Week 4 : England v New Zealand

[Kawazaki]

Remember O'Gara with the Lions?

I think Smith showed a lot of emotional intelligence to kick the ball out. It went against all his natural instincts.




* He'll be kicking himself he missed the relatively easy conversion earlier though.

[Paddington Bear]

I fully get the logic of Smith's (and Faz and Youngs') decision at the end. From my perspective though it was worth rolling the dice. If that's a world cup semi, no doubt we kick it out and take the momentum to win in extra time. In a one off game which, let's be clear, we deserved to lose, why not give it a stab. As JMK says, the positioning is partly a factor of the decision itself. We could have tried a couple of pick and gos, hell we could have lumped it into their 22 and tried to nick a breakdown pen.
This team was in need of a moment, something to reconnect themselves to the top of test rugby. NZ should have been out of sight and weren't, and we turned down probably a 40-60% chance of engineering the most audacious comeback in test history. I'd put it in a similar category to Robshaw's decision in 2013(ish?) to take 3 points when we were 5 down or so with a couple of minutes to play against SA. Sure the logic is there but it didn't work out and world beaters would have gone to the corner.

Hopefully, the comeback has done its job anyway. We played flat to the line a lot, and when we didn't Faz and Slade helped move it wide very quickly. There were more offloads in the last 10 minutes than the rest of the game. Forwards charged onto the ball. It ought to be instructive as to how to beat the Boks, but we'll see.

If you end up losing that game to a penalty straight after the kick off, you lose a lot of that massively positive feeling of the come back beforehand. Even in just a one off game, it's a good feeling to carry into the next week/six nations etc.

I get that, I do, however I'm still left very flat from that game. Only a win would have salvaged for me a disgracefully poor first half and a very average next 20. As I say, I hope you're right on the second point but I can't help but feel the roof would have blown off had we scored again and we'd have announced ourselves as contenders for next year. Then again I felt that after the France and SA wins last year and look how that turned out.

[inactionman]

I've not been keeping up with the thread so may already have been answered - from the stands I couldn't work out how Raynal called the ball out of the ruck when VP was chased down. Was it past the last foot? It didn't look lifted. Shall I just write this off to Raynal?

There were some decisions that just looked odd, including Billy being pinged for off feet when he was driving the tackled player through a tackle. Raynal just seems far too keen to blow his whistle.

Anyway, shows you what you can do when you don't drop the ball and stop giving away daft penalties (for all the weird reffing calls, there were far too many daft penalties). For all NZ did attacking-wise, their tries were all off the back of England mistakes - an intercepted pass, soft penalty, Simmonds losing possession in the tackle - although in fairness the cross-kick was mint for their third.

[Lobby]

I fully get the logic of Smith's (and Faz and Youngs') decision at the end. From my perspective though it was worth rolling the dice. If that's a world cup semi, no doubt we kick it out and take the momentum to win in extra time. In a one off game which, let's be clear, we deserved to lose, why not give it a stab. As JMK says, the positioning is partly a factor of the decision itself. We could have tried a couple of pick and gos, hell we could have lumped it into their 22 and tried to nick a breakdown pen.
This team was in need of a moment, something to reconnect themselves to the top of test rugby. NZ should have been out of sight and weren't, and we turned down probably a 40-60% chance of engineering the most audacious comeback in test history. I'd put it in a similar category to Robshaw's decision in 2013(ish?) to take 3 points when we were 5 down or so with a couple of minutes to play against SA. Sure the logic is there but it didn't work out and world beaters would have gone to the corner.

Hopefully, the comeback has done its job anyway. We played flat to the line a lot, and when we didn't Faz and Slade helped move it wide very quickly. There were more offloads in the last 10 minutes than the rest of the game. Forwards charged onto the ball. It ought to be instructive as to how to beat the Boks, but we'll see.

I saw an interesting comment about why we started to play much flatter and with Smith taking the ball at 10, instead of having to play second fiddle to Farrell in the last 10 minutes. It was suggested that this was because of Farrell's leg injury which restricted his kicking and meant he had to play more of a link role between Smith and Slade. If so, someone should kick him on the knee in the opening minutes next week.

