International Matches 03/07 - 04/07 Thread

[tcc_dc]

lovely prop try there....

[Hal Jordan]

Blot on Randall, but poor ruck guarding from the pack and good persistence by the US 8.

[sockwithaticket]

No try on first viewing.

[geordie_6]

Blot on Randall, but poor ruck guarding from the pack and good persistence by the US 8.

Aye, from the camera angle hey used you could see the charge down coming a mile off.

Was Randall able to see him over the top of the ruck?

[Hal Jordan]

England make the right decision off a wheeled scrum and great work by Randall.

[Oxbow]

I am enjoying Chris Ashton's slightly more realistic view of things as a counterbalance to Waterman's overly sunny enthusiasm about everything.

[sockwithaticket]

The young woman in the Smith family shot...

[Hal Jordan]

Great try Randall!

Jones: Have his legs broke.

[sockwithaticket]

Nice individual effort there from Randall.

[Oxbow]

He'll be allowed to stay up until 10 after that one.

[Hal Jordan]

Not much chance for Marcus Smith to stop that slab of meat!

[tcc_dc]

sloppy by England...but will gladly take that try off the lineout...

[sockwithaticket]

Maul defence really hasn't been good, but in a team with so little time together, that's not a massive surprise.

Nice try for Ludlam.

[Hal Jordan]

Sadly no.

[Hal Jordan]

It's a good thing the bench was able to maintain the backine structure after the injuries.

[ASMO]

England mixed bag, forwards pretty ordinary, especially in the second half, i would go as far as saying that both second rows were shit Underhill however, best of the lot Backs better but disrupted due to injuries. Positives, Randall and Smith born to play international Rugby, Slade however, was he even playing? Malins looked good while he was on, big Joe too and Steward showed some good touches.

[Hal Jordan]

Slade was following Eddie's plan and putting the boot through it every time.

[Kawazaki]

Didn't watch after halftime but just seen that the USA won the second half by quite a margin. That's embarrassing. Has Eddiot done a post-match interview yet?

[Slick]

Maul defence really hasn't been good, but in a team with so little time together, that's not a massive surprise.

Nice try for Ludlam.

This has been bothering me since yesterday. How could the Lions have such a successful lineout after a few days together but international teams can go through a whole championship with a non functioning one? I guess the opposition wasn’t up to a great deal yesterday but it seems odd

[Lobby]

Maul defence really hasn't been good, but in a team with so little time together, that's not a massive surprise.

Nice try for Ludlam.

This has been bothering me since yesterday. How could the Lions have such a successful lineout after a few days together but international teams can go through a whole championship with a non functioning one? I guess the opposition wasn’t up to a great deal yesterday but it seems odd

I suspect it’s because the limited time together means the Lions stick to a few fairly basic line out calls, so there is less that can go wrong, whereas established international teams have a large number of often very complex calls. The more complex the line out routine, the greater the chance that something will go wrong.

It’s also the case that the opposition will have studied the calls used in previous games, and so may have worked out what each call means. With the Lions (at least at the beginning of the tour), the opposition won’t have any previous games to research, and so won’t have been able to work out the calls.

[JM2K6]

It's only a red if he's not in a realistic position to compete. Seeing as he won the ball you can't argue that.

I fucking can - it's very dangerous play. He didn't get off the ground, got fingertips to the ball, but ensured that his opponent who'd actually jumped properly to catch the ball was cartwheeled and landed from a height, onto his face. If the priority is player safety then it absolutely should've been sanctioned.


Thought Malins' injury fucked England immediately, Umaga was largely off the pace and caused a lot of issues for his own team. Smith did fine, didn't force anything, spread the ball very quickly, did what he needed to do - goalkicking was poor though. Slade I thought was decent because he got a lot of ball quicker than he normally would, and his monster boot came in handy a few times too. Perfectly happy with his performance. Pack was a bit shit in the second half. Didn't see anything to suggest that the guys I wasn't sure about were international quality.

Good to see Lawrence and Cokanasiga having fun, and Steward was excellent. Randall was Randall, maybe a few errors but very sharp and an obvious running threat.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

It's only a red if he's not in a realistic position to compete. Seeing as he won the ball you can't argue that.

I fucking can - it's very dangerous play. He didn't get off the ground, got fingertips to the ball, but ensured that his opponent who'd actually jumped properly to catch the ball was cartwheeled and landed from a height, onto his face. If the priority is player safety then it absolutely should've been sanctioned.

If we are now saying that if your opponent jumps then you have to also, we might as well give up pretending that this is anything to do with safety. The dangerous play is from the player jumping. Penalise him.

[JM2K6]

It's only a red if he's not in a realistic position to compete. Seeing as he won the ball you can't argue that.

I fucking can - it's very dangerous play. He didn't get off the ground, got fingertips to the ball, but ensured that his opponent who'd actually jumped properly to catch the ball was cartwheeled and landed from a height, onto his face. If the priority is player safety then it absolutely should've been sanctioned.

