Earl is a fantastic player, I could never work out what Jones didn’t see in him.
Italy won second half on points, so hardly a big England performance
England forwards looking good, against a weaker pack , but backs look lost in attack.
Doesn't England have any young props they should be playing off the bench?
Yeah he had Capuozzos number a few times.
Bummer that Italy did not have a complete game, at times their attack was awesome, however England did leave some gaping holes in defence. Both Italian tries should have been stopped, poor show from England on that front. I cant see England threatening anyone else this year.
I think this really highlight my predictions, a close call either way with Wales is the best England are getting out of this 6N. Pleased to see Lawrence in the centre proving a point though.
I'm not sure dombrandt has secured his place. There a chance to have a very strong back row without him.
I cant see England threatening anyone else this year.
They’ll beat Wales and Chile 😀
They’ll beat Wales and Chile 😀
hold on now, is the Chile game at altitude?
They’ll beat Wales and Chile 😀
hold on now, is the Chile game at altitude?
ha ha.
Actually, though, is it?
I suspect it is WC, but would be impressive French scheduling shithousery. I mean, who knew there was a rugby pitch on Mont Blanc?
Over does it towards the end but it does raise a lot of valid points imo
One problem is the forensic analysis of everything.
Try would be a try but that trailing foot is questionable. There's no or very little drag. If his foot flexed then yes, no try but it didn't. Although we seem to be operating at if it touches a blade of grass that has an effect. So arguably foot touches grass but not ground what do the rules say?
The tackle on herring is awkward through the protocols. Upright, no wrap with right arm but initial contact is ball but definite head contact.
Turner on North was horrible to see but yellow was probably the correct outcome dropping and turning, turner was low and it's unfair to say a wrapping arm becomes a swinging arm. Although whoever allowed North to stay in then return needs their cards.
You know I love my stats. some of them grim reading for England. Italy beat 41 defenders and england missed 40 tackles. 81% tackle completion. thats not acceptable. Borthwick did say he had them concentrating on set piece and defense and the set piece was good but defense still poor and attacking game out wide poor
https://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/match?gameId=596210&league=180659
Try would be a try but that trailing foot is questionable. There’s no or very little drag.
It's clearly touching the ground imo. 100% so from rear angle.
The entire approach to tmo decisions needs looking at imo. If we take a different type of call we can see how stupid it's. Say a questionable try from a forward pass (like the Irish one🤪) ref sees ball grounded so says on field try, so now we need a different weight of evidence to overturn it but the questionable part and the choice is not about grounding. If we go back to the Lowe try surely the on field by very definition if we go straight to the tmo is 'havent a ****ing clue'. On field try should only be used if ref thinks it is a try and the tmo can check in the background. No way should, in the Lowe example, the on field decision is try, it is questionable if he put it down on touchline, it's questionable if his foot was in touch the ref guessing influences the outcome.
It’s clearly touching the ground imo. 100% so from rear angle.
I would say it clearly touches some blades of grass. Whether it touches the ground or not is questionable and not clear, imo.
Do blades of grass count as ground? Genuine question.
Do blades of grass float above the ground? Of course they are the ground. If we took your view then the ball is 'grounded' on the line, no try
Look at this, clearly a forward pass don't think blind pew the video ref even looked at it. The angle at 52s is best I think. Hands clearly go forward as does the ball.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8h5I9yiQ4sE
Do blades of grass float above the ground? Of course they are the ground. If we took your view then the ball is ‘grounded’ on the line, no try
I don't think the semantics are that obvious. If a ball was stuck in a tree then no one would say it was on the ground despite the tree not floating.
What do the laws say about it?
Edit: I know the laws for a try are 'downward pressure'. That foot doesn't clearly have downward pressure if all it's doing is moving grass sideways.
I don’t think the semantics are that obvious.
So you are saying the ball was touching the grass but not on the ground or the grass is not part of the pitch. Not sure how talking about trees on the pitch is useful!
