England v South Africa
-
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@machpants said in England v South Africa:
@crucial yes the RFU pay premier rugby money, a lot, to get access to the England elite squad outside of the international windows for games and training time. Premier rugby have signed an agreement to not release foreign players, Northampton got fined 60k£ for releasing George North for some Wales matches.
Cool. So England can buy their desired players and stop others from having theirs. I’m happy to use that one in a discussion with an England fan.
It's a bit more complicated than that. There is an agreement between the RFU and the EPR which includes a subsidy from the RFU for the release of England players for designated training camps and matches. There is no such agreement between any other unions and EPR, doesn't mean there couldn't be, but highly unlikely as tis would remove the disincentive for players to play in another country.
-
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@machpants said in England v South Africa:
@crucial yes the RFU pay premier rugby money, a lot, to get access to the England elite squad outside of the international windows for games and training time. Premier rugby have signed an agreement to not release foreign players, Northampton got fined 60k£ for releasing George North for some Wales matches.
Cool. So England can buy their desired players and stop others from having theirs. I’m happy to use that one in a discussion with an England fan.
It's a bit more complicated than that. There is an agreement between the RFU and the EPR which includes a subsidy from the RFU for the release of England players for designated training camps and matches. There is no such agreement between any other unions and EPR, doesn't mean there couldn't be, but highly unlikely as tis would remove the disincentive for players to play in another country.
That’s a bit different to fining teams that are happy to release being fined.
-
@kirwan said in England v South Africa:
@toddy said in England v South Africa:
I'm not surprised it wasn't cited. Doesn't it have to reach a red card threashold?
Shoulder to the head with force is a RC all day.
This is just to protect England for the AB game.
There is nothing more irritating than conspiracy theories.
-
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@booboo said in England v South Africa:
Not surprised there's no citing as I don't think it met the RC threshold.
(YC for me.)
Question: is the law must attempt to wrap arms? Or is it must wrap arms?
It’s ‘must grasp’
It's 'without attempting to grasp that player.' So two questions really.
Is it high? No, not unless there's a more incriminating angle
Did he attempt to grasp? Debatable and depends on the interpretation of 'attempt'. He certainly stuck two arms out in, albeit wasn't in a great position to execute it given the way he went into the tackle.Probably a pen for me, but never in a million years is that a red card offence that some seem to have been expecting. That said, Farrell's tackling technique is an accident waiting to happen.
-
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@machpants said in England v South Africa:
@crucial yes the RFU pay premier rugby money, a lot, to get access to the England elite squad outside of the international windows for games and training time. Premier rugby have signed an agreement to not release foreign players, Northampton got fined 60k£ for releasing George North for some Wales matches.
Cool. So England can buy their desired players and stop others from having theirs. I’m happy to use that one in a discussion with an England fan.
It's a bit more complicated than that. There is an agreement between the RFU and the EPR which includes a subsidy from the RFU for the release of England players for designated training camps and matches. There is no such agreement between any other unions and EPR, doesn't mean there couldn't be, but highly unlikely as tis would remove the disincentive for players to play in another country.
That’s a bit different to fining teams that are happy to release being fined.
I'm not saying I like it in any way but I do understand it. The Premiership is the product and they want to protect the brand. As you know we don't have the same structure to our season as NZ (for instance) and the Premiership carries on through the AIs, the 6N and all the training camps. Losing the marquee players cheapens the competition - look at Sarries results over the years during the 6N compared to the rest of the season, EPR gets compensation from the RFU and so releases the players, they don't get any compensation from other unions. Accordingly they do not want to encourage losing marquee players for no reward.
-
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@machpants said in England v South Africa:
@crucial yes the RFU pay premier rugby money, a lot, to get access to the England elite squad outside of the international windows for games and training time. Premier rugby have signed an agreement to not release foreign players, Northampton got fined 60k£ for releasing George North for some Wales matches.
Cool. So England can buy their desired players and stop others from having theirs. I’m happy to use that one in a discussion with an England fan.
