The English team-Their own worst enemy

macman2010

What is it with a touring English team they just cannot keep their beak clean for one minute.


http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/worldcup/2011/0929/rwc_england.html
Two key members of Martin Johnson's senior management team were suspended by the Rugby Football Union today after England found themselves embroiled in another World Cup cheat storm.
Jonny Wilkinson's mentor Dave Alred and fitness specialist Paul Stridgeon were found to have illegally switched balls during England's 67-3 victory over Romania last Saturday.

Both Alred, the kicking coach, and Stridgeon have been banned from entering Eden Park for Saturday's decisive Pool B showdown with Scotland.

The RFU were forced to act on 'ballgate' after England became the subject of a misconduct investigation by Rugby World Cup Limited (RWCL).
Alred and Stridgeon were found to have switched the ball Wilkinson was due to kick with on a number of occasions, without requesting permission from referee Romain Poite.
An RFU statement read: "Those team management members took it upon themselves to substitute balls during the match in contravention of both the laws of the game and the spirit of the game.

"The RFU fully accepts that the action of those team management members was incorrect and detrimental to the image of the tournament, the game and to English rugby.

"The RFU has therefore decided to reprimand those team management members, to warn them as to their future conduct and to suspend them from participation in England's next game, the match between England and Scotland."

RWCL confirmed England will face no further sanctions, having been satisfied with the RFU's response - even though it meant no official questions were asked about how much Wilkinson or Johnson knew.
Immediately after the match, Johnson said he had not been aware of the issue at the time England were warned by Poite to "desist". Wilkinson left the stadium without commenting.

Johnson said today: "If we feel a ball is not 100% we'll ask for it to be changed. You have to ask the referee. If he says 'yes', you can. If he says 'no', you can't.
"We didn't ask him. It's unfortunate we have had to take this action but ultimately there was a breach of the laws of the game.

"But it's happened, some action has been taken, and we have to move on."

Eight years ago, England's triumphant World Cup campaign could have been derailed after they briefly fielded 16 men in the pool victory over Samoa.
England were hauled before a disciplinary hearing in Sydney and narrowly escaped a points deduction.

But they were fined and had fitness coach Dave Reddin banned for two matches for a verbal altercation with fourth official Steve Walsh.
This latest brush with authority comes after an eventful World Cup campaign for England, which has seen Johnson face down criticism over his players' conduct on a drunken night out in Queenstown.
England also became the first team to have a player suspended, after Courtney Lawes was found guilty of striking Argentina hooker Mario Ledesma with his knee.

Wilkinson refused to comment on the ball-switch issue today - but he believes England are stronger for all the challenges they have faced.

England must beat Scotland on Saturday to be sure of qualifying for the World Cup quarter-finals.
Speaking before the RFU had publicly announced the suspensions, Wilkinson said: "I'm not going to comment on that (the ball-switch issue). It's not a place I want to put my foot right now.

"Whatever we have been through has brought us as close as we can possibly be and we know the direction we want to go.

"I look at the guys in the squad now and when they are training and when they are around the hotel, you can tell just by looking at them that they are desperate to be there, they are desperate to do well, desperate to do anything that can help the other guys around them to get through.

"It's now time to try and walk the walk as opposed to talk about it."

Wilkinson missed five consecutive kicks against Argentina and his strike rate is still less than 50%, which has brought the quality of the World Cup balls into question.
Although England have been using the current Gilbert ball since the autumn of 2010, World Cup regulations state the match balls are to be used for the first time in the captain's run on the eve of the game.

As a result, some balls are not as 'kicked-in' as players would like, meaning they can be too hard and therefore difficult to control.
Johnson said that Wilkinson found some of the balls in the Romania game to be "less than perfect". Wilkinson insisted the RFU's investigation has not been a distraction to him ahead of the Scotland game.
"It doesn't impact on that side of things," he said.

"In terms of preparations this week we have had a good first three and half days. I was out there this morning smashing them around and feeling very happy about where we are," he said.
"That's the way we've wanted it to be all World Cup. We feel very good about it."