If we are now saying that if your opponent jumps then you have to also, we might as well give up pretending that this is anything to do with safety. The dangerous play is from the player jumping. Penalise him.

That's just silly. Jumping for the ball is trying to win the contest (and has always been a way for players to try and protect themselves!). Both players jumping for the ball is much less likely to result in someone being tipped onto their head. One player jumping and the other running full tilt into their legs while sticking a hand up is not safe play, and we've seen this refereed completely differently for years now. It was an absurd decision.

If you can't win the high ball without causing the opponent to fall on his head, then you've not done it safely. End of story.

[sockwithaticket]

We've also seen decisions recently where reds were awarded even though the player didn't actually land on their head because, quite rightly, the actions of the falling player to protect themself from harm don't make the offending player's action less dangerous.

Realistic position to win the ball has, for some time, been reffed as able to actually claim it, not simply get finger tips on and tap it.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

I fucking can - it's very dangerous play. He didn't get off the ground, got fingertips to the ball, but ensured that his opponent who'd actually jumped properly to catch the ball was cartwheeled and landed from a height, onto his face. If the priority is player safety then it absolutely should've been sanctioned.

If we are now saying that if your opponent jumps then you have to also, we might as well give up pretending that this is anything to do with safety. The dangerous play is from the player jumping. Penalise him.

That's just silly. Jumping for the ball is trying to win the contest (and has always been a way for players to try and protect themselves!). Both players jumping for the ball is much less likely to result in someone being tipped onto their head. One player jumping and the other running full tilt into their legs while sticking a hand up is not safe play, and we've seen this refereed completely differently for years now. It was an absurd decision.

If you can't win the high ball without causing the opponent to fall on his head, then you've not done it safely. End of story.

If you can't win the ball when jumping at an opponent who stays on the ground then you are a bit shit at your job. Don't penalise the competent guy - you know, the one who actually won the ball.

Staying on the ground is safer than jumping. If this was anything to do with safety then jumping would be banned. Trying to pretend that two players flying at each other in the air is even remotely safe is just stupid. Oh, but "fair competion" - the referee's cop-out for when both players end up on the ground.

[JM2K6]

If we are now saying that if your opponent jumps then you have to also, we might as well give up pretending that this is anything to do with safety. The dangerous play is from the player jumping. Penalise him.

That's just silly. Jumping for the ball is trying to win the contest (and has always been a way for players to try and protect themselves!). Both players jumping for the ball is much less likely to result in someone being tipped onto their head. One player jumping and the other running full tilt into their legs while sticking a hand up is not safe play, and we've seen this refereed completely differently for years now. It was an absurd decision.

If you can't win the high ball without causing the opponent to fall on his head, then you've not done it safely. End of story.

If you can't win the ball when jumping at an opponent who stays on the ground then you are a bit shit at your job. Don't penalise the competent guy - you know, the one who actually won the ball.

Staying on the ground is safer than jumping. If this was anything to do with safety then jumping would be banned. Trying to pretend that two players flying at each other in the air is even remotely safe is just stupid. Oh, but "fair competion" - the referee's cop-out for when both players end up on the ground.

Fuck that. One guy tried to catch the ball in a safe manner. The other tried to slap it back with no thought given to the safety of his opponent, who - like every single fullback challenging for a high ball - jumped to catch it.

Two players colliding in midair is less dangerous than one player tipping from a height because another ran into his legs. That's how it is. It's how it's been refereed, it's how physics works, it's how it's been played out on the pitch. And that's why Steward landed on his fucking face.

[Ymx]

Any vid link on this? Who were the players? Checked highlights but it was not on there.

Without seeing it, I struggle to see how it could be the fault of the guy on the ground who remained on the ground and caught it, over someone leaping in to a collision and failing to collect it.

But be keen to see it. Sounds like an interesting one.

Did the guy in the air touch the ball with his hands at all? Or completely miss it?

Did the collision happen before the ground guy laid a finger on it?

[ASMO]

From my perspective i think it was a red, yes the guy on the ground managed to bat the ball backwards BUT he also grabbed the guy in the air and caused him to go over, so it was dangerous play, it is no different to lineout interference, you might win the blal but if you take the player out in the air when you do it, it is still penalised.

[Lobby]

Any vid link on this? Who were the players? Checked highlights but it was not on there.

Without seeing it, I struggle to see how it could be the fault of the guy on the ground who remained on the ground and caught it, over someone leaping in to a collision and failing to collect it.

But be keen to see it. Sounds like an interesting one.

Did the guy in the air touch the ball with his hands at all? Or completely miss it?

Did the collision happen before the ground guy laid a finger on it?

The English player in the air caught the ball. The USA player who barely jumped didn't catch the ball, but managed to knock the ball out of the English player's hands with one of his hands. His other arm wrapped around the English player and turned him over the horizontal, so that he landed on his face. It was clearly a dangerous tackle in the air, but the ref decided that, because he had just managed to touch the ball with one hand, there was no foul play, completely ignoring what he was doing with his other arm.

