England v S Africa 3rd Nov Match thread

Burkie1203

Mookie Blaylock wrote: »

At no point did Farrell even attempt to wrap, it's a stonewall penalty.... he'll be cited for that

He didn't connect with head so probably won't be cited. Suspect a retrospective YC at most

irishbucsfan

Mookie Blaylock wrote: »

At no point did Farrell even attempt to wrap, it's a stonewall penalty.... he'll be cited for that

He did. His left hand came around. In the other angle you can see it. The red saw that and was happy with it.

It wasn’t a penalty, Its certainly not a citing or warning.

irishbucsfan

Burkie1203 wrote: »

He didn't connect with head so probably won't be cited. Suspect a retrospective YC at most

There’s no such thing as a retrospective YC. A CCW might be what you’re thinking of, but that is for an offense that is worse than a YC but not worthy of a citing. He won’t get that.

Kiith

It wasn't a penalty, but it damn well should have been.

Inspector Coptoor

uptherebels wrote: »

Rules/laws same difference.
You are trying to legitimise a dangerous tackle by claiming some flimsy point about cipriani moving backwards.
The laws are clear on this so that there is no interpretation by the ref. A shoulder to the face is a red.
There is nothing to agree on here. there are the rules sorry laws and then there is your inability to understand them

Get over yourself and stop trying ( and failing) to be the epitome of condescension .

uptherebels

uptherebels wrote: »

Rules/laws same difference.
You are trying to legitimise a dangerous tackle by claiming some flimsy point about cipriani moving backwards.
The laws are clear on this so that there is no interpretation by the ref. A shoulder to the face is a red.
There is nothing to agree on here. there are the rules sorry laws and then there is your inability to understand them

Funny how you say that rules and laws are the same, but then mention interpretation which is exactly what the difference between rules and laws are.

swiwi_

That was your cliched archetypal English victory. Crowd singing sweet chariot while England kick 4 penalties. It was basically the 2007 RWC final again except the effing SA 9 is not a patch on du Preez.

Try_harder

https://twitter.com/sean_mcmahon89/status/1058766882214436864?s=21

Looks bad there

Mookie Blaylock

irishbucsfan wrote: »

He did. His left hand came around. In the other angle you can see it. The red saw that and was happy with it.

It wasn’t a penalty, Its certainly not a citing or warning.

He had a better chance of giving the saffer a high five than wrapping with that hand...he should be cited and warned at the very least

irishbucsfan

Mookie Blaylock wrote: »

He had a better chance of giving the saffer a high five than wrapping with that hand...he should be cited and warned at the very least

No, he attempted to wrap and the ref saw it.

Its borderline because his hand had only started to come around and another ref could have certainly gone the other way. The ref saw it and made his mind up based on the video that he had attempted to do it (and even in the angle that doesn't show it you can see his hand continue to come around).

It's a subjective decision, the ref made his, another might have gone the other way. Anyone saying the ref was objectively wrong either didn't see it or doesn't know the laws.

Also, on a pedantic note, you can't be cited and warned. It's one or the other. Neither will happen because it'd never have been a card, and it'd need to be a red or nearly a red for either to happen.

Mookie Blaylock

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, he attempted to wrap and the ref saw it.

Its borderline because his hand had only started to come around and another ref could have certainly gone the other way. The ref saw it and made his mind up based on the video that he had attempted to do it (and even in the angle that doesn't show it you can see his hand continue to come around).

It's a subjective decision, the ref made his, another might have gone the other way. Anyone saying the ref was objectively wrong either didn't see it or doesn't know the laws.

Also, on a pedantic note, you can't be cited and warned. It's one or the other. Neither will happen because it'd never have been a card, and it'd need to be a red or nearly a red for either to happen.

