The Official English Rugby Thread

[JM2K6]

Just watched it again - the side on view is unclear. I feel like it might have deviated but I could believe it's an optical illusion. I'd be inclined to agree with the TMO that it's not clear enough to reverse the decision.

I managed to get Prime to be kind enough to work, the ball is actually miles away from the Argentinian player at the point people are saying it deviated, the foreshortening on the angle makes it look like his arm is close, but it's not.

The original angle from the live tv feed shows it quite clearly, spider-cam would have shown this.

The ball changes direction AND stops rotating the same way at the same time.

edit: watch the top point of the ball. It's a clear shift to the left and a change in how the ball leans, along with the rotational change.

Genuinely surprised people can't see it.

[inactionman]

Just watched it again - the side on view is unclear. I feel like it might have deviated but I could believe it's an optical illusion. I'd be inclined to agree with the TMO that it's not clear enough to reverse the decision.

Pretty much what I was going to say. Quite probably a little deflection but could just be the angle, play on - although I'd be a bit annoyed if it was my team

If it's not clear and obvious under a TV replay from front and side, I agree - play on.

We should reserve TMO for where the ref was unsighted and is asking for a call, or for clear and obvious error. It's not for second-guessing.

[inactionman]

Just watched it again - the side on view is unclear. I feel like it might have deviated but I could believe it's an optical illusion. I'd be inclined to agree with the TMO that it's not clear enough to reverse the decision.

I managed to get Prime to be kind enough to work, the ball is actually miles away from the Argentinian player at the point people are saying it deviated, the foreshortening on the angle makes it look like his arm is close, but it's not.

The original angle from the live tv feed shows it quite clearly, spider-cam would have shown this.

The ball changes direction AND stops rotating the same way at the same time.

edit: watch the top point of the ball. It's a clear shift to the left and a change in how the ball leans, along with the rotational change.

Genuinely surprised people can't see it.

It was visible to me on one of the views, but it took some VT work to get it.

I'm not keen we micro-analyse, although there is a case to be made that a knock-on is a strict liability offence and he did touch it.

(I'm still bitter about Courtney Lawes being pinged for offside by th TMO for the charge-down for Underhill's 'match-winning try' against NZ. I was there and saw it on the big screen, the 8 pints probably didn't help my judgment but I was spitting. It looked debateable, to put it mildly, and if not originally given shouldn't be given)

[Tichtheid]

It's shit like this that I need to learn to let go, but I can't.

I watched it again, and again.

You know that feeling when your train is not moving at the station and the train next to you pulls off? It feels like you are moving.

On one of the angles you see Tom Curry's head moving in the opposite direction to , and partially obscuring, the ball, it looks like the ball accelerates a little, but when you see it from the other side the ball has passed the prop's arm by the time he hits Farrell - he couldn't have touched it.

[JM2K6]

It's shit like this that I need to learn to let go, but I can't.

I watched it again, and again.

You know that feeling when your train is not moving at the station and the train next to you pulls off? It feels like you are moving.

On one of the angles you see Tom Curry's head moving in the opposite direction to , and partially obscuring, the ball, it looks like the ball accelerates a little, but when you see it from the other side the ball has passed the prop's arm by the time he hits Farrell - he couldn't have touched it.

The only angle that is useful is the side angle. The rear angle doesn't tell us anything and can't tell us anything. The side angle, no matter what I do to try and mitigate anything potentially misleading from everything else in shot, never stops showing a sudden shift in the ball. Not just its place "on-screen", but its angle, and - most crucially, as it's the thing that makes it most obvious to me - the fact that the ball's rotation is very clearly affected. To me it's pretty clear that the prop's hand continues the right-to-left motion and takes the ball with it. When contact happens, the ball actually stops spinning for a bit.

I also don't quite get what you mean by the ball passing the prop. Yes. It's his left arm we think hit it - his knuckles or back of his hand grazing the ball as it went past. No-one is claiming it was knocked on during the tackle, it's knocked on as he approaches the tackle. In slow-mo terms, he hits Farrell some time after he touches the ball. I am confused by what you think it is that has been disproved here.