CIARAN_BOYLE

English cheaters

lol

I can't believe this

Conas

The only difference between this and Bloodgate is the balls were switched illegally and not the players.

davegrohl48

That is just not on. The one thing I have always admired about rugby is the code of conduct spirit among the players and teams. Respect for referees, hardly any diving, not roaring at opposition kickers for penalties.

Deliberately switching balls in a match to gain an advantage is unacceptable. Doesn't matter if it was only the kicking coaches decision. Premeditated cheating by part of their management team. I'm wondering is it in the rules that you can lose the points for the game? So Romania get zero points zero scores for/against and England get zero points and zero scores for/against. The rule is simple to implement if the winning team has been the one cheating as per this case.

keane2097

What advantage would this give the kicker?

An.Duine.Eile

They do this is regularly. I noticed at the friendly against Ireland that on their Lineout they would switch the ball for a nice dry one. Which was previously kept wrapped in a towel. Then switch it back as soon as they could.

Vaugh memory of other times.

Didn't realise that was not allowed.

Colm R

keane2097 wrote: »

What advantage would this give the kicker?

On the radio this morning, that they were saying that a well used ball is giving better results for Penalty kicks. Odd I know.

I'm guessing what they were doing is ensuring that a ball that has only just come on the pitch for a short time, is taken off if England needed a penalty.

At this level, I guess every advantage counts, even if its only in the head. But you have to wonder why they chose to do this against Romania.

Conas

I suppose it isn't all that bad. If it's the same ball with the same material etc...then there should really be no problem. I can't see how a ball that's kicked more has an advantage. I think things like this are all in people's heads. I doubt any ball that was swapped was any newer or more used than the other.

cython

An.Duine.Eile wrote: »

They do this is regularly. I noticed at the friendly against Ireland that on their Lineout they would switch the ball for a nice dry one. Which was previously kept wrapped in a towel. Then switch it back as soon as they could.

Vaugh memory of other times.

Didn't realise that was not allowed.

I think it's ok for a lineout (not a quick throw, mind, we all remember that throw!), but Law 21.3(c)states that "The kicker must use the ball that was in play unless the referee decides it was defective." so if the ball was changed without the referee's request, or even knowledge, England are in trouble.

JustinDee

As I pointed out before, they were trying this at the Aviva this August but were rumbled. In 2003, they did it in their Grand Slam-winning game.

The ball their main kicker prefers is slightly worn and used therefore slightly deflated.

macman2010

keane2097 wrote: »

What advantage would this give the kicker?

Physically there may be very little difference but if the kicker is using a ball he believes he is better and more comfortable with then it is a big psychological advantage IMO

part time punk

davegrohl48 wrote: »

not roaring at opposition kickers for penalties.
.

Slightly off topic but is it just me or has there been a lot of booing by the crowds when place kicks are happening. Particularly noticed it during Ireland vs Oz game, for both kickers.

davegrohl48

There has been I suppose more shouting.
I was thinking more about the players don't shout at the opposition player kicking although they are much further back usually.

prospect

Whether it actually makes a difference or not, the laws are the laws.
Not sure what the consequences, retrospectively, are for breaking that particular rule.

JustinDee

part time punk wrote: »

Slightly off topic but is it just me or has there been a lot of booing by the crowds when place kicks are happening. Particularly noticed it during Ireland vs Oz game, for both kickers.

They're hammered and having the time of their lives.
Water off a duck's back to a kicker.

part time punk

JustinDee wrote: »

They're hammered and having the time of their lives.
Water off a duck's back to a kicker.

Maybe, although I'm sure there's drunk people at 6 Nations/HEC/Magners league games etc. But yeah always thought the total silence of 50,000 odd people in a stadium would be more disconcerting.

MrDerp

Colm R wrote: »

On the radio this morning, that they were saying that a well used ball is giving better results for Penalty kicks. Odd I know.

I'm guessing what they were doing is ensuring that a ball that has only just come on the pitch for a short time, is taken off if England needed a penalty.

At this level, I guess every advantage counts, even if its only in the head. But you have to wonder why they chose to do this against Romania.

I always thought that teams were given match balls to kick in for a couple of sessions before the match i.e. handed out and collected in a supervised manner? I seem to have some fragment of a memory involving ROG complaining about not getting enough time with the match balls for some game. If this is correct, then a ball being on the pitch a while shouldn't make it too different - not as dramatic a difference as you'd get over a very fresh ball.

