Wallabies v England in Melbourne, 18 June

[Cardiffblue]

Which genius decided to play the game on such a god awful surface? It's a split round in the AFL this weekend so why wasn't the game at Ethiad and the AFL at MCG. There s about 3mm of soil on that pitch at AAMI stadium.

Also, why was it that the Australian scrum tore chunks out of the pitch but England didn't?

 

[Cardiffblue]

I don't normally complain about the refereeing but I had to protest about Joubert's three absolutely stunning calls tonight:

- The penalty against Moore when there were two offences from England in the one incident, one of which could have been a card. That would have been three points.
- The advantage expiring right on half time. WTF? Since when does penalty advantage expire? Again, three points to us.
- The shoulder charge on Foley, saying he ran off his line and drew the contact. Bollocks he did. Three points to England when the game was in the balance.

Overall I thought he had a good game, but fuck me dead they were appalling decisions. A better team than ours would have overcome them though.

what makes you think you'd have taken the three points?

Seems to me that apart from their attcking deficiencies, Australia were tactically bereft in not taking three points in what was always going to be an arm wrestle. England were kicking away their possession so it's not like Australia would've struggled to get the ball following the kick off.

 

[BarneySF]

As many of us have been saying for years. The great irony being that we live in a country which has a football code based on kicking an oval shaped ball accurately over short and long distances, but we don't seem to have utilised anyone from that game to fix the problem.

Surely we can get someone recently retired from the game to play a Mick Byrne role if not the man himself?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ExiledinBorders]

I don't normally complain about the refereeing but I had to protest about Joubert's three absolutely stunning calls tonight:

- The penalty against Moore when there were two offences from England in the one incident, one of which could have been a card. That would have been three points.
- The advantage expiring right on half time. WTF? Since when does penalty advantage expire? Again, three points to us.
- The shoulder charge on Foley, saying he ran off his line and drew the contact. Bollocks he did. Three points to England when the game was in the balance.

Overall I thought he had a good game, but fuck me dead they were appalling decisions.

Thanks for the offer but I won't.

The first decision whilst unfair is correct. If you retaliate the penalty must be reversed. Two penalties to one does not come into it. England could commit five but if Australia retaliate it is a penalty to England.

The penalty expiring again is correct. You ask; since when have penalties expired. They always have. It has never been the case the advantage goes on for ever. Usually at some point the team with advantage within a reasonable period knock on or just look like they are going nowhere. That did not happen. To be honest a savvy team would have made sure they got the penalty.

The overhead quite clearly showed Foley ran off his line. It would have been better if Owens had kept his mouth shut as neither the obstruction or the shoulder by Farrell were worthy of stopping the match. Once he had stopped the match however Joubert had little choice but to give England the penalty.

 

[BarneySF]

My takeaways from the presser: we're OK because Cheiks confirmed that with his style of play: "It [losses like that] will happen sometimes but not often"! So we're FINE!!!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

Agreed, If he loves Foley so much at least he could have taken Kuridrani off. Kerevi and Falou the only players looking like making a break.

Foley style of play needs a more creative player at 12 à la Beale.

 

[BarneySF]

Taquele to no. 8. Get him studying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

He won coach of the year last year, and we played attractive rugby through-out the RWC.Most consider the RWC a success. It was in my books. Thats where the hype came from.

But now we are seeing he only has one strategy and that is being worked out quick by smart coaches.

Cheika is good at Cheika-ball, now he has to prove he can do anything else.

And stop bloody having man-crushes for Foley, Palu, and Mumm.

We now have to see how he does adapt. Remember that people used to make exactly the same criticism about Eddie Jones during his Wallably tenure. He has adapted and changed as the years have gone by.

 

[Quick Hands]

Thanks for the offer but I won't.

The first decision whilst unfair is correct. If you retaliate the penalty must be reversed. Two penalties to one does not come into it. England could commit five but if Australia retaliate it is a penalty to England.