[JM2K6]

I managed to get Prime to be kind enough to work, the ball is actually miles away from the Argentinian player at the point people are saying it deviated, the foreshortening on the angle makes it look like his arm is close, but it's not.

The original angle from the live tv feed shows it quite clearly, spider-cam would have shown this.

The ball changes direction AND stops rotating the same way at the same time.

edit: watch the top point of the ball. It's a clear shift to the left and a change in how the ball leans, along with the rotational change.

Genuinely surprised people can't see it.

It was visible to me on one of the views, but it took some VT work to get it.

I'm not keen we micro-analyse, although there is a case to be made that a knock-on is a strict liability offence and he did touch it.

(I'm still bitter about Courtney Lawes being pinged for offside by th TMO for the charge-down for Underhill's 'match-winning try' against NZ. I was there and saw it on the big screen, the 8 pints probably didn't help my judgment but I was spitting. It looked debateable, to put it mildly, and if not originally given shouldn't be given)

Yes, I agree on this. I'm just bringing it up largely as some context for the discussion over the players reactions. It was a knock on and the players thought it was an obvious one, and so while they made a mistake by not playing to the whistle, so did the officials. While loads of stuff gets missed, when it gets missed by the TMO it's always a surprise. It's not a howler by any stretch of the imagination and I'm not claiming conspiracy or using it to excuse defeat. As Braz pointed out at the time, it was still Farrell shovelling shit under pressure.

[Tichtheid]

It's shit like this that I need to learn to let go, but I can't.

I watched it again, and again.

You know that feeling when your train is not moving at the station and the train next to you pulls off? It feels like you are moving.

On one of the angles you see Tom Curry's head moving in the opposite direction to , and partially obscuring, the ball, it looks like the ball accelerates a little, but when you see it from the other side the ball has passed the prop's arm by the time he hits Farrell - he couldn't have touched it.

The only angle that is useful is the side angle. The rear angle doesn't tell us anything and can't tell us anything. The side angle, no matter what I do to try and mitigate anything potentially misleading from everything else in shot, never stops showing a sudden shift in the ball. Not just its place "on-screen", but its angle, and - most crucially, as it's the thing that makes it most obvious to me - the fact that the ball's rotation is very clearly affected. To me it's pretty clear that the prop's hand continues the right-to-left motion and takes the ball with it. When contact happens, the ball actually stops spinning for a bit.

I also don't quite get what you mean by the ball passing the prop. Yes. It's his left arm we think hit it - his knuckles or back of his hand grazing the ball as it went past. No-one is claiming it was knocked on during the tackle, it's knocked on as he approaches the tackle. In slow-mo terms, he hits Farrell some time after he touches the ball. I am confused by what you think it is that has been disproved here.

I must have watched that four times on Sunday, I think they replayed it that many times. I've now watched it at least ten times in the last half an hour.
I've just stuck a large post it note on Tom Curry's head so he isn't influencing my view point, and I think you probably have a case for a knock on.

Having said that, from the original tv angle it looked like the ball was away before the left arm wrapped.

[Paddington Bear]

The comparison to Underhill’s ABs try I think is very apt. Both probably very very marginally were offside/a knock on, both probably should have stuck with the onfield decision of try and in both cases the defenders could have prevented the try anyway.

[Tichtheid]

The comparison to Underhill’s ABs try I think is very apt. Both probably very very marginally were offside/a knock on, both probably should have stuck with the onfield decision of try and in both cases the defenders could have prevented the try anyway.

Speaking of which, is Underhill crocked?

I don't understand why the likes of Earl and Dombrandt don't seem to get a look in, I guess you lot are going to say, "Eddiot"?

Why the fuck are you picking one of the best locks in Europe on the flank?

When you have an ice cream van playing 8, you need a bit of pace elsewhere in the back row.

