NZ v England

[Phil E]

There's nothing quite as illuminating as England fans in defeat.

It wasn't the referee's fault.

To be fair Simon, I don't think anyone is claiming we lost because of the referee, they are just saying there were a couple of odd calls.

Personally I think we lost because we switched off at the PK, that's where it all started.

 

[dave_clark]

although had we not switched off they would have kicked it, so we'd have lost by 2 rather than 5.

 

[Browner]

....... we switched off at the PK, that's where it all started.

Lol,
yep ......it all started c.75th min

Or ..... our chances were foretold when NO ducked nonu's (professional foul play) shirt pull, as clear a cynical play as you'd see.

 

[Toby Warren]

There's nothing quite as illuminating as England fans in defeat.

It wasn't the referee's fault.

Oh come off it.

People are saying there was some odd calls not that NO cost England the game.


The lack of Yellow for the AB was odd.

But read back - I thought England - hung on he floor and other things.

If you saw that cynical not release on the goal line at Level 10 or better you'd be having a stern word with the ref for no yellow.

 

[crossref]

The turning point was indisputably the YC. You can't play the last ten minutes against nz a man down.

That is was a YC that turned the gme is why the failure to give 2 YC to NZ seems so galling.

 

[RobLev]

There's nothing quite as illuminating as England fans in defeat.

It wasn't the referee's fault.

What's your view on the individual points being made?

 

[didds]

Same way Haskell got away with tackling Dagg in the air.

yup - I caught that too Ian!

didds

 

[SimonSmith]

Most of the marginal stuff went against england IMO,
PS.... did he call England for no#s in the LO when AB won the throw unchallenged, or did I imagine that?

Can't help feeling the balance of the refereeing decisions made the difference here. Not Nigel best game.

NZ were lucky to avoid 2 YC, ma nonu holding haskell back at the start and certainly the PK for tackler not releasing just a metre from own line.

2 very odd knock on decisions against England as well.

Small margins

I don't think my comments were THAT far off.

 

[RobLev]

I don't think my comments were THAT far off.

They didn't address the issues raised...

 

[RobLev]

They didn't address the issues raised...

...and nor did you quote anything from Simon Thomas or The Fat; although ST isn't an ABE, neither could reasonably be described as England fans.

 

[Ian_Cook]

although had we not switched off they would have kicked it, so we'd have lost by 2 rather than 5.

The PK was on the very outside limit of Cruden's range (about 45m) IMO, this is why, when he and Barrett spotted the opportunity to run, they took it.

 

[Ian_Cook]

yup - I caught that too Ian!

didds

Didds, to be fair NO did explain why he didn't PK Haskell. He said "the catcher fell into him", and while it is a sentiment that I completely agree with (what was Haskell supposed to do in that situation, just vanish?), NO's decision runs directly contrary to iRB Referee Manager Joel Jutge's pronouncement that the player in the air must not be touched.

 

[dave_clark]

The PK was on the very outside limit of Cruden's range (about 45m) IMO, this is why, when he and Barrett spotted the opportunity to run, they took it.

in which case it's even more criminal that they turned their back on the kicker!

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Of course they do, but they won't necessarily know the names of some of their opposition, particularly as, in this case, many of them are players they probably haven't seen before

For example

The players in red I know of and would recognise on sight
The players in green I know of or have heard the name but probably would not recognise if I met them in the street
The players in blue, I have never heard of. Without their jersey numbers, I couldn't even tell you whether they were forwards or backs.

England:
15-Mike Brown,
14-Marland Yarde
13-Manu Tuilagi,
12-Kyle Eastmond,
11-Jonny May,
10-Freddie Burns,
9-Danny Care;
8-Ben Morgan,
7-Chris Robshaw (captain),
6-James Haskell,
5-Geoff Parling,
4-Joe Launchbury,
3-David Wilson,
2-Rob Webber,
1-Joe Marler
Replacments:
16-Joe Gray,
17-Matt Mullan,
18-Henry Thomas,
19-Dave Attwood,
20-Tom Johnson,
21-Ben Youngs,
22-Danny Cipriani,
23-Chris Pennell

I notice David Wilson is in black but you forgot the category "knocks on a lot".

Thanks to BTSport I don't know a lot of that team (mainly the bench). I haven't seen Eastmond play since he left Saints.

 

[damo]

The maul theory is the one I think Fekitoa was working under. He was holding the BC's upper body and ball up but the BC's legs and arse were on the ground.
FWIW, it doesn't matter what Fekitoa thought, if it was a tackle he had to release. Doesn't matter if he thought it was a maul or an elephant, if it slowed the attack that close to the line, then a card should have been considered.