[Margin__Walker]

I've not been keeping up with the thread so may already have been answered - from the stands I couldn't work out how Raynal called the ball out of the ruck when VP was chased down. Was it past the last foot? It didn't look lifted. Shall I just write this off to Raynal?

There were some decisions that just looked odd, including Billy being pinged for off feet when he was driving the tackled player through a tackle. Raynal just seems far too keen to blow his whistle.

Anyway, shows you what you can do when you don't drop the ball and stop giving away daft penalties (for all the weird reffing calls, there were far too many daft penalties). For all NZ did attacking-wise, their tries were all off the back of England mistakes - an intercepted pass, soft penalty, Simmonds losing possession in the tackle - although in fairness the cross-kick was mint for their third.

Thought it was a shocker from Raynal at first. Watching it back though, it's fine as a call. He's dragged the ball out to the side adjacent to the last foot, which is out for me. You could argue about Raynal's communication of that fact, but JvP generally needs to be more switched on there.

[Paddington Bear]

I've not been keeping up with the thread so may already have been answered - from the stands I couldn't work out how Raynal called the ball out of the ruck when VP was chased down. Was it past the last foot? It didn't look lifted. Shall I just write this off to Raynal?

There were some decisions that just looked odd, including Billy being pinged for off feet when he was driving the tackled player through a tackle. Raynal just seems far too keen to blow his whistle.

Anyway, shows you what you can do when you don't drop the ball and stop giving away daft penalties (for all the weird reffing calls, there were far too many daft penalties). For all NZ did attacking-wise, their tries were all off the back of England mistakes - an intercepted pass, soft penalty, Simmonds losing possession in the tackle - although in fairness the cross-kick was mint for their third.

Seemed like a fairly classic Raynal fuck up, ball was on the floor in front of the back feet. The last thing the poor bloke needed.

Our defence is generally pretty good *if* we could stop being so fucking stupid. In the two full tests this autumn we've conceded two out of the five tries from intercepts. I really hope Eddie is good to his word on JvP, I'm confident that as and when this happens again (NZ read the set move excellently), he'll dummy and go himself. I've looked a bit for a wide angle of it but I have a suspicion had he done so we may well have scored up the other end. My hope is that in a decade or its a discussion point of his growth into a world class 9 with the best part of 100 caps to his name. Treated properly Saturday is a great growth opportunity for him.

[Paddington Bear]

I fully get the logic of Smith's (and Faz and Youngs') decision at the end. From my perspective though it was worth rolling the dice. If that's a world cup semi, no doubt we kick it out and take the momentum to win in extra time. In a one off game which, let's be clear, we deserved to lose, why not give it a stab. As JMK says, the positioning is partly a factor of the decision itself. We could have tried a couple of pick and gos, hell we could have lumped it into their 22 and tried to nick a breakdown pen.
This team was in need of a moment, something to reconnect themselves to the top of test rugby. NZ should have been out of sight and weren't, and we turned down probably a 40-60% chance of engineering the most audacious comeback in test history. I'd put it in a similar category to Robshaw's decision in 2013(ish?) to take 3 points when we were 5 down or so with a couple of minutes to play against SA. Sure the logic is there but it didn't work out and world beaters would have gone to the corner.

Hopefully, the comeback has done its job anyway. We played flat to the line a lot, and when we didn't Faz and Slade helped move it wide very quickly. There were more offloads in the last 10 minutes than the rest of the game. Forwards charged onto the ball. It ought to be instructive as to how to beat the Boks, but we'll see.

I saw an interesting comment about why we started to play much flatter and with Smith taking the ball at 10, instead of having to play second fiddle to Farrell in the last 10 minutes. It was suggested that this was because of Farrell's leg injury which restricted his kicking and meant he had to play more of a link role between Smith and Slade. If so, someone should kick him on the knee in the opening minutes next week.