The penalty expiring again is correct. You ask; since when have penalties expired. They always have. It has never been the case the advantage goes on for ever. Usually at some point the team with advantage within a reasonable period knock on or just look like they are going nowhere. That did not happen. To be honest a savvy team would have made sure they got the penalty.

The overhead quite clearly showed Foley ran off his line. It would have been better if Owens had kept his mouth shut as neither the obstruction or the shoulder by Farrell were worthy of stopping the match. Once he had stopped the match however Joubert had little choice but to give England the penalty.

I'm in general agreement with you.

The only thing that I would say is the the most serious foul play in the first case was Robshaw grabbing Phipps (who was already being held from in front) from behind around the neck and dragging him to the ground. WR (World Rugby) have previously identified this as something to be stamped out of the game and requiring a YC. I don't think it's necessarily the case that the last infringement in a melee like that is the one to be penalised regardless of what has gone on before.

Re, point 2, I've seen similar come back for a penalty and also called play on. One of those 50/50 calls that happen.

Agree with your analyis of point 3, however I don't think that Joubert had little choice. It's open to him to say that there's nothing much in it we'll play on. Similar incidents had happened all game and none of the 3 officials seemed too concerned - picking out one at such a crucial point in the game seemed odd.

I will say, that that was a very difficult game to referee. Both sides seemed to go out of their way to make things difficult for the ref, so they can't really complain if he gets the odd call wrong. I though Joubert did a very good job handling the match. Regardless of individual decisions, he was calm and in control at all times. Think of the possibilities if Jackson or Clancy et al were in charge.

 

[Rugrat]

Thanks for the offer but I won't.

The first decision whilst unfair is correct. If you retaliate the penalty must be reversed. Two penalties to one does not come into it. England could commit five but if Australia retaliate it is a penalty to England.

The penalty expiring again is correct. You ask; since when have penalties expired. They always have. It has never been the case the advantage goes on for ever. Usually at some point the team with advantage within a reasonable period knock on or just look like they are going nowhere. That did not happen. To be honest a savvy team would have made sure they got the penalty.

The overhead quite clearly showed Foley ran off his line. It would have been better if Owens had kept his mouth shut as neither the obstruction or the shoulder by Farrell were worthy of stopping the match. Once he had stopped the match however Joubert had little choice but to give England the penalty.

Agree with above except for the fact Robshaw should have still received a yellow. The retaliation from MOORE does not excuse the fact that indiscretion must receive yellow.

 

[Rugrat]

We now have to see how he does adapt. Remember that people used to make exactly the same criticism about Eddie Jones during his Wallably tenure. He has adapted and changed as the years have gone by.

Adaption on a game by game basis is irrelevant. Means you are playing catchup. Team must adapt as game progresses, nothing from the Wallabies under Chieka tells me this is possible. His blind faith in the same game plan is killing us.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm in general agreement with you.

The only thing that I would say is the the most serious foul play in the first case was Robshaw grabbing Phipps (who was already being held from in front) from behind around the neck and dragging him to the ground. WR (World Rugby) have previously identified this as something to be stamped out of the game and requiring a YC. I don't think it's necessarily the case that the last infringement in a melee like that is the one to be penalised regardless of what has gone on before.

Re, point 2, I've seen similar come back for a penalty and also called play on. One of those 50/50 calls that happen.

Agree with your analyis of point 3, however I don't think that Joubert had little choice. It's open to him to say that there's nothing much in it we'll play on. Similar incidents had happened all game and none of the 3 officials seemed too concerned - picking out one at such a crucial point in the game seemed odd.

I will say, that that was a very difficult game to referee. Both sides seemed to go out of their way to make things difficult for the ref, so they can't really complain if he gets the odd call wrong. I though Joubert did a very good job handling the match. Regardless of individual decisions, he was calm and in control at all times. Think of the possibilities if Jackson or Clancy et al were in charge.

Owens gets all the blame for that call. He was in no position to judge what had happened as the terms of his report showed. He was, evidently, so insistent (Joubert seemed to dismiss the report on the run at first) that he gave Joubert no choice - so he stopped the game on an (aimless) oz kick.
Given the circumstances when he stopped the game he had no choice, but his lack of choice was down to Nige's insistence.
As I said, nige was suffering relevance deprivation syndrome.