[Ymx]

Sounds like a red to me. So he didn’t catch it, he disrupted the ball from the English players hands, and only tipped the ball after contacting the player if reading above is correct.

[Kawazaki]

Any vid link on this? Who were the players? Checked highlights but it was not on there.

Without seeing it, I struggle to see how it could be the fault of the guy on the ground who remained on the ground and caught it, over someone leaping in to a collision and failing to collect it.

But be keen to see it. Sounds like an interesting one.

Did the guy in the air touch the ball with his hands at all? Or completely miss it?

Did the collision happen before the ground guy laid a finger on it?

The English player in the air caught the ball. The USA player who barely jumped didn't catch the ball, but managed to knock the ball out of the English player's hands with one of his hands. His other arm wrapped around the English player and turned him over the horizontal, so that he landed on his face. It was clearly a dangerous tackle in the air, but the ref decided that, because he had just managed to touch the ball with one hand, there was no foul play, completely ignoring what he was doing with his other arm.

It looked to me like the US player was using his other arm to try and stop the English player falling.

The English fullback got up higher but his body was already angled forward before any contact with the US player which meant his upper bodyweight was beyond his hips/waist, ergo he was already rotating toward the ground head first regardless of any competition for the ball.


p.s this opinion exchange on what happened is based on ultra slow-motion replays. It's madness.

[Raggs]

To my memory both players jumped. Usa much less. Only player to touch the ball was usa. English player certainly hadn't caught it.

[Kawazaki]

To my memory both players jumped. Usa much less. Only player to touch the ball was usa. English player certainly hadn't caught it.

It was. Worth noting as well that it was a set-piece restart by the USA. This was not a kick from phase play. The kick had decent hang time and came down between the 22 and 10 line, the US 7 was looking at the ball the whole time, his job was to tip the ball back to the rest of the pack. He didn't do anything wrong.

[Paddington Bear]

Have to say the emergence of Japan into the Tier 1.5 bracket is fantastic news. Seeing a side with an entertaining and unique style of rugby compete properly is what rugby has been crying out for.

[Kawazaki]

Have to say the emergence of Japan into the Tier 1.5 bracket is fantastic news. Seeing a side with an entertaining and unique style of rugby compete properly is what rugby has been crying out for.

Agreed.

Much like Harlequins have shown in the Premiership with their attacking style, they shame the coaches who continue to advocate turgid low-skill/low-risk/low-possession territory based rugby.

Yes Eddiot, that means you.

[Brazil]

It was a bollocks decision. It's becoming a real problem that refs are ignoring the protocols and what's in front of their eyes to keep players on the pitch. Dickson did it in the Sale game against Exeter, and Brace did it yesterday. If they're supposed to be making the game safer then they need upbraiding when they do this, not being rewarded with international matches.

Anyway, despite Eddie shitting the bed with the 6-2 split there were some encouraging signs for England yesterday. Steward looks the part and needs to be in the squad next season, and that was the best performance I've seen from Lawrence. Smith did more than enough to justify being in the squad, but didn't benefit from the mess that the backline became. Randall needs to be in the squad, but of course won't be. It's a real pity that the backline was so disrupted by injury because it had real potential. Hopefully the injuries to Malins and Lawrence aren't too bad and they'll be able to get a run out next week. And Eddie, I know you like him, but Umaga isn't an international player, and he's definitely not a utility sub.

The pack was good in the first half but folded badly in the second until Curry came on. The maul management was abysmal, and makes me wonder whether it wouldn't be better looking at Beaumont rather than persisting with Ewels, as he brings a level of intelligence to the pack that you don't see in other players. The starting front row went very well, and Underhill did everything you'd expect of him. Chick had some good moments and Ludlow went well IMHO.

A lot of that team wont' see an international shirt again after next weekend, but there was a handful of players that should be brought through in time for the world cup, and others that should be starting in next season's 6N. They won't of course, because Eddie will stick with his favourites, but that's life.

[Gumboot]

Wallabies vs France kicks off in about 40 minutes.

If Rob Valetini's to be proved right and Aus are to achieve world domination by year's end, they'll need to start with a statement of real intent tonight.

[Paddington Bear]

Wallabies vs France kicks off in about 40 minutes.

If Rob Valetini's to be proved right and Aus are to achieve world domination by year's end, they'll need to start with a statement of real intent tonight.

Live on Sky Sports Action for UK posters

[Raggs]

Just reading that France are missing quite a few first choice players, but not clear if that's going to be the case for the whole tour, or just the first fixture?

[Paddington Bear]

Collapsing maul turnover rule is so poor. France make 10 yards, ball would have been playable with a call of 'release' with a scoring opportunity, instead it's Australian ball. Disincentivises attacking rugby