Forum menu
Bear - some of the players were ready - those on the right. If the guy right out on the right wing as we look at it can be ready the rest of them can be. If they were watching the ref then they would have had plenty of time. sure not all were set but the england team were taking the mickey taking so long and if 3 players had time to get set everyone had time to get set.
I really would have loved to have seen France v Scotland today : (
Indeed - it had the makings of a classic with two teams with positive intent and attacking play going head to head
That’s not a set defensive line, three players are on the right two moving left with a scrum in the middle.
True and like I said it was shit from the ref, but the discussion was over they had split up and a number were having drinks and wandering about aimlessly.
Daly was still doing his nails when Hardy scored his try, an international fullback when the pen was given and he turned his back and walked away from the exact spot Hardy ran through!! Shocking.
Jones' fault.
A word to your players does not need an army of assistant coaches.
I was coached from early, never turn your back on a penalty. Just never.
As a lot on commentators have said England's ill discipline shouldn't allow them to benefit by disrupting the flow of the game.
But ultimately never turn your back on a penalty or stop watching the opposition.
Genge is the frustration of that squad writ larde. In that he's all Billy big baws when it's going his way but can't control his emotions when it's not and more importantly can't reset.
Genge is the frustration of that squad writ larde.
He was pissed off with Davies not kicking the ball straight out at the end and was chopsing at Davies who just walked past him with a massive grin....all 9's are ****s!!
It’s taken a very dark turn this morning with online abuse of several players, Sonja McLaughlin and death threats to Genge.
Sonja McLaughlin
She is awful mind, has been for years, never tried to discuss the game she just tries to prod wounds and provoke reactions, cant stand the way she interviews.
Sonja McLaughlin
She is awful mind, has been for years, never tried to discuss the game she just tries to prod wounds and provoke reactions, cant stand the way she interviews.
Nobody should receive abuse but it didn’t seem too bad, nothing to get overly upset about - she won’t want to pack her job in and become a police officer or teacher.
Death threats though is outrageous.
^the above being based on:
McLaughlan wrote on Twitter after the match: “Toxic, embarrassing, disgraceful, appalling. Just some of the feedback I’ve had. Thanks for using @ sign so it’s all hit home … Now imagine getting inundated with abuse for doing your job. In my car crying. Hope you’re happy.”
Toxic, embarrassing, disgraceful, appalling
Embarrassing and appalling yep, toxic and disgraceful a bit harsh but understandable imo. AWJ was the winner so was happy to shrug it off, Faz and Jones did well
Even I was taught in school in the few rugby lessons I had to keep watching the opposition - that kind of quick tap/cheeky kick is part of the game. And play to the whistle!
To be fair, it takes balls to attempt something like that - and Adams was expecting it. When the ref says 'talk to your players' does that mean talk to them right now, and I'll wait for you to finish whilst you take as long as you want? I'd always assumed it meant 'spread the word' or some such.
The second cheeky tap and go though was genius. Perhaps now with two such moments in a high profile game players will be on their toes a bit more and we can expect more lively rugby.
There is no way England were set
Half of the English team seemed to think that Biggar was going to kick for goal. Does the ref need to shout over to remind them how to defend against a corner kick?
See now, the abuse of Mclaughlin I saw on twitter isn't any worse that AA's opinion of her up there. Any screen grabs of actual death threats or was she crying in her car because she is actually crap? Because she really is.
When I played and the ref said talk to your players it was "Right lads stop getting caught."
I know it keeps getting said but it's worth repeating. It's the micromanaging of the teams through water carriers.
Teams play when there are medics attending to injured players sometimes pretty close to them. Is biggar had kicked and hit an on pitch water carrier I wonder what would happen. What is IRB stance on water carriers? I'm sure they used to get permission to come on the pitch.
I was watching that game as a welsh, and on zoom, some friends, a kiwi, an English and an Irish.
We all simultainiously bust out laughing in shock at that post match interview, the line of questioning was clearly designed to goad an emotional response, as Farrel was clearly a *bit* upset already. Compleatly unessesary. Thankfully he didn't rise to the bait.
Doesn't warrant threats on social media, that's just as bad, if not worse. But she should probably have a word with herself.
