RWC: ENG v Fiji (Twickenham) Pool A
- Thread starter RugbyReg
- Start date
- Status
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
I had so many issues with that maul. There's another obstruction at 2:14 before the major obvious one at 2:16. The ball carrier drops back without being bound after that so there's another obstruction. Then when the hey closer at the 5m line half the England pack join in front of the ball carrier and are hence illegal as well.
The only saving grace is that our mauls are "good" at the moment albeit just as illegal and we'll probably get away with it too
brokendown
Bill McLean (32)
agree-I thought it was truck and trailer,too(ist try)
the sabanator
Ron Walden (29)
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.
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.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
I agree fully with all the comments about Marler boring in on the LH side. It was there to be seen last year as highlighted again by GAGR a couple of weeks ago. Peyper was absolutely shocking in this regard and both points and momentum were gifted to England on the back of this blatant illegality that should have been picked up. Amazing the TMO saw everything happening (and not happening - Fijian cleanout of England player obstructing the ruck) but couldn't see a prop at 90 degrees to the parallel and his team mates.
Also with regard to the maul try, I have watched it at least a dozen times, and how is it a maul? The English detached from the maul by rolling to the left then had a moving obstruction with no Fiji players engaged. I could understand if the Fijians were splintered and fell off the "maul" it would still be the same maul, but that was not the case.
I think if that is the standard of refereeing we can expect at the showcase event in World Rugby, turn off and pack it up now. Just shocking, Peyper and ARs have the excuse of being on the run and making split second decisions the TMO has no such mitigation.
Now that being said, Fiji were their own worst enemies in this match. WTF was the Fijian coaching staff thinking playing a plan of constant kicking in behind. We have asked the Wallabies to do this to combat the rush defence, but not on every play. Where was the vaunted running and offload game from the Fijians? There was no depth support play in the backs that we have come to expect from them. In the end IMO poor execution of their kicking game (and it was always going to be playing away from their ball in hand strengths) and pretty poor passing skills cost them the game. The coaching staff have to take some blame here, as where was the plan B at half time or at least 15 minutes into the second 40 when the constant kicks did nothing but put Fiji under pressure.
Also with regard to the maul try, I have watched it at least a dozen times, and how is it a maul? The English detached from the maul by rolling to the left then had a moving obstruction with no Fiji players engaged. I could understand if the Fijians were splintered and fell off the "maul" it would still be the same maul, but that was not the case.
I think if that is the standard of refereeing we can expect at the showcase event in World Rugby, turn off and pack it up now. Just shocking, Peyper and ARs have the excuse of being on the run and making split second decisions the TMO has no such mitigation.
Now that being said, Fiji were their own worst enemies in this match. WTF was the Fijian coaching staff thinking playing a plan of constant kicking in behind. We have asked the Wallabies to do this to combat the rush defence, but not on every play. Where was the vaunted running and offload game from the Fijians? There was no depth support play in the backs that we have come to expect from them. In the end IMO poor execution of their kicking game (and it was always going to be playing away from their ball in hand strengths) and pretty poor passing skills cost them the game. The coaching staff have to take some blame here, as where was the plan B at half time or at least 15 minutes into the second 40 when the constant kicks did nothing but put Fiji under pressure.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
I think they probably kicked more than they would have otherwise because it was wet.
Nevertheless I agree they kicked way too much. I also think that Matavesi would have been able to execute a lot better than Volavola did.
It's good to see the IRB following through on those edicts about stricter refereeing of the maul. That was a shocker from Peyper. The not-held call for another English try was a bit questionable too, but we see this called all too often these days, and not just by him. I am completely unsurprised that Peyper at least would not have a clue about refereeing scrums with any real governance. As much as I would hope the Wallabies can compete fairly, I fully expect Poite to root us royally in this facet.
cornetto
Peter Burge (5)
Was just about to comment on this one. I was really pissed off as the guys controlling the replays showed it once - and it was clear the player was on the ground while the Fiji guy had a hold of his leg. Its like they then decided not to show that part of the replay again at risk of the ref seeing it and calling it back. At least 2 more replays of the try and they failed to show that part. Real worry when the guys controlling the replays decide what the ref gets a second look at.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
It was stated in commentary that the TMO has their own TV director and controls "their" replays. So from that I gathered what we get to see is from the Pay TV/FTA TV directors not what the TMO is seeing.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Just so disappointing when something so blatantly obvious as Marler boring in at 90 degrees, as he has significant form for doing can be missed/ignored to the detriment of the opposition. I do not like the constant bagging of referees because without the officials there can be no game, but that sort of ignorance makes it very hard to defend. Along with the "maul try" it would be very hard to argue that Peyper didn't have a preconceived idea that Fiji were weak in these areas and couldn't compete legally. Is there any other reason to explain those decisions reasonably? I give no credence to the fools who want to bang on about Peyper (any Test ref) being actually corrupt and actively seeking to influence the game.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Peyper was watching the replays on the big screen at the ground, and the TMO said a couple of times that is all the angles, indicating to me that the commentary was correct and the TMO has control of the replays, so saying the local TV directors can influence the game is incorrect.
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.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Although they managed to get the reply of the Fiji no try up on the boards pretty quickly so that Peyper could change his decision.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
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
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
There's a few certainties at RWC and the first and foremost is that when a Tier 1 nation plays anyone else, the refereeing rub of the green will always go with the Tier 1 nation. This time it was England who benefited, but if that was Australia, NZ, SAF, France, etc playing Fiji, the same would have happened.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
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.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
their shit is well and truly together: its grouped from 9-15
- Status