Could the kicking coach have found some way to subtly mark a preferred ball or am I going way overboard here? Kickers are very superstitious creatures, none more so than Johnny Wilkinson. I read an interview with him years ago where he said that: no matter how bad he's kicking on a given day, he just keeps on setting up and going through the routine - training is the place to address inconsistency, as per a golf swing.

.ak

This isn't so much cheating as it is a breach of the laws.

Sexton swapped balls before a kick in the Oz game. I remember noting it.

It may be a kicker's preference, for the simple fact that the ball may seem 'imperfect' to the kicker. As far as I'm aware it's well within the laws of the game for a kicker to request a different match ball to be used.

However, what they didn't do was ask the ref, or it seems the ref asked them to stop doing it and they didn't. Bastids.

JustinDee

.ak wrote: »

This isn't so much cheating as it is a breach of the laws

Breach of the laws to gain upper hand in game. Erm...thats cheating.

.ak wrote: »

Sexton swapped balls before a kick in the Oz game. I remember noting it

Our management do not try to sneak any other match balls into circulation under the nose of the match officials however. Switching a ball that may have deflated or popped a stitch with approval from ref is all fine.

keane2097

This is a complete mountain/molehill situation.

If Ireland had done this people would be (correctly) saying what's the big deal.

davegrohl48

I don't think Irish people would be happy with us deliberately cheating. If Sexton for instance was knowingly changing out the ball in the Aus game without checking with Ref then we've deliberately infringed the rules and a serious offence that I wouldn't be happy with.
If Sexton on the other hand had a lapse of concentration, didn't check with the ref and changed out the ball it's the same infringement but the general public would be more forgiving.
This is a case of kicker, kicking coach, fitness coach knowing what they were doing. N given that Martin Johnsons nickname was "Stato" I can't believe such a prepared guy didn't know what was happening with his kicker.

Irish people were pretty accepting of the situation where Harrington lost out on a tournament win due to signing his card incorrectly. Not the same sport or deliberateness but an example of how we don't throw the toys out of the pram saying "Big deal small infringement"
The big deal for me is that it's a slippery slope towards sides doing even more infringements if there is no tournament/points rebuke. Example:
- Changing their 5 metre line to be 5.3 metres as they are afraid of pushover tries from five metre scrums
- Narrowing the pitch below regulations as they are wary of oppositions fast backs
- Making the pitch shorter/longer than regulations for umpteen different reasons
- Putting in a flat ball when opposition are requiring 3 pts to make change of a succesful kick less likely

We've already had Bloodgate so sides have been proven to cheat to gain an advantage. Where does the line stop if cheaters go unpunished?

Conas

davegrohl48 wrote: »

We've already had Bloodgate so sides have been proven to cheat to gain an advantage. Where does the line stop if cheaters go unpunished?

It's not illegal until you get caught.

Bloodgate was soley Nigel Owens fault, and the other officials that were present that day. Actually it was very foolish that Nigel Owens didn't cop on to what the Harlequins were planning. It's the same way with Joe Sheridan's goal against Louth. everyone chances their arm in a hope of gaining an advantage, but that's why there's officials there. People will always try and bend the rules on and off the pitch. It's up for the powers in charge to be sharper and smarter.

.ak

Don't get me wrong, I fully believe they should be punished for the infringement, so to stop as said the 'slippery slope' that leads to more cheating.

The point I'm trying to make is the situation is totally blown out of the water with the word 'cheating'.

The kicker gains really nothing other than having a match ball that's already been approved by the officials, and picking one they feel comfortable with.

They didn't run it past the ref correctly.

It's more of a mistake rather than cheating imo, and I'm not going to be sucked into it by over the top media headlines.

Thud

read somewhere that there wasn't as much give inthe world cup ball as the regular ones, wouln't have been difficult to hide a valve somewhere to let out a small amount of air so that ball acted more like regular ball.

as for doing it against Romania, Johnny's kicking stats would improve -> confidence would improve -> press wouldn't point it out (like they have done to Sexton) so less pressure for tougher games

sandleman1979

This is just as bad as pretending to be injured to slow the game down ;-)

hardCopy

Johnson will love this. The team have been under attack from the media for weeks and Johnson has defended them. It just helps him create a siege mentality where the players feel they need to work together because the whole world is against them.

