Australia v England Test 1 Sat. July 2 @1955

[dru]

Tempting to allow the late English rally to take the gloss off a gritty win, but as Cyclo points out, they finally pulled their fingers out against a team that had defended with 14 and 13 players and had sewn up the win.

I'm left a bit undecided about England's ceiling. It felt like an underperformance but I don't know where the improvement comes from.

I think many Melbourne fans have been shouting into the void about Kellaway's quality and rugby brain. Very pleasing to see him carry on from the last international season's form and justify not just his starting jersey, but putting a legitimate claim on the starting 15 position.

There are plenty of thoughts on it, though I think this a tad churlish by Clive:

SIR CLIVE WOODWARD: Eddie Jones must give wings to whizzkid Arundell

SIR CLIVE WOODWARD: This week is a huge opportunity for Jones and England. It's knockout rugby. Jones has to go for broke. It's time for him to play all his cards.

www.dailymail.co.uk

TLDR - Forwards fine. Put Farrell back to FH (and don't need a second fly) then bring in the speed on the outside.

OTOH - Eddie seemed to be suggesting getting the forwards back on plan driving up the guts, pick'n'go etc.

 

[Derpus]

I dont see why England would continue to play expansively when they are so much more effective playing tight. I'd also ditch Smith and move Farrell in. Up and unders all day.

 

[Brumby Runner]

From World Rugby:

"Australia second row Darcy Swain will attend an independent disciplinary hearing after receiving a red card for an act of foul play contrary to Law 9.12 (A player must not physically abuse anyone) in Australia’s test match against England on 2 July.

"The player will attend a hearing via video link before an independent Judicial Committee chaired by Shao-Ing Wang, joined by former players Chris Smith and Stefan Terblanche.

"The hearing will take place on Tuesday in agreement with the player and his representatives."

I take that to mean they're disputing the charge, probably on the grounds of provocation?

Law 9.12, a player must not physically abuse anyone.

In this incident Hill dished out the abuse, rather than Swain. With ex-players on the Judiciary it is feasible that Swain will get off. More likely though a one or two week suspension to confirm that head butting in any form is unacceptable. But for those posters who are going ballistic about Swain, do you really think his action was more dangerous or constituted abuse moreso than Hill's?

 

[tragic]

I’ve just frame by framed the headbutt incident and I can’t actually see any contact with the head. There’s no movement of hills head at all and there’s still space between heads in the closest still (attached). The contact is all shoulders. Still a bad look but surely there’s gotta be contact for it to be a headbutt….

 

[cyclopath]

View attachment 14016
I’ve just frame by framed the headbutt incident and I can’t actually see any contact with the head. There’s no movement of hills head at all and there’s still space between heads in the closest still (attached). The contact is all shoulders. Still a bad look but surely there’s gotta be contact for it to be a headbutt….

There was definitely a camera angle that showed contact and movement of Hill's head.

 

[Braveheart81]

But for those posters who are going ballistic about Swain, do you really think his action was more dangerous or constituted abuse moreso than Hill's?

The danger has nothing to do with it.

He was incredibly dumb. England had a clear plan to get under his skin and it worked and left the Wallabies down a player for half the game. Sure, it shouldn't have worked and Hill should have been yellow carded for the initial shove in the face but that didn't happen.

Instead Swain lost his cool and did something that was an obvious red card offence.

 

[tragic]

There was definitely a camera angle that showed contact and movement of Hill's head.

I’m not sure there is. All the views where it looked like there was contact were from behind and you can’t actually see the point of contact. The side on view actually shows there was space the whole time and the contact was shoulder.
Unless the TMO has extra angles.
Anyway it was dumb and if he gets suspended it was his own fault for putting himself in that position.

 

[dru]

The danger has nothing to do with it.

He was incredibly dumb.

Nor has being dumb unless there is a rugby law to counter my thinking? "infringement: IQ below 85. Penalty; inadmissible to play rugby". Haven't seen that one. Of course being dumb could influence the selectors to decide they can't take the risk - and sure that could be coming. And probably a just result to be fair.

England had a clear plan to get under his skin and it worked and left the Wallabies down a player for half the game. Sure, it shouldn't have worked and Hill should have been yellow carded for the initial shove in the face but that didn't happen.

Instead Swain lost his cool and did something that was an obvious red card offence.

Completely agree. I suspect the result will also be closer to the 12 weeks than being let off. Which would be unfortunate but probably to the letter of the law even if not exactly just, imo.

 

[LeCheese]

There was definitely a camera angle that showed contact and movement of Hill's head.

This is the angle that shows contact was made - hard to show in a still obviously, but Hill's head/hair clearly move in a way that would suggest force coming from Swain's direction

 

[RugbyReg]

Law 9.12, a player must not physically abuse anyone.

In this incident Hill dished out the abuse, rather than Swain. With ex-players on the Judiciary it is feasible that Swain will get off. More likely though a one or two week suspension to confirm that head butting in any form is unacceptable. But for those posters who are going ballistic about Swain, do you really think his action was more dangerous or constituted abuse moreso than Hill's?

Who is going ballistic? I don’t think either that WR (World Rugby) look at who most deserves a red card worker. Swain deserved one for the head but.
Hill deserved one for the shove to the face. It’s not an either or scenario.

 

[KiwiM]

Who is going ballistic? I don’t think either that WR (World Rugby) look at who most deserves a red card worker. Swain deserved one for the head but.
Hill deserved one for the shove to the face. It’s not an either or scenario.

Whether Hill gets cited for it or not will determine whether it reached the threshold for a red card offence.

 

[Dctarget]

Whether Hill gets cited for it or not will determine whether it reached the threshold for a red card offence.

Has not been cited

 

[Derpus]

Has not been cited

They have 48 hours right? So still time.

 

[7137]

They have 48 hours right? So still time.

No. I think the citing commissioner has until a certain time (much less than the 48hrs) to decide what he wants to examine. Teams may refer matters to the citing commissioner and they have 48hrs to do that.
So if the wallabies wanted to refer Hill formally, that is the only way it will be examined now.

 

[Joe Blow]

Has not been cited

Better for us. Other than riling up Swain he did not offer much else. I suspect Philip, Holloway and Frost will not react the same way

 

[drewprint]

Not the worst result really. Wallabies will be fired up, and man are us Brisbanites going to let him have it when he runs out.

 

[Derpus]

Was it just me or did Matt Philip look huge compared to the England locks?

 

[tragic]

View attachment 14017
This is the angle that shows contact was made - hard to show in a still obviously, but Hill's head/hair clearly move in a way that would suggest force coming from Swain's direction

That’s the same frame where the side view shows no contact.
Anyway I’ve said enough. I don’t actually care either way.
Tomorrow will tell.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Was it just me or did Matt Philip look huge compared to the England locks?

He has gotten bigger and I thought he was excellent when he came on. He starts in Brisbane for mine.

 

[qwerty51]

Tom Curry is out of the tour. Flying home. That is big although plenty of good replacements in Underhill & Willis.