England v South Africa

[Browner]

Wonder if SL feels under pressure from his asst coach not to give George Ford a start ?

Thought this might've been Fords time to start, disappointed he's not.

Mike Brown (Harlequins);
Anthony Watson (Bath),
Brad Barritt (Saracens),
Kyle Eastmond (Bath),
Jonny May (Gloucester);
Owen Farrell (Saracens),
Danny Care (Harlequins);
Joe Marler (Harlequins),
Dylan Hartley (Northampton),
David Wilson (Bath),
Dave Attwood (Bath),
Courtney Lawes (Northampton),
Tom Wood (Northampton),
Chris Robshaw (Harlequins),
Billy Vunipola (Saracens)
Replacements
Rob Webber (Bath), Matt Mullan (Wasps), Kieran Brookes (Newcastle), George Kruis (Saracens), Ben Morgan (Gloucester), Ben Youngs (Leicester), George Ford (Bath), Marland Yarde (Harlequins)

PS, is May better than Strettle week in week out?

 

[Dixie]

PS, is May better than Strettle week in week out?[/FONT][/COLOR]

No - but would Strettle have so comprehensively gassed NZ?

 

[L'irlandais]

Jeremy Guscott reckons England will shade it, I'm not convinced for two reasons.
1 RSA have just had a Wake-up call (last week-end), since their own poor play cost them that game.
2 Some teams/styles of play are incompatible - Ireland v Oz for example. England against RSA. It's one of those things, get over it, tomorrow you lose!

Not sure "comprehensive" comes into it, the scoreline was "flattering" to England.

 

[Dan_A]

74 mins in and lineout to SA. England don't compete but SA still form a wedge and drive. When the first England player then makes contact it is with a non ball carrier who is in the wedge in front of the ball carrier. It's definitely not a maul so isnt that obstruction?

 

[RobLev]

74 mins in and lineout to SA. England don't compete but SA still form a wedge and drive. When the first England player then makes contact it is with a non ball carrier who is in the wedge in front of the ball carrier. It's definitely not a maul so isnt that obstruction?

Because it was on TV?

 

[Dan_A]

Hahaha, know what you mean!

And just to clarify, England lost fair and square and Walsh got most things right IMHO, just interested in the non competing line out ploy.

 

[The Fat]

74 mins in and lineout to SA. England don't compete but SA still form a wedge and drive. When the first England player then makes contact it is with a non ball carrier who is in the wedge in front of the ball carrier. It's definitely not a maul so isnt that obstruction?

Will need to see a replay of that one to check where the ball is when the England player engages. If it's the one I'm thinking of, Lawes gets pinged for coming around the back of the maul. As Lawes starts to move, another England player engages which possibly forms the maul depending on whether he makes contact with the ball carrier or if the ball has already moved towards the back of the pack. Need to slo-mo the video to check.

 

[Dan_A]

Lawes WAS offside because the England player made contact before Lawes went round BUT From what I saw that England player made first contact with a non ball carrier, so I'm thinking penalty to England immediately before Lawes was pinged?

 

[dave_clark]

dylan hartley should have got a red card, rather than a yellow.

discuss.

for me, it was well away from the ball and the tap by the hand shows he knew exactly what he was stamping on. my guess (and i haven't looked up the matrix) is a six week ban, with no reduction for first offence...

 

[RobLev]

Hahaha, know what you mean!

And just to clarify, England lost fair and square and Walsh got most things right IMHO, just interested in the non competing line out ploy.

Actually, to be fair to SW, there was an ?IRB? edict earlier this year that told refs to ignore the lawobstruction:


[LAWS]If the defenders in the lineout choose to not engage the lineout drive by “leaving the lineout as a group”. Penalty Kick to team in possession.

If the defenders in the lineout choose to not engage the line out drive by simply opening up a gap & “creating space” & not leaving the lineout, the following process should be followed:
- attackers would need to keep the ball with the front player, if they were to drive down-field (therefore play on, general play – defenders could either engage to form a maul, or tackle the ball carrier only);
- If they immediately pass it back to the player at the rear of the “group”, the referee will tell them to “use it” which they must do immediately.
- if they drive forward with the ball at the back (did not release the ball), the referee will award a scrum for “accidental offside” rather than PK for obstruction.[/LAWS]

We had a discussion about it...