This is the same guy who provoked our president in front of a capacity crowd at Lansdowne.

.ak

hardCopy wrote: »

Johnson will love this. The team have been under attack from the media for weeks and Johnson has defended them. It just helps him create a siege mentality where the players feel they need to work together because the whole world is against them.

This is the same guy who provoked our president in front of a capacity crowd at Lansdowne.

I missed that one..? Really?

TheHighRoad

but, but....I thought there was nothing wrong with the ball????

It seems the sponsor's ball is causing a lot of problems for some of the best kickers in the tournament.

sock puppet

TheHighRoad wrote: »

but, but....I thought there was nothing wrong with the ball????

It seems the sponsor's ball is causing a lot of problems for some of the best kickers in the tournament.

But not for others stangely. Perhaps some just have bigger problems adjusting to small changes.

Zuffer

I think England have gotten off lightly.

It's deliberate, premeditated breaking of the laws of the game. There is obviously some perceived advantage to doing it, if not then why do it? Plus, as Justin said, England teams involving Martin Johnson have priors for this particular offence. I remember the English coaching staff producing a ball from a bag and introducing it to play just prior to a crucial lineout in the 6N 2003, the Grand Slam game.

The punishment is a joke, the team itself haven't suffered for breaking the rules and being caught. The two suspended guys will be welcomed back and clapped on the back for taking one for the team.

Naos

.ak wrote: »

I missed that one..? Really?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BdsTh2oP6o

.ak

Naos wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BdsTh2oP6o

Ahhh totally forgot about that, jesus.. Hahah.

.ak

... actually, IF we get to the semi's and meet England there, I think it should be mandatory for all the squad to be reminded of that.

Clearlier

Conas wrote: »

It's not illegal until you get caught.

Bloodgate was soley Nigel Owens fault, and the other officials that were present that day. Actually it was very foolish that Nigel Owens didn't cop on to what the Harlequins were planning. It's the same way with Joe Sheridan's goal against Louth. everyone chances their arm in a hope of gaining an advantage, but that's why there's officials there. People will always try and bend the rules on and off the pitch. It's up for the powers in charge to be sharper and smarter.

I'm not particularly known for defending refs but this is a bit harsh on Owens. We're playing rugby not football here. We expect players and teams to abide by the rules and not wilfully break them. Owens isn't a medic. If a player claims to have a blood injury and looks to have blood coming out how is he supposed to judge that the player is faking?

.ak

Clearlier wrote: »

I'm not particularly known for defending refs but this is a bit harsh on Owens. We're playing rugby not football here. We expect players and teams to abide by the rules and not wilfully break them. Owens isn't a medic. If a player claims to have a blood injury and looks to have blood coming out how is he supposed to judge that the player is faking?

Nah, Owens should've taken some of the blood into a sample dish and tried to burn it to see if it was The Thing's blood.

danthefan

part time punk wrote: »

Slightly off topic but is it just me or has there been a lot of booing by the crowds when place kicks are happening. Particularly noticed it during Ireland vs Oz game, for both kickers.

If there has been, so what?

nice_guy80

Johnson has previous in this area

does nobody remember the famous water bottle and communication with the management in 2003 RWC??

JustinDee

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Johnson has previous in this area

does nobody remember the famous water bottle and communication with the management in 2003 RWC??

Yes. Despite the furore from some, he was actually drinking from a water bottle while talking to two players beside who were out of camera-shot.

Stev_o

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Johnson has previous in this area

does nobody remember the famous water bottle and communication with the management in 2003 RWC??

"Okay Johnson what I want you to do is finish the game with MORE points then them, understand?"

Probably the dumbest "incident" iv ever seen in sport.

astonaidan

TheHighRoad wrote: »

but, but....I thought there was nothing wrong with the ball????

It seems the sponsor's ball is causing a lot of problems for some of the best kickers in the tournament.

