Poorfour wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

mountain man wrote:I'm sure he was.

However, if anyone thinks there hasn't been bias by Jonker against England then they haven't been watching matches.

There hasn't. And I have

What was the last England match he TMO'd that didn't contain a controversial decision?

Doesn't make him biased.

What reason would he have to risk his job, which he clearly must like doing, just to shaft England?

Is it money? Who's paying him then? Is it World Rugby?
The Irish? An antipodean cartel?

Or is he just so so petty he would risk his job as he just hates England so so much?

And why would world right allow it? Is it a massive conspiracy? Are they so scared of England getting world domination they just have to stop them?

Or could it just be he has made marginal decision with a degree of human error that anyone could make, and you don't agree with it?

I think the stuff with Jonker comes from that match against Australia where he was absolutely desperate to award them a try from a very obviously forward pass. The ref in the end overruled him. I don’t think he has been particularly biased against us since, but my heart always sinks a little when I see him as TMO. He certainly scrutinises our play thoroughly and doesn’t miss an opportunity to point things out.

carpet baboon wrote:

Poorfour wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

mountain man wrote:I'm sure he was.

However, if anyone thinks there hasn't been bias by Jonker against England then they haven't been watching matches.

There hasn't. And I have

What was the last England match he TMO'd that didn't contain a controversial decision?

Doesn't make him biased.

What reason would he have to risk his job, which he clearly must like doing, just to shaft England?

Is it money? Who's paying him then? Is it World Rugby?
The Irish? An antipodean cartel?

Or is he just so so petty he would risk his job as he just hates England so so much?

And why would world right allow it? Is it a massive conspiracy? Are they so scared of England getting world domination they just have to stop them?

Or could it just be he has made marginal decision with a degree of human error that anyone could make, and you don't agree with it?

You're putting a ludicrous strawman forward there. I catgorically do not think that Jonker sets out to deliberately rule against England or any other team. As you say, that would be a recipe for getting dropped or fired.

I do think it's probable, though, that he has an unconscious bias, because we all do.

At work, in every performance cycle we have refresher training on how to recognise and counter unconscious bias against some group or other. I am not sure there is an equivalent for referees and TMOs, but there have been enough instances where Jonker has pushed the boundaries of what's clear and obvious when intervening against England.

The strongest example was the Steward red card where Jonker clearly stated that Steward had a clear line of sight and time to react - neither of which looked clear on the tv replays - and pushed strongly for a red card that was subsequently overturned by the citing commission.

When a marginal call goes for England do you claim a positive bias?
Surely that's just as bad, you are the county of fair play and all that, tally ho

carpet baboon wrote:When a marginal call goes for England do you claim a positive bias?
Surely that's just as bad, you are the county of fair play and all that, tally ho

No, because you expect marginal calls will go both ways and average out over time. What you notice is the pattern where marginal calls - especially game-changing ones - seem to go consistently against one team or another. And the team you most notice it for is the one you support most strongly.

When a TMO has had a decisive hand in controversial calls that have gone against one team in a sequence of matches spanning several years, it's reasonable to ponder whether he has an unconscious bias against that team.

On the other hand, at least Jonker is better than Steve Walsh, who was far more blatantly biased against England and yet kept being given key matches to referee.

I do sometimes wonder if WR have a policy that once an official has had a controversial game involving a team they will keep getting assigned to them... or is it just that the top class international officials are such a small pool that you'll inevitably get them regularly?

I've got a solution, Ireland have peyper and jonker and we will have anyone else. If we keep Wayne Barnes away from the Irish then everyone will be happy?

The Australia match is a key one that makes it difficult to believe Jonker doesn't have a bias - albeit possibly unconscious - as the pass in question was so clearly forwards it's unfathomable how he could have tried to award the try. It was so bad you could hear the disbelief in the ref's voice when he saw the replay ...

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:But you're assuming by default the officials must have made errors in both teams favours equally?

Nope. Merely that players will always make more.

But the players mistakes are irrelevant to the performance of the officials ... you can't say because the players make mistakes then officiating errors make no difference ...

Yoda wrote:I've got a solution, Ireland have peyper and jonker and we will have anyone else. If we keep Wayne Barnes away from the Irish then everyone will be happy?

I'm happy with any reff.

Barnes never has been out to get Ireland despite some of my countrymen's opinions.

Calls have gone for us and against. If we lost its because on the day we weren't good enough to win.

It really is that simple.

Any talk of the ref is just deflection from your own mistakes and a deep deep misunderstanding of humanity being fallible in all that they do. You will never get a game that is reffed by humans without calls you disagree with, and rugby is especially open to interpretation on the day.

It is just a game that ultimately has no actual bearing on us the fans. It doesn't make us better or worse people. It just gives us something to chat about and distract us from everyday life.

Enjoy it for what it is for us fans, it's just entertainment.

And I hope no-one thinks I'm having a personal go at them as I'm not. I just find the whole ref being biased a tad ridiculous in international sport.

I am confused as to why Jonker consistently is assigned to English games though.

It makes no sense...

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:But you're assuming by default the officials must have made errors in both teams favours equally?

Nope. Merely that players will always make more.

But the players mistakes are irrelevant to the performance of the officials ... you can't say because the players make mistakes then officiating errors make no difference ...

I said that officials do not decide matches.

Samoa seem to be going for England's tactic of discombobulating Argentina by playing a man down.

Argentina aren't looking great (though I imagine it's tough to look good in these conditions), but Samoa are making far too many mistakes.

carpet baboon wrote:

Yoda wrote:I've got a solution, Ireland have peyper and jonker and we will have anyone else. If we keep Wayne Barnes away from the Irish then everyone will be happy?

I'm happy with any reff.

Barnes never has been out to get Ireland despite some of my countrymen's opinions.

Calls have gone for us and against. If we lost its because on the day we weren't good enough to win.

It really is that simple.

Any talk of the ref is just deflection from your own mistakes and a deep deep misunderstanding of humanity being fallible in all that they do. You will never get a game that is reffed by humans without calls you disagree with, and rugby is especially open to interpretation on the day.

It is just a game that ultimately has no actual bearing on us the fans. It doesn't make us better or worse people. It just gives us something to chat about and distract us from everyday life.

Enjoy it for what it is for us fans, it's just entertainment.

And I hope no-one thinks I'm having a personal go at them as I'm not. I just find the whole ref being biased a tad ridiculous in international sport.

You are right, it's a game and it matters not. However when you have the gift of a replay and you still mess up then you have to ask questions. Anyway Samoa and Argentina wasn't as exciting as I was hoping.