Yeah a CCW as you mentioned above...that should be the very minimum he gets as I feel it was a penalty and a probable yellow... but looking again I think a citing may be appropriate...will see what happens

irishbucsfan

Mookie Blaylock wrote: »

Yeah a CCW as you mentioned above...that should be the very minimum he gets as I feel it was a penalty and a probable yellow... but looking again I think a citing may be appropriate...will see what happens

A probable yellow is not what leads to a CCW

vetinari

Gardner completely bottled that decision. Farrell led with his shoulder. 100% shoulder charge. It's not even a close decision. If it was given, no one would have thought it was a controversial decision.

lawred2

Try_harder wrote: »

https://twitter.com/sean_mcmahon89/status/1058766882214436864?s=21

Looks bad there

that's a shoulder charge surely?

there's no movement from either arm

Former Former

I didn't see the game but looking at that clip, I don't see much difference between that and the Kaino offence a couple of weeks ago.

Dog Botherer

If World Rugby are serious about getting high shots out of the game Farrell should be looking at 5 weeks on the sideline minimum.

However given that he’s the only thing standing between England and a 60 point annihilation next week I wouldn’t hold my breath.

Mookie Blaylock

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A probable yellow is not what leads to a CCW

You are correct..you are being pedantic...my opinion has changed a few times on the challenge...I've gone from, penalty..to yellow to red and maybe yellow again...my first thought was red... but a case can be made for any and all pof at this stage .... even now, I've just looked again and it seems his left hand actually comes between both bodies in a protective motion for Farrell himself....
Will leave it alone now and see if a citing does ,or does not happen.

irishbucsfan

vetinari wrote: »

Gardner completely bottled that decision. Farrell led with his shoulder. 100% shoulder charge. It's not even a close decision. If it was given, no one would have thought it was a controversial decision.

If Gardner was going to bottle it, he wouldn’t have reviewed it at all, the game was over.

Anyone who didn’t see the game, wait until you see the angle that’s Gardner saw that led him to decide it was a fair tackle. It’s the other angle, probably out there on twitter somewhere.


Farrell is lucky though. While he got his left hand around enough to satisfy the referee, the only thing stopping that tackle being a match-loser is for the Saffer to drop his head an inch into contact, which he’s be perfectly entitled to do. That’s not what happened this time, but if it did England would have lost and Farrell would have been banned for a few weeks. Smart coaches would be pointing that out to him this week.

2smiggy

@sernbhoy: @simonrug Here are the arms wrapped that the ref and linesman said they seen! https://twitter.com/sernbhoy/status/1058768776752259072/photo/1

Buer

I don't care what the ref claimed to see with his left arm that gave him his rationale.

The player led with the right shoulder and dropped his right arm flat to his side to allow him deliver more force. He also connected borderline high.

The referee can claim there was an attempt to wrap with an arm that had no involvement. A far more logical and accurate analysis would have been that Farrell went in with his right shoulder and dropped his dominant arm to his side, removing it from the situation allowing him deliver maximum force which connected on the collarbone area. The left arm coming up in any manner had much to do with momentum and natural movement as it was with any effort to wrap, I would think.

It was a terrible decision and I don't care what way the referee wants to explain his way out of it. Nothing will come of it in terms of citations. The referee used the TMO and came to his decision so it's highly unlikely WR will undermine him.

lawred2

Buer wrote: »

I don't care what the ref claimed to see with his left arm that gave him his rationale.

The player led with the right shoulder and dropped his right arm flat to his side to allow him deliver more force. He also connected borderline high.

The referee can claim there was an attempt to wrap with an arm that had no involvement. A far more logical and accurate analysis would have been that Farrell went in with his right shoulder and dropped his dominant arm to his side, removing it from the situation allowing him deliver maximum force which connected on the collarbone area. The left arm coming up in any manner had much to do with momentum and natural movement as it was with any effort to wrap, I would think.

It was a terrible decision and I don't care what way the referee wants to explain his way out of it. Nothing will come of it in terms of citations. The referee used the TMO and came to his decision so it's highly unlikely WR will undermine him.

Farrell has previous with this type of crap as well...

fitz

Buer wrote: »

I don't care what the ref claimed to see with his left arm that gave him his rationale.

The player led with the right shoulder and dropped his right arm flat to his side to allow him deliver more force. He also connected borderline high.

The referee can claim there was an attempt to wrap with an arm that had no involvement. A far more logical and accurate analysis would have been that Farrell went in with his right shoulder and dropped his dominant arm to his side, removing it from the situation allowing him deliver maximum force which connected on the collarbone area. The left arm coming up in any manner had much to do with momentum and natural movement as it was with any effort to wrap, I would think.