 

[KOB1987]

I don't know what the answer is. I don't think the back row was a failure nor the fault, but maybe a more conventional set up with Palu and McCalman sharing a game at 8 would have been more effective.

And maybe that magical #10 is hiding away in subbies or in the country, does the ARU have a scout that looks beyond the Super rugby teams? I'm not suggesting you'd chuck the Walcha fly half in for the next test, but in terms of uncovering and developing the talent..

And those putting the slipper in to Cheika, who would be your choice for coach? Sure, this international season hasn't started well but his overall record is good. I'll concede he needs to come up with a less predictable game plan though. I reckon the England fans should still be reeling from the last RWC, they are a bloody good side and were poorly coached then. If not us they should have at least beaten Wales and advanced to the quarters.

 

[Quick Hands]

Owens gets all the blame for that call. He was in no position to judge what had happened as the terms of his report showed. He was, evidently, so insistent (Joubert seemed to dismiss the report on the run at first) that he gave Joubert no choice - so he stopped the game on an (aimless) oz kick.
Given the circumstances when he stopped the game he had no choice, but his lack of choice was down to Nige's insistence.
As I said, nige was suffering relevance deprivation syndrome.

Agree is was Owen who injected himself into the game for no apparent purpose. Joubert's first instinct was right and he should have stuck with it even after seeing the replay.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

My takeaways from the presser: we're OK because Cheiks confirmed that with his style of play: "It [losses like that] will happen sometimes but not often"! So we're FINE!!!!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did not see the game as that we played badly but rather England's outstanding defence won then the game. Irony is that is what the wallabies have been renown for.

 

[Quick Hands]

Adaption on a game by game basis is irrelevant. Means you are playing catchup. Team must adapt as game progresses, nothing from the Wallabies under Chieka tells me this is possible. His blind faith in the same game plan is killing us.

It's not just Cheika. What's happening at the Wallabies reflects what has been going on a junior and schoolboy elite programmes for a number of years. It's not the job of the national coach to teach blokes to kick or even what type of kick to use in certain situations. Those instincts need to be picked up over years. A culture has developed in Australian rugby in which anything other than running the ball is the only option and nothing else will do. Penalty goals are frowned upon as negative, field goals are the devil's work and players who can kick are discouraged from doing so by selectors and coaches. Same applies to front rowers our junior and school rep teams regularly pick the "best rugby player" over the best scrumagers. Until we grow up and accept that rugby is a multi-faceted game, we need to get used to losing games like last night.

As an aside - Mark Ella had a wonderful kicking game - long and short and could and did knock over field goals reguarly. David Campese had one of the best long spiral punts that I've seen. But we only focus on the running and not the kicking ability of these players.

 

[Quick Hands]

I did not see the game as that we played badly but rather England's outstanding defence won then the game. Irony is that is what the wallabies have been renown for.

England played well. Some people need to accept that.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

TPN was a great injection.

Pity tpn' line out throwing not as good as moore's as otherwise would be my starting hooker every day of the week

 

[wamberal]

The definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result.


I wonder why we did not mix it up a bit, instead of shovelling the ball time and again across field. Maybe some pick and drives?


Foley needs to be dropped and sent on an intensive "basic skills for a Test match fly-halves" course. Any junior New Zealand coach will do the job. Or the coach's mother.

 

[Highlander35]

Taquele to no. 8. Get him studying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tits for hands, turnstile. No thank you.

Owens gets all the blame for that call. He was in no position to judge what had happened as the terms of his report showed. He was, evidently, so insistent (Joubert seemed to dismiss the report on the run at first) that he gave Joubert no choice - so he stopped the game on an (aimless) oz kick.
Given the circumstances when he stopped the game he had no choice, but his lack of choice was down to Nige's insistence.
As I said, nige was suffering relevance deprivation syndrome.

Looked like a play on 99.995% of the time. Foley had changed his angle a little bit, Farrell had little aggressive in getting past, but nothing in it either way.