It's a bit more complicated than that. There is an agreement between the RFU and the EPR which includes a subsidy from the RFU for the release of England players for designated training camps and matches. There is no such agreement between any other unions and EPR, doesn't mean there couldn't be, but highly unlikely as tis would remove the disincentive for players to play in another country.
That’s a bit different to fining teams that are happy to release being fined.
I'm not saying I like it in any way but I do understand it. The Premiership is the product and they want to protect the brand. As you know we don't have the same structure to our season as NZ (for instance) and the Premiership carries on through the AIs, the 6N and all the training camps. Losing the marquee players cheapens the competition - look at Sarries results over the years during the 6N compared to the rest of the season, EPR gets compensation from the RFU and so releases the players, they don't get any compensation from other unions. Accordingly they do not want to encourage losing marquee players for no reward.
Having Faf sitting in the stands was great for the brand.
-
-
@billy-tell said in England v South Africa:
@kirwan said in England v South Africa:
@toddy said in England v South Africa:
I'm not surprised it wasn't cited. Doesn't it have to reach a red card threashold?
Shoulder to the head with force is a RC all day.
This is just to protect England for the AB game.
There is nothing more irritating than conspiracy theories.
You’re right, I’m assuming intent for garden variety incompetence
-
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@booboo said in England v South Africa:
Not surprised there's no citing as I don't think it met the RC threshold.
(YC for me.)
Question: is the law must attempt to wrap arms? Or is it must wrap arms?
It’s ‘must grasp’
Didn't. Penalty.
Thanks @Crucial
-
@margin_walker said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@booboo said in England v South Africa:
Not surprised there's no citing as I don't think it met the RC threshold.
(YC for me.)
Question: is the law must attempt to wrap arms? Or is it must wrap arms?
It’s ‘must grasp’
It's 'without attempting to grasp that player.' So two questions really.
Is it high? No, not unless there's a more incriminating angle
Did he attempt to grasp? Debatable and depends on the interpretation of 'attempt'. He certainly stuck two arms out in, albeit wasn't in a great position to execute it given the way he went into the tackle.Probably a pen for me, but never in a million years is that a red card offence that some seem to have been expecting. That said, Farrell's tackling technique is an accident waiting to happen.
Can you and @Crucial get your stories straight?
I might gave to look at the law book myself at this rate. -
@booboo said in England v South Africa:
@margin_walker said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@booboo said in England v South Africa:
Not surprised there's no citing as I don't think it met the RC threshold.
(YC for me.)
Question: is the law must attempt to wrap arms? Or is it must wrap arms?
It’s ‘must grasp’
It's 'without attempting to grasp that player.' So two questions really.
Is it high? No, not unless there's a more incriminating angle
Did he attempt to grasp? Debatable and depends on the interpretation of 'attempt'. He certainly stuck two arms out in, albeit wasn't in a great position to execute it given the way he went into the tackle.Probably a pen for me, but never in a million years is that a red card offence that some seem to have been expecting. That said, Farrell's tackling technique is an accident waiting to happen.
Can you and @Crucial get your stories straight?
I might gave to look at the law book myself at this rate.Mine was the readers digest abridged version.
It was all explained in my ramble earlier today..Technically Gardner can claim the call was correct as OF attempted to grasp, except is was with his other arm.
By The new Gardner law, SBW is free to shoulder smash someone as long as he brings his other arm up and gives them a hug. -
I think it should have been a penalty, but I can see how you can come to the conclusion that it isn't, which is exactly what Angus explained how he saw it. No worries.
Where I have the most sympathy for Angus is that there seems to be no 'penalty only' grey area, by current convention, with tackles like this. If its penalisable (no wrap of the arms) then its cardable (shoulde charge) seems to be the paint by numbers refereeing we get these days.
-
My only issue with this and you see it a lot nowadays, refs are extremely reluctant to award penalties that can decide the game. With the way WR has thrown a few of them under the bus (Gardner included!) then you can see why they go out of their way to not award anything and let the players decide the match.