So you are saying the ball was touching the grass but not on the ground or the grass is not part of the pitch.
I tend to give the advantage to the attacking team when the rules don't explicitly state things (for example, the rules don't explicitly state whether the grass is ground or not as far as I know).
So, if the question was, 'Do you count grass as ground for the purposes of ball grounding?' then my answer would be yes. However, if the question was , 'Do you count grass as ground for the purposes of being in touch in the act of scoring a try?' then my answer would be no.
If it's genuinely that important to you then I would write to World Rugby and get them to clarify whether grass is ground or not. Personally, if it's so close that we're having philosophical discussions such as this then I would just go with the attacking team*.
I reserve the right to completely change my mind if Scotland is the defending team.
So, if the question was, ‘Do you count grass as ground for the purposes of ball grounding?’ then my answer would be yes. However, if the question was , ‘Do you count grass as ground for the purposes of being in touch in the act of scoring a try?’ then my answer would be no.
Well that's cleared that up then!
Well that’s cleared that up then!
If it's so close we're discussing the definition of 'ground' just award the try and get on with the game.
Does the grass count as 'anything'?
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/home
Touch: The area alongside the field of play that includes the touchlines and
beyond.
Touch-in-goal: The area alongside the in-goal area that includes the touch-in-goal
lines and beyond.
The ball is in touch or touch-in-goal when :
a. The ball or ball-carrier touches the touchline, touch-in-goal line or
anything beyond.
b. A player, who is already touching the touchline, touch-in-goal line or
anything beyond, catches or holds the ball.
If it’s so close we’re discussing the definition of ‘ground’ just award the try and get on with the game.
I agree.
If it’s so close we’re discussing the definition of ‘ground’ just award the try and get on with the game.
To be clear I wasn't really discussing more laughing at the circles you are going round in to justify an obvious incorrect call.
touching a blade of grass is enough
It should have been ruled out but for some reason the TMO did not see they one angle that showed it
rugby is a complex game. Mistakes happen
Does the grass count as ‘anything’?
Could be.
But then I'd say it was pretty clear that Lowe touched the grass from the first angle so maybe Wayne Barnes doesn't agree with you.
Take it up with him. It was to close for me to get too upset at the injustice.
It should have been ruled out but for some reason the TMO did not see they one angle that showed it
Let's be honest the front on angle is clear too.
maybe Wayne Barnes doesn’t agree with you.
That's not me, it's the laws as published here
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/home
That’s not me, it’s the laws as published here
Well then, you are a better rugby referee than Wayne Barnes.
Congratulations.
Anything does clear it up. Grass is grounding. It is, as I said, the problem with this forensic analysis and the nuances of the refs question.
Imagine the analysis if the foot over the grass in touch had been a ball over the grass for a try.
I agree let's go back to advantage to attacking team unless compelling video evidence otherwise and although all sense would say that the foot was in touch could it be proven?
It was to close for me to get too upset at the injustice.
Fair enough, shall we move on to discussing how Antonio wasn't sent off and/or how Ryan's high no arms hit wasn't a yellow or a red?
These things are always easy to sport in slow motion, with the benefit of hindsight and while you are only focused on one thing.
I'm not excusing Wayne Barnes for anything highlighted in that video, but he is working in a highly responsible and stressful situation trying to keep an eye on many things at once that are much easier to spot when you can pause / slow a video frame by frame.
It is, as I said, the problem with this forensic analysis and the nuances of the refs question.
It's not forensic analysis. It was as Melchet would say
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gGkKFick8E8
The front on was not " clear and obvious" which is what is needed to overturn on field decision
I agree let’s go back to advantage to attacking team unless compelling video evidence otherwise and although all sense would say that the foot was in touch could it be proven?
I'm envisaging one of those LBW replay things they have in cricket. Where a detailed model is made that includes every blade of grass on the pitch and a computer rendering is done that proves that the ball did exert 0.0000000000357 N of downward force on blade of grass number 1,650,293,503.