 

[The Fat]

Hahaha, know what you mean!

And just to clarify, England lost fair and square and Walsh got most things right IMHO, just interested in the non competing line out ploy.

Agree.
However, there were a couple of things to question.
1. SA call for a mark and SW blows for half time.
2. AR is perfectly positioned and seems to be concentrating on Habana's timing of the catch near the touch line and judges that Habana caught the ball and then plants his left foot in touch. TV replay shows that he plants his foot just before the catch. A couple of phases later, England score. Tough to call at full speed probably at ground level and close to the play. The TV view high shot in real time always looked like Habana got it right.
3. Not long after #2, Habana chases a kick down the left side line and makes contact with a couple of England players. He gets a PK awarded against him. I missed what happened there. Can anyone enlighten me please?

There were a couple of other things but can't remember specifics.

Threatening YCs for next maul collapse offenders certainly helps to keep mauls alive:biggrin:

 

[The Fat]

Lawes WAS offside because the England player made contact before Lawes went round BUT From what I saw that England player made first contact with a non ball carrier, so I'm thinking penalty to England immediately before Lawes was pinged?

6 of one, half a dozen of the other.
If the ball had already moved to the back before the other England player engaged, then Lawes was not offside. If that was the case, then yes Lawes is legal and PK to England for obstruction technically speaking however, I believe that the guidance of this situation to refs was to award a scrum for accidental offside (controversial) by the team in possession. In this case, a good referee would take a breath and see what happens with a player in Lawes' position before awarding the scrum.
Obviously on this occasion, SW deemed that a maul had formed.


Edit:
RobLev's all over it.:biggrin:

 

[Dan_A]

Agree.
However, there were a couple of things to question.
1. SA call for a mark and SW blows for half time.

Is this wrong then? I played at fullback for our Veterans team last night and this exact thing happened. I made a mark and the referee blew for halftime. Didn't think anything more of it. As an aside the referee told us that in 30+ years of refereeing we were his first ever 0-0 draw :biggrin:

 

[The Fat]

Is this wrong then? I played at fullback for our Veterans team last night and this exact thing happened. I made a mark and the referee blew for halftime. Didn't think anything more of it. As an aside the referee told us that in 30+ years of refereeing we were his first ever 0-0 draw :biggrin:

5.7(e) If time expires and the ball is not dead, or an awarded scrum or lineout has not been completed, the referee allows play to continue until the next time that the ball becomes dead. The ball becomes dead when the referee would have awarded a scrum, lineout, an option to the non-infringing team, drop out or after a conversion or successful penalty kick at goal. If a scrum has to be reset, the scrum has not been completed. If time expires and a mark, free kick or penalty kick is then awarded, the referee allows play to continue.

 

[FightOrFlight]

England v South Africa today. Steve Walsh blew the 1st half up after a mark was caught by a player. The ball was not kicked to touch he just blew the mark and then blew the half time whistle. Now no doubt the ball would be stabbed dead from the mark but still in a test match is this proper procedure?

[LAWS] If time expires and a mark, free kick or penalty kick is then awarded, the referee allows play to continue.[/LAWS]

 

[didds]

Re: Blow it up on a mark.

Its Steve Walsh. He makes it up as he goes along.

didds

 

[leaguerefaus]

Re: Blow it up on a mark.

Its Steve Walsh. He makes it up as he goes along.

didds

And yet he is consistently chosen to referee test matches. I guess he must be very good at making it up as he goes along...

 

[FightOrFlight]

Re: Blow it up on a mark.

And yet he is consistently chosen to referee test matches. I guess he must be very good at making it up as he goes along...

Just the best the IRB allow his union put forward...then sack...then rehire from a different Union!

He's calls it fairly decent but his show pony antics lead to game control issues and however insignificant it is, blowing it up on a mark is poor form for a test ref.

 

[Daftmedic]

Thought Steve Walsh had a good game.

 

[crossref]

Thought Steve Walsh had a good game.

so did I