Some poor players are bringing the stats down aswell

nice_guy80

English players offside with female hotel worker...



http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby-world-cup-2011/news/article.cfm?c_id=522&objectid=10756115

GerM

Ah Haskell. Like there was any doubt he'd be one of the three involved in that. He's an awful idiot and will never learn at this stage. Whilst Johnson will defend his guys to the death in public I would say he absolutely tears strips off them for this behind closed doors.

ekevosu

GerM wrote: »

Ah Haskell. Like there was any doubt he'd be one of the three involved in that. He's an awful idiot and will never learn at this stage. Whilst Johnson will defend his guys to the death in public I would say he absolutely tears strips off them for this behind closed doors.

I think johnson dealt with this fairly well. He was never going to suspend them but he reprimanded them, didn't excuse their behaviour and whilst making sure the players apologised to the lady
In question, he also personally apologised. He can't be blamed he has to manage children like Ashton, Haskell and Hartley.

thomond2006

GerM wrote: »

Ah Haskell. Like there was any doubt he'd be one of the three involved in that. He's an awful idiot and will never learn at this stage. Whilst Johnson will defend his guys to the death in public I would say he absolutely tears strips off them for this behind closed doors.

He's an arrogant so and so, can't wait to see Ferris and O'Brien bulldoze him if they get the chance. Never seen him play a game where the hype surrounding him has been justified.

thomond2006

England centre Manu Tuilagi has been formally warned by police for disorderly behaviour after jumping from a ferry in Auckland.

A Rugby Football Union (RFU) source confirmed that Tuilagi was detained by police after swimming a short distance to pier three at the ferry terminal.

The RFU would not comment on whether alcohol was involved but did say the player was unharmed.

The England team are due to leave for the UK later on Monday.

The Samoa-born Leicester Tigers player jumped off the Fullers ferry Superflyte on its arrival from Waiheke Island, with the defeated England team on board just before 1900 local time (0700 BST) on Sunday.

After being warned at Auckland Central police station, he was then released to the England team management.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/15234032.stm

irishbucsfan

thomond2006 wrote: »

England centre Manu Tuilagi has been formally warned by police for disorderly behaviour after jumping from a ferry in Auckland.

A Rugby Football Union (RFU) source confirmed that Tuilagi was detained by police after swimming a short distance to pier three at the ferry terminal.

The RFU would not comment on whether alcohol was involved but did say the player was unharmed.

The England team are due to leave for the UK later on Monday.

The Samoa-born Leicester Tigers player jumped off the Fullers ferry Superflyte on its arrival from Waiheke Island, with the defeated England team on board just before 1900 local time (0700 BST) on Sunday.

After being warned at Auckland Central police station, he was then released to the England team management.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/15234032.stm

I could easilly see this being a forfeit on his part for losing a drinking game or something, with the guys not appreciating it was illegal.

Don't see this as a big deal to be honest.

Quint2010

Really surprised at Johnson. You dont see irish players embroiled in these kind of controversies. Johnson gives off the demenour of a strict disciplinarian where its obvious he is not and the players have little repect for him.

thomond2006

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I could easilly see this being a forfeit on his part for losing a drinking game or something, with the guys not appreciating it was illegal.

Don't see this as a big deal to be honest.

I don't either, but I still thought it merited posting here.

Chucky the tree

Quint2010 wrote: »

Really surprised at Johnson. You dont see irish players embroiled in these kind of controversies. Johnson gives off the demenour of a strict disciplinarian where its obvious he is not and the players have little repect for him.

Big difference in the respective media. In Ireland it doesn't really get reported as much. Also, most of the stuff gets hugely blow out of proportion.

wixfjord

If Tuilagi had a brain cell he'd be a great 13.
The last play of yesterdays game was idiotic.

LondonIrish90

wixfjord wrote: »

If Tuilagi had a brain cell he'd be a great 13.
The last play of yesterdays game was idiotic.

He's 19, he has the potential to be the next great northern hemisphere outside centre.

Johnson needs to go. He's a hero and a legend in England for obvious reasons but he simply doesn't have the experience (nor the ability, sadly) to coach this England team. England have every chance of going on to be a real force over the next 4, 5 and 6 years but a proper coaching team is desperately needed.

It is now that the likes of Tuilagi, Ashton, Foden, Youngs and Flood need to be forged into an expansive, inventive unit. 2 years down the line is not good enough. MJ and his coaches aren't up to the job.