Whatever it was, it felt much more like the times Ford and Faz worked well together and the Smith we see playing for Quins, which is excellent news.

[Lobby]

I've not been keeping up with the thread so may already have been answered - from the stands I couldn't work out how Raynal called the ball out of the ruck when VP was chased down. Was it past the last foot? It didn't look lifted. Shall I just write this off to Raynal?

There were some decisions that just looked odd, including Billy being pinged for off feet when he was driving the tackled player through a tackle. Raynal just seems far too keen to blow his whistle.

Anyway, shows you what you can do when you don't drop the ball and stop giving away daft penalties (for all the weird reffing calls, there were far too many daft penalties). For all NZ did attacking-wise, their tries were all off the back of England mistakes - an intercepted pass, soft penalty, Simmonds losing possession in the tackle - although in fairness the cross-kick was mint for their third.

Seemed like a fairly classic Raynal fuck up, ball was on the floor in front of the back feet. The last thing the poor bloke needed.

Our defence is generally pretty good *if* we could stop being so fucking stupid. In the two full tests this autumn we've conceded two out of the five tries from intercepts. I really hope Eddie is good to his word on JvP, I'm confident that as and when this happens again (NZ read the set move excellently), he'll dummy and go himself. I've looked a bit for a wide angle of it but I have a suspicion had he done so we may well have scored up the other end. My hope is that in a decade or its a discussion point of his growth into a world class 9 with the best part of 100 caps to his name. Treated properly Saturday is a great growth opportunity for him.

If he learns from this and next week matches Ben Youngs' dummies that turned Peter Steph du Toit inside out not once but twice in 2016 , then we'll all be very happy.

[sockwithaticket]

I've not been keeping up with the thread so may already have been answered - from the stands I couldn't work out how Raynal called the ball out of the ruck when VP was chased down. Was it past the last foot? It didn't look lifted. Shall I just write this off to Raynal?

There were some decisions that just looked odd, including Billy being pinged for off feet when he was driving the tackled player through a tackle. Raynal just seems far too keen to blow his whistle.

Anyway, shows you what you can do when you don't drop the ball and stop giving away daft penalties (for all the weird reffing calls, there were far too many daft penalties). For all NZ did attacking-wise, their tries were all off the back of England mistakes - an intercepted pass, soft penalty, Simmonds losing possession in the tackle - although in fairness the cross-kick was mint for their third.

Thought it was a shocker from Raynal at first. Watching it back though, it's fine as a call. He's dragged the ball out to the side adjacent to the last foot, which is out for me. You could argue about Raynal's communication of that fact, but JvP generally needs to be more switched on there.

I think that much like the now infamous time wasting penalty, it's technically the correct call, but it's not one players are wary of because it's not the way these things are generally reffed.

[Mahoney]

If Youngs played like he did when he came on every time I wouldn't mind him being selected.

There was a period when Youngs and Care were alternating in selection when it seemed like whichever of them came off the bench would instantly up the tempo and get our attack fizzing, presumably after themselves spotting what everyone in the stadium could see, that the fannying around at the base was killing us; and it was hair-pullingly frustrating that apparently neither of them cottoned on to the idea of playing that way when they started.

I felt like that again on Saturday.

[Margin__Walker]

I think that much like the now infamous time wasting penalty, it's technically the correct call, but it's not one players are wary of because it's not the way these things are generally reffed.

Perhaps, and clearly you want consistency, but that's not really a borderline one for me. On a view from behind, rather than the touchline, you'd likely see full separation from the back foot there. I'm also fine with refs being pedantic/technically correct when it comes to caterpillars, as they bore me a touch.

[inactionman]

I've not been keeping up with the thread so may already have been answered - from the stands I couldn't work out how Raynal called the ball out of the ruck when VP was chased down. Was it past the last foot? It didn't look lifted. Shall I just write this off to Raynal?

There were some decisions that just looked odd, including Billy being pinged for off feet when he was driving the tackled player through a tackle. Raynal just seems far too keen to blow his whistle.