It was a terrible decision and I don't care what way the referee wants to explain his way out of it. Nothing will come of it in terms of citations. The referee used the TMO and came to his decision so it's highly unlikely WR will undermine him.

His left elbow actually drops before impactmovinh it away from contact, and his left arm would have had to come across his own chest to for it to be involved. Saying there's any realistic attempt to wrap here is objectively wrong.

baas baa

Buer wrote: »

I don't care what the ref claimed to see with his left arm that gave him his rationale.

The player led with the right shoulder and dropped his right arm flat to his side to allow him deliver more force. He also connected borderline high.

The referee can claim there was an attempt to wrap with an arm that had no involvement. A far more logical and accurate analysis would have been that Farrell went in with his right shoulder and dropped his dominant arm to his side, removing it from the situation allowing him deliver maximum force which connected on the collarbone area. The left arm coming up in any manner had much to do with momentum and natural movement as it was with any effort to wrap, I would think.

It was a terrible decision and I don't care what way the referee wants to explain his way out of it. Nothing will come of it in terms of citations. The referee used the TMO and came to his decision so it's highly unlikely WR will undermine him.

Well explained, his arm remains down by his side, all the initial movement is with the shoulder with only a token flop up of the arm at the end. Can't recall a worse non-decision since TMO reviews for foul play came in.

The Dagestani Eagle

Between Cipriani's last week and Farrell's today i know which tackle id rather my son or daughter be subjected to on a field. And it wasn't the one that received a card.

The officiating is farcical in its inconsistency.

stephen_n

The Dagestani Eagle wrote: »

Between Cipriani's last week and Farrell's today i know which tackle id rather my son or daughter be subjected to on a field. And it wasn't the one that received a card.

The officiating is farcical in its inconsistency.

Despite your subjective judgement, where is the inconsistency? Doesn’t matter how many times people say, the two tackles are not compareable.

irishbucsfan

fitz wrote: »

His left elbow actually drops before impactmovinh it away from contact, and his left arm would have had to come across his own chest to for it to be involved. Saying there's any realistic attempt to wrap here is objectively wrong.

Have you seen the reverse angle?

BOD on twitter trying to explain the laws to people. Probably a doomed expedition for him!

People just don’t like Farrell and England, so the actual laws will get very little attention in all this.

irishbucsfan

Buer wrote: »

I don't care what the ref claimed to see with his left arm that gave him his rationale.

The player led with the right shoulder and dropped his right arm flat to his side to allow him deliver more force. He also connected borderline high.

The referee can claim there was an attempt to wrap with an arm that had no involvement. A far more logical and accurate analysis would have been that Farrell went in with his right shoulder and dropped his dominant arm to his side, removing it from the situation allowing him deliver maximum force which connected on the collarbone area. The left arm coming up in any manner had much to do with momentum and natural movement as it was with any effort to wrap, I would think.

It was a terrible decision and I don't care what way the referee wants to explain his way out of it. Nothing will come of it in terms of citations. The referee used the TMO and came to his decision so it's highly unlikely WR will undermine him.

This lives in the realms of what you think the laws should be, rather than what they actually are. Very easy to ignore his left arm and reach your conclusion, but it’s not how the laws work.

shootermacg

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This lives in the realms of what you think the laws should be, rather than what they actually are. Very easy to ignore his left arm and reach your conclusion, but it’s not how the laws work.

You should just stop. If you hit someone on the ankle and lead with the shoulder, you will also give away a penalty.

fitz

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Have you seen the reverse angle?

BOD on twitter trying to explain the laws to people. Probably a doomed expedition for him!

People just don’t like Farrell and England, so the actual laws will get very little attention in all this.

"A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player."

Show me a picture of Farrell attempting to grasp the player before making contact with the shoulder of an arm that was in no position to do so.

OldRio

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Have you seen the reverse angle?

BOD on twitter trying to explain the laws to people. Probably a doomed expedition for him!

People just don’t like Farrell and England, so the actual laws will get very little attention in all this.

Funny enough a number of English lads I know all said Farrell was very lucky. So I think it's best not to play the, 'we all hate Farrell and England card'