rugbyunion
Latest News:
New Page 1

Whatever your views on Saracens, whether a Sarries fan or not, leave them here.

To leave a message on this board you must register. To register click HERE, it takes only a minute.
Non-rugby posts are welcome, but please prefix your subject header with "OT" or "Off Topic".


Thought for the Day:
SARRIES ARE REMAINERS!

Latest: CARDIFF BLUES 14:26 SARACENS
Next: Exeter Chiefs v Saracens Sat 22nd Dec, 15.00 Sandy Park, EPCR,
Audio: Click the link below. If it ain' there, it ain't on!
Upcoming TV: Exeter Chiefs v Saracens, Sat 22nd Dec 14.30 BT Sport 2

BBC Online Rugby Union Commentaries

The Fish | Rugby Union News | Fez Boys | Saracens Fixtures | The SSA | Rugby on TV


Why are these people employed?
Sarakene (IP Logged)
10 November, 2018 16:58
At a ruck or maul, the offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the player of the same team.

So Owen? was the only England player at the breakdown so surely the offside line is from him (his feet) not through the NZ players driving through and Courtney was well onside? Why are these people paid?

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
Saint Stokey (IP Logged)
10 November, 2018 17:15
At the start of the game, the commentators stated that more emphasis was being put on the refs on field decision. Ref called try. Why did the TMO even get involved.

Lawes absolutley onside.



Thought farrell was immense, Itoje and Kruis also played well. George had a shocker though... still a way to go to usurp Hartley.

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
The Bard (IP Logged)
10 November, 2018 17:42
Looks like Kruis has a serious knee injury , did not look good at all. It sadly fell apart for Jamie. Was Hartley injured or was it tactical?

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
John Tee (IP Logged)
10 November, 2018 17:58
Quote:
The Bard
Looks like Kruis has a serious knee injury , did not look good at all. It sadly fell apart for Jamie. Was Hartley injured or was it tactical?

Jones called it as an injury.... But he'd have to otherwise that loss was his call.

Plus side, matched then and could've won.
Downside, lack critical leadership...
Teams like nz's win tight games because they make the correct calls.. And fix things on the hoof.
England just aren't capable of doing that...

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
The Bard (IP Logged)
10 November, 2018 18:28
New Zealand could have put us out of sight early in the second half, but we really should have been more patient in our late attack

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
Squawker2 (IP Logged)
10 November, 2018 18:45
Even if it was offside then Garces should have pinged NZ for mass offside 2 minutes later in front of their posts. Consistency is always key, but if you're disallowing for a marginal offside then it becomes even more important



-----------------------------------------------------

Stuart Barnes is a Cock Womble

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
maynas (IP Logged)
10 November, 2018 19:01
I was there and no one near me could figure out what he called it on and why. Stupid decision in my view. It was so close to a great result , good intense team performance

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
Sara'sman (IP Logged)
10 November, 2018 19:27
Quote:
Sarakene
At a ruck or maul, the offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the player of the same team.
So Owen? was the only England player at the breakdown so surely the offside line is from him (his feet) not through the NZ players driving through and Courtney was well onside? Why are these people paid?

If a ruck had formed you would be correct in that Faz was on the ground with his feet towards NZ, Lawes was behind his feet. But no ruck was formed. "A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground."

It was just a tackle so "Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line."

Correct decision I'm sorry to say. The post Italy Law?

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
P G Tips (IP Logged)
10 November, 2018 22:10
Quote:
Squawker2
Even if it was offside then Garces should have pinged NZ for mass offside 2 minutes later in front of their posts. Consistency is always key, but if you're disallowing for a marginal offside then it becomes even more important

Yes, Squawker, he should. But to me the more significant point is what went before - because offside, within the ruck, at the ruck fringes and in midfield nearby was commonplace- by both sides. That is - it was the norm for the match.

For 75 minutes it was OK to be offside - a more consistent impact on the match than one isolated incident - yet a score was ruled out because a TMO got involved.

If the ref and ARs were happy to allow offside during the game, why not overrule the TMO, to be consistent?

PG

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
TonyTaff (IP Logged)
11 November, 2018 08:45
Quote:
Sara'sman
Quote:
Sarakene
At a ruck or maul, the offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the player of the same team.
So Owen? was the only England player at the breakdown so surely the offside line is from him (his feet) not through the NZ players driving through and Courtney was well onside? Why are these people paid?

If a ruck had formed you would be correct in that Faz was on the ground with his feet towards NZ, Lawes was behind his feet. But no ruck was formed. "A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground."

It was just a tackle so "Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line."

Correct decision I'm sorry to say. The post Italy Law?

Oi, Andy, this is the Internet. Don't you come on here and quote the laws!

If the moderators started deleting bollox, we'd have no content left!



£721.05 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]

Please read and submit articles for publication. (*) As at October 31, 2018.

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
joluben (IP Logged)
11 November, 2018 08:49
Thought the team selection was the thing that cost us. Once kruis and shields went off all throws were to Itoje. Kiwis knew that and put up a man in front. Made it easy for them.

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
Sarakene (IP Logged)
11 November, 2018 08:51
But does that apply to players who are clearly not “over the ball” but as the NZ players were 15ft past it? In any case as the helpful photos in today’s Times show( sadly behind a paywall) Lawes was not offside when the ball was picked up even when using the NZ players positions.

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
Sara'sman (IP Logged)
11 November, 2018 09:48
I think that the impenetrable (to many) nature of the Laws remains rugby's second major problem (after player welfare) particularly since it is not just the written Laws that apply but also the result of the reams of illustrations/examples made both formally and informally in discussions between officials. We rarely see this detail; I'd suggest that this is also a major cause of inconsistency - GP/Pro14, NH/SH, referee/TMO etc since these discussions never involve all parties.