I am in two minds about that last sentence. The law talks about 'intentional offending' as being foul play and gives a YC as a possible sanction. If NO didn't think it was intentional offending then he probably shouldn't give the YC, regardless of where it happened.

As I watched the game I thought it was borderline. It looked to me that the English support player bound on prior to the ball carrier going to ground, so technically it may have been a maul. However I haven't see the incident sober, so my assessment may be less than brilliant. :hap:

 

[The Fat]

I am in two minds about that last sentence. The law talks about 'intentional offending' as being foul play and gives a YC as a possible sanction. If NO didn't think it was intentional offending then he probably shouldn't give the YC, regardless of where it happened.

As I watched the game I thought it was borderline. It looked to me that the English support player bound on prior to the ball carrier going to ground, so technically it may have been a maul. However I haven't see the incident sober, so my assessment may be less than brilliant. :hap:

I take your point but I have seen lots of players unintentionally infringe close to their own line and get a YC for their efforts. Sometimes it will be for team offences and the next guy is just the unlucky one who gets the card even if there was no intent. Think about the tackler who goes to stand up and gets smashed and caught in the ensuing ruck on the wrong side and is held there by the attacking players in the ruck.
Bottom line is that NO is such an experienced referee and if he sat down and explained his thought process on the Fekitoa incident we may all go, "Oh, OK. I see your point. Fair enough". However, in the absence of such luxury, for me (at my lowly level of refereeing) it should have been yellow.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Please watch the video from about 71:52 on the game clock (YouTube 4:46)

1. It wasn't a tackle on Cipriani, it was a Law 14 situation so no gate, therefore Black 20 (Vito) was OK to come in from where he did

2. NO says "ruck now!" just after Black 13 starts to join directly behind the ball

3. Black 16 joins from well back behind the ball drives directly over it (so much so that he knocks it with his knee)

4. When the ball comes loose, Black 21 moves in from an onside position and picks up the ball.

Can someone explain who did NO PK for side entry, and why, because I cannot see a PK there? NO says "in the side, not through the gate", but there is no gate at the ruck, only at the tackle.

What I see is a textbook example of winning a turnover driving opponents directly off the ball.

 

[didds]

Fekitoa thought (incorrectly) that the ball was over the goal-line, so he didn't have to release. It was about a foot short

Yeah right.

Maybe Yarde thought the ball was over the goal line so he didn;t have to release it. It was about 20m short ;-)

Is there a law reference for "you can get away with it if you think differently from reality" ?

I just don't buy it.

didds

- - - Updated - - -

FWIW, it doesn't matter what Fekitoa thought, if it was a tackle he had to release. Doesn't matter if he thought it was a maul or an elephant

Genau.

As they say in Germany.

didds

 

[didds]

Didds, to be fair NO did explain why he didn't PK Haskell. He said "the catcher fell into him", and while it is a sentiment that I completely agree with (what was Haskell supposed to do in that situation, just vanish?), NO's decision runs directly contrary to iRB Referee Manager Joel Jutge's pronouncement that the player in the air must not be touched.

Thanks for that Ian - I'd missed NO's explanation.

I too feel pretty much as you do - we discussed similar stuff at length recently IIRC in another thread.

But as you say... JJ says differentl;y so its another nail in NO's coffin from his bosses' perspective, and general game by game consistency.

If Dagg gets a YC next week for doing the same on (say) Brown, where is the equity in that for Dagg and the ABs?

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

Yeah right.

Maybe Yarde thought the ball was over the goal line so he didn;t have to release it. It was about 20m short ;-)

Is there a law reference for "you can get away with it if you think differently from reality" ?

I just don't buy it.

didds

I just had a look at the video (I was relying on memory when I posted earlier). I originally thought Fekitoa was on his back but that was Black 22, and he got out and got to his feet.

Fekitoa probably should have been binned, and I think Nonu was damned lucky he wasn't binned either.

In Fekitoa's case he thought it was a maul that collapsed, and therefore no release was required. In fact he argued that to Nigel Owens when he was penalised. As they go back to the restart after England kicks the penalty goal, Owens says to him...

"I understand why you thought you were ok, but your timing was wrong, that's why you didn't get yellow".

This tells me that Owens reasoned it was not intentional so I can understand why he didn't give a yellow card. By the same token, I would not have had a problem with it if he had. This makes it a 50/50 call IMO

However, there was nothing 50/50 about the Marlon Yarde one. After going to ground on the wrong side of the tackle, he then grabbed the ball after the tackle was made, held onto it, and continued to do so after he was told twice by Owens to release it. Much more clear cut IMO.