[inactionman]

The comparison to Underhill’s ABs try I think is very apt. Both probably very very marginally were offside/a knock on, both probably should have stuck with the onfield decision of try and in both cases the defenders could have prevented the try anyway.

Speaking of which, is Underhill crocked?

I don't understand why the likes of Earl and Dombrandt don't seem to get a look in, I guess you lot are going to say, "Eddiot"?

Why the fuck are you picking one of the best locks in Europe on the flank?

When you have an ice cream van playing 8, you need a bit of pace elsewhere in the back row.

Yep, he's crocked. Shoulder injury and surgery, and a few concussions earlier in year.

And, yep, Eddiot.

[Raggs]

95% sure there's a knock on there. But no arguments against it not being given as a knock on. An overhead view may have shown a more clear deviation in path, the 2 angles we were shown, 1 is useless, the other shows the ball no longer rotating to the same degree, and a change in angle.

At the time, I said it's not clear and obvious enough to write the try off. More disappointed in Nowell/Farrell response, than the fact a tiny knock on was missed.

[Paddington Bear]

The comparison to Underhill’s ABs try I think is very apt. Both probably very very marginally were offside/a knock on, both probably should have stuck with the onfield decision of try and in both cases the defenders could have prevented the try anyway.

Speaking of which, is Underhill crocked?

I don't understand why the likes of Earl and Dombrandt don't seem to get a look in, I guess you lot are going to say, "Eddiot"?

Why the fuck are you picking one of the best locks in Europe on the flank?

When you have an ice cream van playing 8, you need a bit of pace elsewhere in the back row.

Yeah injured, not that he’s set the world alight since the RWC either. Fully agree otherwise, Earl would start for me.

These marginal calls tend to even themselves out - this year we probably should have had a pen at the final scrum vs Scotland and that could have been a knock on Sunday. Equally the winning try vs Wales opened up because Maro pushed a defender and it wasn’t given. We may well get another slice of luck off the refs in the next three games. There was nothing egregious.

[inactionman]

The comparison to Underhill’s ABs try I think is very apt. Both probably very very marginally were offside/a knock on, both probably should have stuck with the onfield decision of try and in both cases the defenders could have prevented the try anyway.

Speaking of which, is Underhill crocked?

I don't understand why the likes of Earl and Dombrandt don't seem to get a look in, I guess you lot are going to say, "Eddiot"?

Why the fuck are you picking one of the best locks in Europe on the flank?

When you have an ice cream van playing 8, you need a bit of pace elsewhere in the back row.

Yeah injured, not that he’s set the world alight since the RWC either. Fully agree otherwise, Earl would start for me.

These marginal calls tend to even themselves out - this year we probably should have had a pen at the final scrum vs Scotland and that could have been a knock on Sunday. Equally the winning try vs Wales opened up because Maro pushed a defender and it wasn’t given. We may well get another slice of luck off the refs in the next three games. There was nothing egregious.

We definitely got away with one against South Africa in the same autumn series as the disallowed Underhill try against NZ.

I can't recall who it was that Farrell sconed, but it was a penalty all day long, and maybe a card, and it was waved away.

[Paddington Bear]

Speaking of which, is Underhill crocked?

I don't understand why the likes of Earl and Dombrandt don't seem to get a look in, I guess you lot are going to say, "Eddiot"?

Why the fuck are you picking one of the best locks in Europe on the flank?

When you have an ice cream van playing 8, you need a bit of pace elsewhere in the back row.

Yeah injured, not that he’s set the world alight since the RWC either. Fully agree otherwise, Earl would start for me.

These marginal calls tend to even themselves out - this year we probably should have had a pen at the final scrum vs Scotland and that could have been a knock on Sunday. Equally the winning try vs Wales opened up because Maro pushed a defender and it wasn’t given. We may well get another slice of luck off the refs in the next three games. There was nothing egregious.

We definitely got away with one against South Africa in the same autumn series as the disallowed Underhill try against NZ.

I can't recall who it was that Farrell sconed, but it was a penalty all day long, and maybe a card, and it was waved away.