Of course, each TMO decision will need enough time for the FEA analysis to run so games will take between 4 and 167 hours.
TJ, it reall is
but he is working in a highly responsible and stressful situation trying to keep an eye on many things at once that are much easier to spot when you can pause / slow a video frame by frame.
The game is stopped, the video ref can literally stop the images and look frame by frame. The ref is not doing anything else other than look at images. They missed looking at one angle and didn't bother with rocking a rolling the images as you see often done. It was piss poor officiating.
To me the front view was pretty obvious which is why I thought maybe grass isn't ground.
Cause otherwise I don't see how you come to any other conclusion.
Clear and obvious? Nope. Thats not how it works. Probably touched a blade of grass is not "clear and obvious"
It was piss poor officiating.
To counter - Barnes checked with his linesman/asst ref who had the best view of anyone in the stadium, he gave the thumbs up but recommended checking. That then placed the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, as it should when it initially looks like a try. At that point it needs a clear and obvious reason not to give. The front angle gives doubt, but the side one looked clear from the ground. That isn't clear and obvious. Don't forget an image on screen is two dimensions, the assistant refs' eyes aren't.
The reffing crew did their job and are being second guessed by keyboard critics and knobs on youtube who dissect games after the fact
The reffing crew did their job and are being second guessed by keyboard critics and knobs on youtube who dissect games after the fact
These are of course people who have NEVER EVER made an error in judgement, or made in incorrect decision too.
Refs decision on the field is final, sometimes it's perfectly correct sometimes it isn't, that's part of the game though, some decisions benenfit you when they shouldn't, some go against you when they shouldn't.
I don't think Barnes made a mistake. I think he saw the same thing we all did which was a toe skimming the grass.
However, I suspect what he thought was, 'I'm not going to strike off the try because his toe touched a blade of grass. Because that would be a ****'s trick, no matter what the law book says.'
There's a lot in this game that comes down to the refs interpretation of the rules. Whether that's a good thing or not, I reckon this was just another example of that and allowing the try to stand was the right decision, imo.
I don’t think Barnes made a mistake. I think he saw the same thing we all did which was a toe skimming the grass
These two sentences contradict each other.
However, I suspect what he thought was, ‘I’m not going to strike off the try because his toe touched a blade of grass. Because that would be a ****’s trick, no matter what the law book says.’
If that's the case he would have never got to the position of being a highly respected international ref. He dropped a bollock here though.
To counter – Barnes checked with his linesman/asst ref who had the best view of anyone in the stadium, he gave the thumbs up but recommended checking. That then placed the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, as it should when it initially looks like a try.
I can agree with this although as I said on the last page should the call be on field try, because my first impression was, that's in touch. Just because you see a grounding doesn't mean it should always be infield try imo.
Clear and obvious? Nope
Seriously, that doesn't obviously show foot on ground, you need an eye test mate (at least me and you get them half price!!)
Apols I agrees with bruce wee, but actually had no idea what was in the video.
I've watched in now.
FFS thats in touch all day long.
Plus he puts the ball down on the touch line at the same time as over the try line. Doesn't that count as in touch?
Anyway, thats rugby, decision made, move on. Nobody is perfect.
Changing the subject, I saw this on reddit. Amused me.
https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1120hk1/there_is_a_nonzero_chance_scotland_could_finish/
Plus he puts the ball down on the touch line at the same time as over the try line. Doesn’t that count as in touch?
Yes it does
If that’s the case he would have never got to the position of being a highly respected international ref.
Refs are rewarded for making the 'right' decision, not following the letter of the law.
If a ref ever took to the field and blew up for every infringement according to the letter of the law he would never be in charge of a big game again.
Personally I'd like to see the letter of the law followed more closely but whether that foot was in touch or not is not nearly as blatant as what you see at literally every ruck and every scrum put-in.
And before you say, 'but this was in the act of scoring a try', if you looked at every ruck a try was scored from I can almost guarantee you'd find something to penalise.
