• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

RWC: ENG v Fiji (Twickenham) Pool A

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
He's copped a lot of flak over his selection but I thought Sam Burgess was actually pretty good when he came on. Obviously still learning some of the complexities of union but his ball running was strong and effective and he popped a few nice offloads out that nearly resulted in a treble for Mike Brown.

I've been following England for a while and rate Brown highly, but he'd have a hot case for best 15 in the world if not for Folau and Ben Smith. Truly class player. I have a high opinion of George Ford and Ben Youngs too but they looked a bit lost out there I thought. Jonathon Joseph and Anthony Watson, two freak athletes, both seemed to struggle to get into the match too.
Burgess would have to start instead of Barrett for next key game as Barrett offered nothing.....
 
G

galumay

Guest
The refereeing and bias of replays shown reminded us of the fact that for any team to beat the host nation they are going to have to significantly outplay them.

I know its pointless speculation, but JP gets the maul call correct in the first half and its a penalty to Fiji, no penalty try, no yellow card. Other decisions were less obvious but certainly debatably favouring the home team.

The good news for mine was that England looked utterly lost for most of that match, in the crucial period after half time they were basically dominated across the paddock. It wasnt until the Fijians started tiring and the heads dropped that England were able to gain any sort of ascendancy. It flattered their subs no end.

Brown was the only player that looked like he belonged out there, a truly great fullback and inspirational team man. Surely the world's full backs are the most talented group of players at the moment!?

Sad that the showcase of international rugby was blighted by the sort of refereeing mistakes present in this game, even more so given the supposed intention to deal with illegal mauling and scrumming.
 

Groucho

Greg Davis (50)
Its still a few weeks before Aus v Eng, I suspect England will have their shit together by then.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
Or maybe not. The alternative is that they'll be forced (or choose) to grind one out over Wales and get stuck in a rut. They have a very conservative A game. Maybe last night was what they had to give, and playing in the hothouse of Six Nations rugby has flattered them.
 

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
I'm not sure that it's an obstruction at 2:16 - isn't it the idea of a rolling maul to roll past the opposition? It's up to the opposition to realign and get in position to stop the drive forward. A maul needs an opposition player for it to start but nothing is said about it ending when no opposition players are involved. Players binding in front of the ball carrier and the ball carrier detaching and re-attaching are definitely illegal and they need to police that correctly.
If the attackers roll and detach from any opposition then the maul is over and when they run into the next guy he's entitled to tackle the ball carrier.

See law clarification 4/2008 for reference
 

Groucho

Greg Davis (50)
Does the ref see our replays though (on the big screen)? If so can he then ask the TMO to then check on stuff he (the TMO) may have missed?
Yes. The ref can ask for an adjudication anytime. The TMO also seems to have the power now to inform the ref on all other facets of play, based on his personal replays.
 

Harro

Stan Wickham (3)
Whatever the idea of a rolling maul is or isn't, the law is quite specific - once the player with the ball detaches from the original maul, the maul is over. The example in this match was your text book example of truck and trailer/obstruction. Astounding that an international referee couldn't spot it, nor it seems could the TMO, despite his numerous other involvements.

If the mauls rolls around and everyone remains bound, that's a different matter.

A maul ends successfully when :
  • the ball or a player with the ball leaves the maul
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=17
Correct, but I was referring to this comment

'..at 2.16 4 England players detach and not one of the 4 are in contact with a Fijian player - therefore the maul is over.'

I can't see where in the laws it says this. OK, I jUst saw Strewthcobbers post with the relevant clarification
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
I'm not a fan at all.
When its policed properly it is next to impossible to do much with - maybe 10m if youre lucky - and that's fine by me.
When its not properly policed it is unstoppable: Peyper and the TMO signalled its open slather on mauls with the penalty try. England were in a pod of 4 englishmen - that is a flying wedge not a maul: they should have gone upstairs and reviewed it: penalty to Fiji.
If this is going to be allowed throughout the tournament even maul lovers are going to be sick of them.

This is the new form of 10 man rugby and I suspect that England are going to play to it at this RWC.

It goes something like: contrive a scrum penalty, kick it into the corner for a lineout, set up a rolling maul and........;)

The way the refs seem to be going to interpret scrums and mauls, this is what we have to look forward to for the next few weeks. Just another reason to hope that England (or any other team following this game plan) lose and lose badly when up against a team that wants to play rugby.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
The refereeing and bias of replays shown reminded us of the fact that for any team to beat the host nation they are going to have to significantly outplay them.