Yeah I didn’t include blatant ref fucks ups like that or in the converse Raynal’s retirement party in Llanelli, which shouldn’t be waved away quite as easily IMHO

[tc27]

Yeah injured, not that he’s set the world alight since the RWC either. Fully agree otherwise, Earl would start for me.

These marginal calls tend to even themselves out - this year we probably should have had a pen at the final scrum vs Scotland and that could have been a knock on Sunday. Equally the winning try vs Wales opened up because Maro pushed a defender and it wasn’t given. We may well get another slice of luck off the refs in the next three games. There was nothing egregious.

We definitely got away with one against South Africa in the same autumn series as the disallowed Underhill try against NZ.

I can't recall who it was that Farrell sconed, but it was a penalty all day long, and maybe a card, and it was waved away.

Yeah I didn’t include blatant ref fucks ups like that or in the converse Raynal’s retirement party in Llanelli, which shouldn’t be waved away quite as easily IMHO

Agree with this - over time these things even out.

The only one I still hold onto is Nigel Owens cancelling an England try vs Scotland a few years back deciding to award a penalty - it was just so blatant.

[Tichtheid]

We definitely got away with one against South Africa in the same autumn series as the disallowed Underhill try against NZ.

I can't recall who it was that Farrell sconed, but it was a penalty all day long, and maybe a card, and it was waved away.

Yeah I didn’t include blatant ref fucks ups like that or in the converse Raynal’s retirement party in Llanelli, which shouldn’t be waved away quite as easily IMHO

Agree with this - over time these things even out.

The only one I still hold onto is Nigel Owens cancelling an England try vs Scotland a few years back deciding to award a penalty - it was just so blatant.

Yeah, that is one of my personal favourites, too.

[ASMO]

Ref's don't win or lose games, players do, either by doing dumb shit or just not executing basic skills correctly. For every marginal call by a Referee there are dozens of instances in the game where the players could have done far better and put any result beyond doubt.

[Paddington Bear]

We definitely got away with one against South Africa in the same autumn series as the disallowed Underhill try against NZ.

I can't recall who it was that Farrell sconed, but it was a penalty all day long, and maybe a card, and it was waved away.

Yeah I didn’t include blatant ref fucks ups like that or in the converse Raynal’s retirement party in Llanelli, which shouldn’t be waved away quite as easily IMHO

Agree with this - over time these things even out.

The only one I still hold onto is Nigel Owens cancelling an England try vs Scotland a few years back deciding to award a penalty - it was just so blatant.

I’m very glad Owens has retired, put it that way

[JM2K6]

It's shit like this that I need to learn to let go, but I can't.

I watched it again, and again.

You know that feeling when your train is not moving at the station and the train next to you pulls off? It feels like you are moving.

On one of the angles you see Tom Curry's head moving in the opposite direction to , and partially obscuring, the ball, it looks like the ball accelerates a little, but when you see it from the other side the ball has passed the prop's arm by the time he hits Farrell - he couldn't have touched it.

The only angle that is useful is the side angle. The rear angle doesn't tell us anything and can't tell us anything. The side angle, no matter what I do to try and mitigate anything potentially misleading from everything else in shot, never stops showing a sudden shift in the ball. Not just its place "on-screen", but its angle, and - most crucially, as it's the thing that makes it most obvious to me - the fact that the ball's rotation is very clearly affected. To me it's pretty clear that the prop's hand continues the right-to-left motion and takes the ball with it. When contact happens, the ball actually stops spinning for a bit.

I also don't quite get what you mean by the ball passing the prop. Yes. It's his left arm we think hit it - his knuckles or back of his hand grazing the ball as it went past. No-one is claiming it was knocked on during the tackle, it's knocked on as he approaches the tackle. In slow-mo terms, he hits Farrell some time after he touches the ball. I am confused by what you think it is that has been disproved here.