See now, the abuse of Mclaughlin I saw on twitter isn’t any worse that AA’s opinion of her up there.
I've only seen the headlines about her bursting into tears in the car having been called toxic, etc. Presumably she thinks it ok to needle players who've just lost important matches when they can only be polite in return? She often seems to want to embarrass the players she's talking to - presumably it's come back to bite her?
See now, the abuse of Mclaughlin I saw on twitter isn’t any worse that AA’s opinion of her up there. Any screen grabs of actual death threats or was she crying in her car because she is actually crap? Because she really is.
It does feel a bit like when someone stands up to the school bully and they run off crying. All she was trying to do in those post match interviews was trying to get someone to say something that would get them into trouble. It was immediately after the game and emotions were obviously raw so instead of being refined and trying to bottom things out she just poked at raw wounds hoping for someone to lash out. That could have led to them getting fined or whatever purely for the desire for a controversial headline scoop. It's shitty journalism at its worst.
having been called toxic
from what I gather she wasn't called toxic...she said the abuse was toxic. Knowing what keyboard warriors are like, I imagine the abuse would have been pretty brutal. And I don't see anything wrong with her asking what they thought of two very controversial incidents....if she hadn't asked, she'd have been criticised for that.
I think the people on here who are essentially defending the online abuse she received because they think she's crap should have a think about what they're saying
from what I gather she wasn’t called toxic…
Toxic, embarrassing, disgraceful, appalling. Just some of the feedback I've had.
"Thanks for using @ sign so it's all hit home … Now imagine getting inundated with abuse for doing your job. In my car crying. Hope you're happy."
She doesn't specify any more than that.
And I don’t see anything wrong with her asking what they thought of two very controversial incidents….
She doesn't ask, she needles. She's done it plenty of times before to plenty of other players. I've seen AWJ look like he wants to kill her while answering in a vaguely civil way.
I don’t see anything wrong with her asking what they thought of two very controversial incidents
It was the phrasing and the obvioulsly leading questions, deliberately provocative. He was clearly upset about some things, you could see the contortions on Farrels face as he was biting his lip. That's not a post match interview, it's bear baiting.
Equally, I don't know what was said about her on social media as it's not a thing for me, but that is equally as bad as her interview technique, if not worse.
I think the people on here who are essentially defending the online abuse she received because they think she’s crap should have a think about what they’re saying
Literally nobody on here is defending online abuse "essentially" or in any other way. Good virtue signalling though.
Good virtue signalling though
😂
Good virtue signalling though
😂
See now, the abuse of Mclaughlin I saw on twitter isn’t any worse that AA’s opinion
I'd be quite happy to see her interview politicians. She could be the next Paxman, Just not post match rugby players when a bit of tact might be needed.
To be clear its not my opinion of her its my opinion of he interviewing, I've never been a fan of it.
I’d be quite happy to see her interview politicians. She could be the next Paxman, Just not post match rugby players when a bit of tact might be needed.
Couldn't disagree more, the standard of political interviewing is also poor, for much the same reasons. Aggressive interviewing lets the interviewee off the hook
Aggressive interviewing lets the interviewee off the hook
Digression, but I dissagree, it's very rare a UK MP holds an open interview, it's all controlled pre-arranged 'soft' questions.
See now, the abuse of Mclaughlin I saw on twitter isn’t any worse that AA’s opinion
Is that the best you can do?
It would still be a Welsh win, given how many penalties they gave away. I suppose you could argue that England lost form and got demoralised, but that's on them.
It's just a game.
It is just a game, but you can't just subtract the points and think that gives the result. It's momentum, the need to chase the game and push the boundaries on the way, that then adds to the 'too many' penalties count later. It creates the frustration and panic. It wears a team down leaving them more susceptible in the last 15 mins. All can contribute.
I don't think England played well enough to win and they do concede too many stupid penalties.
But sometimes games do turn on moments and decisions, and both of these could have gone differently.
Looks like the refs boss has thrown him under the bus.in a way that joubert never was (yes I'm still bitter.
sadmadalan - i read that article - note it does not say what mistakes he is admitting to and certainly does not say the ref thinks the two tries wrongly awarded.