I know its pointless speculation, but JP gets the maul call correct in the first half and its a penalty to Fiji, no penalty try, no yellow card. Other decisions were less obvious but certainly debatably favouring the home team.

The good news for mine was that England looked utterly lost for most of that match, in the crucial period after half time they were basically dominated across the paddock. It wasnt until the Fijians started tiring and the heads dropped that England were able to gain any sort of ascendancy. It flattered their subs no end.

Brown was the only player that looked like he belonged out there, a truly great fullback and inspirational team man. Surely the world's full backs are the most talented group of players at the moment!?

Sad that the showcase of international rugby was blighted by the sort of refereeing mistakes present in this game, even more so given the supposed intention to deal with illegal mauling and scrumming.

England showed that they were pretty one dimensional. The big question being how the refs interpret mauls and scrums. If the law book is followed, England are gone, but if what we saw yesterday is the norm then England is in with a chance.
 

Froggy

John Solomon (38)
As regards the laws and that rolling maul.
The laws of rugby 17.4 (f) clearly state that when all the players from the defending team leave the maul, such that there are none left, the maul can continue and the offside rules still apply ( there must be at least one defending player for the maul to form, but once it's formed they don't have to stay there).
On the other hand 17.2 (b) states that a player must be caught in or bound to be part of the maul, and 17.2 (c) clearly states that having a hand on another player does not constitute being bound.
 

Teh Other Dave

Alan Cameron (40)
Yeah. The truck-and-trailer try and Marler boring in were as plain as day on replays. You'd have though the TMO would be all over a maul leading to a penalty try.

...and to rub it in our faces, the ITV cheerleading panel were attempting to convince the (apparentlt visually impaired) audience that the ball was at the front of the maul. 2003 called, they want their game plan back. I hope Austtalia buries England for the greater good of rugby football.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
As regards the laws and that rolling maul.
The laws of rugby 17.4 (f) clearly state that when all the players from the defending team leave the maul, such that there are none left, the maul can continue and the offside rules still apply ( there must be at least one defending player for the maul to form, but once it's formed they don't have to stay there).
On the other hand 17.2 (b) states that a player must be caught in or bound to be part of the maul, and 17.2 (c) clearly states that having a hand on another player does not constitute being bound.

17.4 (f) would apply if as the maul was moving downfield, the Fijians deliberately disengaged. That's not what happened here.
(b) and (c) aren't really applicable in this situation either because it's the England players who disengage (leave) the maul with the ball in their keeping. At that point 17.5 kicks in:
"a maul successfully ends when the ball or a player carrying the ball leaves the maul."
So the maul is over and it's general play and therefore you can't have 3 players in front of you running interference. The fullback couldn't get the ball and bind onto the back of the centres and break through tackles, this is no different.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Yeah. The truck-and-trailer try and Marler boring in were as plain as day on replays. You'd have though the TMO would be all over a maul leading to a penalty try.

I couldn't believe it when I was watching the game. When I heard the whistle, I was expecting the truck and trailer penalty and low and behold Peyper is under the posts.:confused:
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
I can already taste the bile in my mouth that I know is coming,when England score a try identical to this.
Just after one of our props has been binned for allowing a pommie prick to illegally bore in on him.

But I love a conspiracy feeling......too many years at HK 7's watching the refs keeping England in the tournament!
 

Froggy

John Solomon (38)
Quick Hands, that's the point I was making. Contrary to what's being said here, a maul can continue without opposition players, however quite clearly the ball carrier had disengaged, he wasn't bound, barely had his hand on another player, therefore the maul was over.
I agree with others here, it should have been a penalty Fiji, I was just being pedantic, in that the fact of there being no Fijians in the maul wasn't what should have brought the penalty.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Quick Hands, that's the point I was making. Contrary to what's being said here, a maul can continue without opposition players, however quite clearly the ball carrier had disengaged, he wasn't bound, barely had his hand on another player, therefore the maul was over.
I agree with others here, it should have been a penalty Fiji, I was just being pedantic, in that the fact of there being no Fijians in the maul wasn't what should have brought the penalty.

Although, if the England 4 had have done what they did and one Fijian had stayed bound to them, the maul would still be in existance.;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top