I must have watched that four times on Sunday, I think they replayed it that many times. I've now watched it at least ten times in the last half an hour.
I've just stuck a large post it note on Tom Curry's head so he isn't influencing my view point, and I think you probably have a case for a knock on.

Having said that, from the original tv angle it looked like the ball was away before the left arm wrapped.

Yeah, it happens well before the wrap really.

I also completely am on board with the idea that just because I saw it straight away - and I think that's because the change in rotation really jarred for me - that doesn't mean it was an easy decision to give or that other people, even TMOs, might not see it the same way. As much as anything it was a comment on recognising that I can blasé about it now, but if it happened in a knockout game I'd be raging even though it's a tight call and probably 30 things of the same level of influence got missed in the game because to me it's one of those that's very hard to argue against once you're looking at the right part of the right replay.

I remember being really pissed off about a Quins or England try being chalked off because there was a hint of a knock on when Nick Easter released the ball on the floor at a ruck 30m up the field. When Quins beat Irish a few weeks ago I was annoyed that they were going back to look at foul play endless phases beforehand, even though I recognise that both the ref and TMO fucked that up and it really should've been a penalty against Quins (ultimately changing the result). Here I am annoyed that they weren't as strict this time. Consistency is hard to come by here :-)

[JM2K6]

Yeah I didn’t include blatant ref fucks ups like that or in the converse Raynal’s retirement party in Llanelli, which shouldn’t be waved away quite as easily IMHO

Agree with this - over time these things even out.

The only one I still hold onto is Nigel Owens cancelling an England try vs Scotland a few years back deciding to award a penalty - it was just so blatant.

Yeah, that is one of my personal favourites, too.

I still remember fondly the game where Nigel was so, well, Nigel in his interpretations of the law that we all mockingly called two knock-ons from dropped ball that went clearly backwards, only for Nigel to actually give them as knock-ons.

He never annoyed me as much as Lewis or Rolland, though. With Lewis in particular it was very hard to shake the idea that he hated English sides. Having him referee the Lions was amazing - must have been what it was like for every non-English rugby fan over the years.

[sockwithaticket]

I wish I could remember the year, but in an Autumn game against Australia (Lancaster era, I think), Nigel stepped in as touch judge to report foul play by England for a TMO review and it actually ended up being a penalty against Australia. Had a big grin on my face after that one. Glad to see the back of him.

[Raggs]

Agree with this - over time these things even out.

The only one I still hold onto is Nigel Owens cancelling an England try vs Scotland a few years back deciding to award a penalty - it was just so blatant.

Yeah, that is one of my personal favourites, too.

I still remember fondly the game where Nigel was so, well, Nigel in his interpretations of the law that we all mockingly called two knock-ons from dropped ball that went clearly backwards, only for Nigel to actually give them as knock-ons.

He never annoyed me as much as Lewis or Rolland, though. With Lewis in particular it was very hard to shake the idea that he hated English sides. Having him referee the Lions was amazing - must have been what it was like for every non-English rugby fan over the years.

All Blacks, first test of the series, two backwards knock ons and telling a player if he hasn't just got onto the pitch he'd have given him a yellow, after an extremely cynical killing off of a linebreak. Think we lost by a couple of points.

[ASMO]

I see Eddiot has gone with the same 25, wasn't it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

[Hal Jordan]

The real issue is PLAY TO THE FUCKING WHISTLE. You can understand Farrell pausing for a second in a WTF gesture, but not then standing there doing nothing.

But Nowell's reaction is far, far, worse. He's basically in line with the ball, pointed towards it so he doesn't have to turn, and is probably closer to it than Carreras. Certainly unloke Carreas there isn't another player between him and the ball. Even taking his treacle slow pace into account, he should have either got to the ball first, or to tackle Carreras as he picks it up, or even just slow him/make him change direction due to his presence to give Steward more time to get there.

And he'll probably get picked again, bundle over a try against Japan and pick up another 9 caps' worth of dross off the back of it, a.k.a. The Ben Youngs Gambit.