If we take this one example and accept that it was a tackle not ruck, the Laws are imperfect as to:
Are the NZ players legal/bound over the ball? It is debatable as to whether they are (full bind/just holding).
When is the ball "out"? The Wales/Oz game was refereed differently to the convention that the ball remains in the ruck until lifted provided it is ahead of and within the proximity of the back foot. But what about the numerous times the SH nudges the ball back in/uses his hands to move the ball back? In our incident, imo it is arguable that (74:48) the ball is out well before Lawes moved forwards (74:52) but it was not Garces' (or most ref's) interprteation throughout the game.
Is a player on the ground part of the ruck (and thus the in/out issue)? No consistency on this matter, usually yes but occasionally opponents allowed to reach over and pick up the ball (illegally).

I also agree with those who argue that this incident was less offside than dozens that went umpunished throughout the game (England punished x3, NZ 0 I understand). But then we complain if a forward pass before a try is allowed after a clear TMO replay even if others have gone unpunished!

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
samlee99 (IP Logged)
11 November, 2018 10:48
Quote:
Sara'sman
Quote:
Sarakene
At a ruck or maul, the offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the player of the same team.
So Owen? was the only England player at the breakdown so surely the offside line is from him (his feet) not through the NZ players driving through and Courtney was well onside? Why are these people paid?

If a ruck had formed you would be correct in that Faz was on the ground with his feet towards NZ, Lawes was behind his feet. But no ruck was formed. "A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground."

It was just a tackle so "Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line."

Correct decision I'm sorry to say. The post Italy Law?

Quite correct. England lost. People should get over it.

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
TonyTaff (IP Logged)
11 November, 2018 11:28
I understand that Wales were beneficiaries of some questionable decisions, but the landlady poured me into a taxi before I could listen to the post match synopsis.

I may have been a little over tired having shared commiserate drinks with my English friends and then communed with the sole other Welsh person in the venue smiling smiley

Regrets? Too few to mention!



£721.05 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]

Please read and submit articles for publication. (*) As at October 31, 2018.

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
11 November, 2018 13:17
Quote:
Saint Stokey


Thought farrell was immense

I wonder if 11 missed tackles is a world record in a tier 1 international.

I thought England played well for 20 minutes and then reverted to type. No one stood out apart from Underhill on occasion. Farrell was certainly not immense.

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
King Zak (IP Logged)
11 November, 2018 16:04
A couple of thoughts.

The line out fell apart because we seemed to only have one option - pretty easy to stop, unless the jumpier 7’ tall!

Had Underhill been tackled after the charge down, gone through a couple of phases and scored in the other corner, the ‘offside’ wouldnt have been an issue. I maintain that TMO should do ‘clarification of scoring act’ and foul play only. The rest, as it ever was, is up to the referee and assistants. I can see an argument for the rugby league approach of two refs though (where one isn’t a gobby scrum half),

Missed tackles - is now a meaningless statistic unless the miss leads to a clear line break. If all it does if force the attacker into other defenders, it’s not a problem. I suspect Saracens have the highest missed tackle stat in the Premiership, and not many people say they can’t defend. In fact, some people still seem to think that’s all they do (and kick-chase)



Nous sommes l'armée noir et rouge !

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
John Tee (IP Logged)
11 November, 2018 16:06
But, tbf, he played his part in a good team performance.
Defensively, collectively we had a good defence because the NZ only crossed for one try.
What price that at the bookies..?

I thought that was a good team performance over 80.
Sure, we made mistakes, but we made them make them too.

The difference was critical decision making, Imv.

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
Rupes (IP Logged)
11 November, 2018 19:43
Surely Eddie Jones had it right - sometimes the game loves you and sometimes the game doesn't. Compare to the last minute TMO decision vs SA, when it went for England.

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
Sarakene (IP Logged)
12 November, 2018 13:52
Excellent discussion. Thanks. Worth reading Rob Debney's view in the Times today.

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
JO'G (IP Logged)
13 November, 2018 12:03
I had 2 issues with the whole thing: the TMO is only allowed to call for a review if there is clear evidence. so we should have a simple solution - one replay, full speed. If the ref can't see it from that then its not clear. By definition if multiple replays are needed then we should draw a line, its not clear

The second issue is with world rugby. Its pretty obvious that the tmo and Garces didn't adhere to the new protocul and reverted to what they did before. Multiple replays and when Garces finished off with - well I can't see anything wrong - then the TMO stopped the try

then we have the farcical statement that Garces did follow the new protocul the rain got in the way

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
The Bard (IP Logged)
13 November, 2018 12:11
Are you sure that was Jerome Garces and not Donald Trump?

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
AlanE (IP Logged)
14 November, 2018 05:35
Quote:
Quinten Poulsen
Quote:
Saint Stokey


Thought farrell was immense

I wonder if 11 missed tackles is a world record in a tier 1 international.

I thought England played well for 20 minutes and then reverted to type. No one stood out apart from Underhill on occasion. Farrell was certainly not immense.

QP - there have now been two excellent articles in the Telegraph by Charlie Morgan and the TImes by David Bates which analyse the missed tackle stat and demonstrate how misleading it is. Well worth a read (but both behind paywalls).



I was 17 miles from Graybridge before I was caught by the school leopard

 
Re: Why are these people employed?
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
14 November, 2018 17:14
I read the Telegraph one - it mentions 3 line breaks from missed tackles. I'm not sure if that includes the one where an All Black ran Farrell back 10 meters during the tackle attempt.

For the record, Farrell is possibly the first name on the team sheet for me. I was countering the description of him being immense!

Oh, and of course if it was Ford with 11 missed tackles JO'G would assure us that... well, you know how it goes. smiling smiley


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?