Rees who wrote the article is a one eyed England fan
i am certain if the ref had said the two tries where wrongly awarded the article would say so.
the "mistakes" he is admitting could be communication failure or not carding Itoje for example
so when WR or the ref state those two tries were wrongly awarded I'll accept that but they have not
To me it looked more like some of the English players thought it was going to be a kick for goal while others were more switched on and were already in position when the ref called time on.
Maybe the ref simply thought, 'I've given him enough time to say, "If we give away any more penalties we're going to get carded" and for his team to get into position. If the players decide to spend the time they should have been using to get into position having a drink and receiving instructions from the waterboys instead that is their problem.' (it's more plausible if you say it in a French accent).
The ref didn't do them any favours but if England had been more switched on and realised that a kick for goal hadn't yet been indicated they would have all been in position.
The second one I don't understand. If the ball went backward off his leg then I don't see how it could have been a knock on. Otherwise how is ball juggling that is gathered before it hits the ground not a knock on?
Ill take my above post back - the article has been rewritten and expanded since I first read it.
It still stops short of saying both decisions were wrong
The second one I don’t understand. If the ball went backward off his leg then I don’t see how it could have been a knock on. Otherwise how is ball juggling that is gathered before it hits the ground not a knock on?
Its whether he had control or not. However the quote does not say outright that it was wrong
Bruce - ball juggling is re-gathered, this instance it wasn't it hit the ground after hitting both attacking and defending players. The ball went forward from hand contact , but didn't hit the ground directly, so can you throw it over a player run round kick it before it hits the ground and play on? I'm not sure, I think most people within the game felt it was a knock on. Irrelevant now, may have made a difference we will never know.
I hope the game is another nail in the coffin of Jones, his time and style of (not) coaching is done (probably 20 years ago!).
He has made some very good players become very average.
I really hope France are allowed to stay in the tournament and we see a sensible conclusion to what is proving to be a good tournament so far and that we have a worthy winner at the end.
Well, that’s 2 out of 2 games with a ball juggling controversy.
Can any one explain to me why...
In Scotland-Wales the Scot goes in perhaps a little gung ho but at a reasonable height and Wyn Jones straightens up and gets a a bang on the head for his trouble - result red card Scotland.
In England-Wales the English laddie goes in a bit high and in driving his shoulder through collects the Welsh head - result no intent, fair play.
Both went to video ref so both definitely seen.
In the first one was there a spearing / failure to try and use tha arms issue?
Otherwise they seem about equal - no one is suggesting Fagerson deliberately targeted Jones head, so no intent there either.
Surely they both walk or neither does - ok I accept two different weekends and two different officiating teams but a red and a fair play? Really?
In the wales game it was seen as a rugby collision - initial impact on chest and slipped up on a player running. In the fagerson case the player was bound in a maul and the initial impact was shoulder to head with no wrap of the arms.
completely different circumstances. fagersons was foul play even if he did not hit the guys head
Fagerson's was also 100% intentional.
Also one was wrapped with arms the other the arm is tucked away meaning you are very much deliberately using shoulder. I think this is what they are trying to get rid of. It is a result of modern coaching, winning collision etc and straight from rugby league where a lot of defensive coaches have come from.
If you wrap both arms then it is much harder to weaponise your body which is what they do when they tuck the arm.
If you wrap both arms then it is much harder to weaponise your body which is what they do when they tuck the arm.
It was still a high tackle though, I cannot grasp why it matters if you wrap arms if you hit them in the head. The one in the England game had mitigation he started legal and it slipped high, for me a pen for certain, a yellow at worst. The ref shit out of it imo.
Fagerson’s was also 100% intentional.
Definitely agree it was intentional to remove Jones from the ruck, and to do that your going to need a fair amount of momentum, but deliberate head contact? He knew in advance that Jones was going to straighten and that his head was now going to be in the firing line? Impressive.
Was it cavalier? Yes probably.
But equally the way it me in the England game the English tackler goes in too high and at an angle that he’s always going into the Welshman’s head after the initial contact. I would have thought a penalty minimum. (No I wouldn’t have said red, but I wouldn’t have said that the week before either)
But perhaps I’m just displaying that after 25 years of play in a different era I stopped following the law and interpretation changed and don’t really understand them now.