[JM2K6]

I see Eddiot has gone with the same 25, wasn't it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

Excuse me I think you'll find he's changed the defence coach again

[inactionman]

Agree with this - over time these things even out.

The only one I still hold onto is Nigel Owens cancelling an England try vs Scotland a few years back deciding to award a penalty - it was just so blatant.

Yeah, that is one of my personal favourites, too.

I still remember fondly the game where Nigel was so, well, Nigel in his interpretations of the law that we all mockingly called two knock-ons from dropped ball that went clearly backwards, only for Nigel to actually give them as knock-ons.

He never annoyed me as much as Lewis or Rolland, though. With Lewis in particular it was very hard to shake the idea that he hated English sides. Having him referee the Lions was amazing - must have been what it was like for every non-English rugby fan over the years.

Steve 'Walsh' Welsh in any England Wales game. It felt he was trying to piss me off personally.

Yes, Adam Jones was a fine tighthead, it doesn't mean you just close your eyes and give a penalty to red at every scrum

[Ovals]

I see Eddiot has gone with the same 25, wasn't it Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

Can't see Coles in there !

[Margin__Walker]

That's a depressing retained list.

Same again then.

[Ovals]

That's a depressing retained list.

Same again then.

With no Coles there it does, at least, suggest he might not be playing Itoge @ 6.

[Margin__Walker]

That's a depressing retained list.

Same again then.

With no Coles there it does, at least, suggest he might not be playing Itoge @ 6.

There is that, I guess. Small mercies, albeit at Coles' expense.

[Oxbow]

Coles is still in the squad?

[Margin__Walker]

So he is. Ovals sold me a dummy

[Ovals]

That's a depressing retained list.

Same again then.

With no Coles there it does, at least, suggest he might not be playing Itoge @ 6.

There is that, I guess. Small mercies, albeit at Coles' expense.

Scratch that - seems that Coles is in the squad.

[Hal Jordan]

I thought Coles had a fairly promisingly game and deserves another go. Well, until Super Charlie Ewels is fit and ready to go, anyway.

[sockwithaticket]

I thought Coles had a fairly promisingly game and deserves another go. Well, until Super Charlie Ewels is fit and ready to go, anyway.

Yeah, although he had a couple of conspicuous errors, one of which was a fairly harsh crossing penalty, he also did more to catch the eye for positive reasons than Ewels has managed in 30 (!) caps.

[Oxbow]

I thought Coles had a fairly promisingly game and deserves another go. Well, until Super Charlie Ewels is fit and ready to go, anyway.

Yeah, although he had a couple of conspicuous errors, one of which was a fairly harsh crossing penalty, he also did more to catch the eye for positive reasons than Ewels has managed in 30 (!) caps.

I was only half watching by that point, but I thought Coles ran a pretty good line. If that had have been for Saints Mitchell would have given him the ball and Coles would have been through. Obviously that understanding won't be there with JVP.

[Raggs]

I thought Coles had a fairly promisingly game and deserves another go. Well, until Super Charlie Ewels is fit and ready to go, anyway.

Yeah, although he had a couple of conspicuous errors, one of which was a fairly harsh crossing penalty, he also did more to catch the eye for positive reasons than Ewels has managed in 30 (!) caps.

Thought that was a harsh pen, the player who "missed" the tackle on the actual carrier completely chose to tackle Coles, Coles didn't obstruct him in the slightest.

[Kawazaki]

Rumoured Jones starting XV for Japan

Steward; Nowell, Tuilagi, Farrell (ch.), May; Smith, Van Poortvliet; Genge, Cowan-Dickie, Sinckler; D Ribbans, J Hill; Itoje, Simmonds, Curry.

[Margin__Walker]

Thoughts on Ronan post RWC? Would definitely work for me.

[Paddington Bear]

Thoughts on Ronan post RWC? Would definitely work for me.

Would much rather have an Englishman and Borthwick seems primed for it. Certainly we’ve been a much worse side since he left the set up.
You have to assume Faz snr isn’t leaving Ireland any time soon