At 10mins that's going to be a penalty pretty much every time. At 79 minutes in a two point match it is not going to get awarded - I think other refs would have done exactly the same thing Gardner did.
I guess my point is WR need to support the refs a fuckload more than they do. The unprofessionalism in the wake of "controversial decisions" in recent time from them has been something to behold. Honestly, who would want to be a ref today? A return to the attitude that the ref made a call at the time, accept it and get on with your lives, would be welcome. That's the message WR should be pushing, their only human FFS.
-
Steven Harris will be joining me on #RugbyChat at 8pm NZ Tuesday to go over all the International action
-
What a rubbish game of rugby. The Boks really could've / should've won that comfortably. But they were both sloppy and at times just plain dumb against an England team which the nicest thing I can say about is that they hung in courageously - and kicked their penalties.
Annoying game on so many levels:
BOKS:
Poor handling by the Boks.
Shambles of a lineout.
Very stupid managing of the game when they had a one man advantage... Take the scrum ffs!ANGUS GARDINER & AR's:
What is the point of having scrums when you are going to allow England to feed the ball under the feet of their flanker? Gardiner positioned himself on the other side of the scrum at pretty much every England put-in.
Ugh.And in that final phase of the match:
Johnny May a good few meters offsides - how was that missed?
Farrell's tackle... if that is not a shoulder charge then Butch James should never have copped a penalty in his life.But the fact that the above annoyed me so much, is testament to the fact that the Boks were their own worst enemy. Congrats to England for the win, but I can't help feeling that the Boks pretty much beat themselves.
-
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@catogrande said in England v South Africa:
@crucial said in England v South Africa:
@machpants said in England v South Africa:
@crucial yes the RFU pay premier rugby money, a lot, to get access to the England elite squad outside of the international windows for games and training time. Premier rugby have signed an agreement to not release foreign players, Northampton got fined 60k£ for releasing George North for some Wales matches.
Cool. So England can buy their desired players and stop others from having theirs. I’m happy to use that one in a discussion with an England fan.
It's a bit more complicated than that. There is an agreement between the RFU and the EPR which includes a subsidy from the RFU for the release of England players for designated training camps and matches. There is no such agreement between any other unions and EPR, doesn't mean there couldn't be, but highly unlikely as tis would remove the disincentive for players to play in another country.
That’s a bit different to fining teams that are happy to release being fined.
I'm not saying I like it in any way but I do understand it. The Premiership is the product and they want to protect the brand. As you know we don't have the same structure to our season as NZ (for instance) and the Premiership carries on through the AIs, the 6N and all the training camps. Losing the marquee players cheapens the competition - look at Sarries results over the years during the 6N compared to the rest of the season, EPR gets compensation from the RFU and so releases the players, they don't get any compensation from other unions. Accordingly they do not want to encourage losing marquee players for no reward.
Having Faf sitting in the stands was great for the brand.
I am good friends with someone who owns a premiership club. He likes rugby, but I have no doubt his total focus is on making money, and in particular maximising the value of the club's shares in "Premiership Rugby". The value is heavily reliant on the clubs' control of England's pro rugby players -- the RFU were absolute mugs not to have looked to get central contracts in from the beginning. I can also report that England has a history of playing players who are injured even if only to squeeze a game or two out of them before they require a major lay off. So the club often finds their England contingent returned 'in pieces'.
No surprise that for many clubs having their assets in good shape to play as many games as possible is a cold blooded priority.
As an aside, given the turgid nature of the games, I personally doubt that English club rugby will be able to replicate the overseas popularity of the English soccer clubs, in particular in Asia, which appears to be the rationale for private equity offering big money for a stake in Premiership Rugby.
All in all rather sad. -
@billy-webb Unfortunately I pretty much agree with all of that. South Africa lost the game more than England won it, and the Farrell tackle was a clear penalty.
I'll take the win but England were extremely lucky. I can't see past an All Black pasting this week though.
-