Anyway, shows you what you can do when you don't drop the ball and stop giving away daft penalties (for all the weird reffing calls, there were far too many daft penalties). For all NZ did attacking-wise, their tries were all off the back of England mistakes - an intercepted pass, soft penalty, Simmonds losing possession in the tackle - although in fairness the cross-kick was mint for their third.

Thought it was a shocker from Raynal at first. Watching it back though, it's fine as a call. He's dragged the ball out to the side adjacent to the last foot, which is out for me. You could argue about Raynal's communication of that fact, but JvP generally needs to be more switched on there.

I'll admit I wasn't actually sure on the wording so I've had a check, but I'm none the wiser - The laws are a little bit vague on what constitutes the ball being out:

Ending a ruck


When the ball has been clearly won by a team at the ruck, and is available to be played, the referee calls “use it”, after which the ball must be played away from the ruck within five seconds. Sanction: Scrum.
The ruck ends and play continues when the ball leaves the ruck or when the ball in the ruck is on or over the goal line.

The ruck ends when the ball becomes unplayable. If the referee decides that the ball will probably not emerge within a reasonable time, a scrum is awarded.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/15

There may be another sub-clause somewhere or other that clarifies, or something in the Law Interpretation Guidelines, as that seems a bit subjective to me.

I suppose my main issue is that's pretty much never called out in similar situations, and I'd suggest Test matches aren't the place for refs to be unilaterally experimenting with law interpretations.

[JM2K6]

I fully get the logic of Smith's (and Faz and Youngs') decision at the end. From my perspective though it was worth rolling the dice. If that's a world cup semi, no doubt we kick it out and take the momentum to win in extra time. In a one off game which, let's be clear, we deserved to lose, why not give it a stab. As JMK says, the positioning is partly a factor of the decision itself. We could have tried a couple of pick and gos, hell we could have lumped it into their 22 and tried to nick a breakdown pen.
This team was in need of a moment, something to reconnect themselves to the top of test rugby. NZ should have been out of sight and weren't, and we turned down probably a 40-60% chance of engineering the most audacious comeback in test history. I'd put it in a similar category to Robshaw's decision in 2013(ish?) to take 3 points when we were 5 down or so with a couple of minutes to play against SA. Sure the logic is there but it didn't work out and world beaters would have gone to the corner.

Hopefully, the comeback has done its job anyway. We played flat to the line a lot, and when we didn't Faz and Slade helped move it wide very quickly. There were more offloads in the last 10 minutes than the rest of the game. Forwards charged onto the ball. It ought to be instructive as to how to beat the Boks, but we'll see.

I saw an interesting comment about why we started to play much flatter and with Smith taking the ball at 10, instead of having to play second fiddle to Farrell in the last 10 minutes. It was suggested that this was because of Farrell's leg injury which restricted his kicking and meant he had to play more of a link role between Smith and Slade. If so, someone should kick him on the knee in the opening minutes next week.

Whatever it was, it felt much more like the times Ford and Faz worked well together and the Smith we see playing for Quins, which is excellent news.

Yeah, that's the big thing. I've been banging the drum about how well it could work if Farrell is tasked with playing like a classic 12 a bit more, and it's not like he was uninvolved - he was actually positively involved several times. Both players benefited.

But like, fuck it, this isn't news to anyone. These guys are very good rugby players who for their clubs are incredibly switched on to any attacking opportunity. They differ in their approach and how they create/react to those opportunities, but Saracens are stone cold killers given half a chance and Quins have ridiculous belief in their ability to crack a defence open. This is the rugby they want to play. They want to make defences shit themselves, want to run them ragged, want to actually enjoy how they play.

[JM2K6]

* He'll be kicking himself he missed the relatively easy conversion earlier though.

Yup. Especially as he's been kicking at >95% this season for Quins. Missed one in 21 attempts I suppose that's the difference between being training knowing you're the front line kicker and training & playing without being the frontline kicker. (edit) Especially as he's been dead-eyed this calendar year for England - almost 94% (missed 1 from 16), blimey