Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host
-
@antipodean said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
@kiwiinmelb said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
@antipodean said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
England don't look all that good tbh.
Big physical side but skills are nothing to write home about
This says everything about their skill level and approach to the game.
Imagine dominating like that and only winning by six points.
Average of two and a bit metres per carry.
-
@antipodean said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
@kiwiinmelb said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
@antipodean said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
England don't look all that good tbh.
Big physical side but skills are nothing to write home about
This says everything about their skill level and approach to the game.
Imagine dominating like that and only winning by six points.
Didn't we do something similar in 2011 in the men's final? Or do I have it the wrong way around.
-
Yep heard comms say that England had 64% possession and 70% territory.
-
@Bones said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
@antipodean said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
@kiwiinmelb said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
@antipodean said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
England don't look all that good tbh.
Big physical side but skills are nothing to write home about
This says everything about their skill level and approach to the game.
Imagine dominating like that and only winning by six points.
Didn't we do something similar in 2011 in the men's final? Or do I have it the wrong way around.
I doubt it. We won 87 - 0. I remember the score because it reflected the first time we won in 1987.
-
@antipodean oh yeah that's right and we only used 4 subs, so 19 players.
-
@Bones said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
Ref seems to be really good
I managed to watch the first half before leaving the house.
She wasn't the worst.
Maybe better than some of the stuff served up last week, but again stuck her arm out for advantage to us, then just stopped a few metres later with no explanation for either. Nearly every maul to that point was offside. Failed to ping either team for not-straight lineouts - challenging conditions, yes, but then don't throw to 6 if it is windy?
We were our own worst enemies in that first half tho - the discipline of this Wallaroos team isn't even amateur level. It is terrible and Wales will put them to the sword.
The starting half Batibasaga is doing my head in - steppy-steppy-passy all backwards like latter-years Gregan. Absolutely kills our momentum, and when she was trapped elsewhere and someone filled in it was far superior.
Why they're trying to run wide patterns with that sort of service is beyond me. She's shown she can pass to her left without stepping occasionally, but it is the major reason we can't get anything going.
-
@NTA yeah I was probably thinking relatively really good. Advantage calls all over the show, from whistling before a knock on is complete to like you say calling a penalty advantage over just because Aus passed it all the way to the other side of the field.
-
Well I will say watched France/England game last night, and it was another level to any other women's game I have seen. By geez a couple of scarye good teams, and England at times looked like they played a brand of rugby that could fit in a lot of men's comps. Bloody good watch.
Saw most of Aus/Scotland game earlier and although ok, never looked that good to me, really struggling with some basics. -
@antipodean said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
@kiwiinmelb said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
@antipodean said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
England don't look all that good tbh.
Big physical side but skills are nothing to write home about
This says everything about their skill level and approach to the game.
Imagine dominating like that and only winning by six points.
How come there are more tackles than carries?
-
@booboo said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
@antipodean said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
@kiwiinmelb said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
@antipodean said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
England don't look all that good tbh.
Big physical side but skills are nothing to write home about
This says everything about their skill level and approach to the game.
Imagine dominating like that and only winning by six points.
How come there are more tackles than carries?
Ok big man. Not all of us can make a tackle on our own.
-
-
@Bones said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
@Crucial it was until the "injury" breaks became like watching a springbok team of just front rowers vs an Irish team of just sexton.
The one that was the absolute fucking worst in the first half: Scots fullback gets run over when needed some attention.
The Wallaroos lineout was forming 40 metres up the field but time was off 🙄
-
I've just seen the red card against Gold 16 Marsters.
Tackler's head hit ball runner's shoulder first which is not "direct" head contact. The red card is therefore incorrect, which precipitates the second red card.
So both red cards should be rubbed out.
-
@NTA said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
I've just seen the red card against Gold 16 Marsters.
Tackler's head hit ball runner's shoulder first which is not "direct" head contact. The red card is therefore incorrect, which precipitates the second red card.
So both red cards should be rubbed out.
I’m not quite with you. One of the reds was for two yellows.
I might be getting a bit confused about which one was which. There was a shoulder to head that the ref called “significant drop in height”. If that’s the case her definition of significant is a bit different to mine. I think that was was a shoulder on the face. Even if it rode up it was a really dumb and dangerous tackle as the tackler was driving up anyway. Direct contact is only a part of the judgement of degree of danger and after “has head contact occurred “ and “is there foul play”You can still make indirect contact and a high degree of danger eg driving up hard touching upper chest first and into the chin for a KO.
Right across the games there are a lot of players going in to contact very upright. I noticed the yellow girls doing it heaps. Speed of the game catching them out as this level? Runners into them quicker than they expect? -
@Crucial said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
One of the reds was for two yellows.
It was. From the starting hooker who was forced to come back on for the reserve hooker who was incorrectly given a red card.
If the correct decision was made in the first place, that risk is never encountered.
Tenuous? Perhaps. Perhaps that tackle was a red in itself.
But it shows the disadvantage when officials get it badly wrong in a fairly clear framework.
-
@NTA said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
@Crucial said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
One of the reds was for two yellows.
It was. From the starting hooker who was forced to come back on for the reserve hooker who was incorrectly given a red card.
If the correct decision was made in the first place, that risk is never encountered.
Tenuous? Perhaps. Perhaps that tackle was a red in itself.
But it shows the disadvantage when officials get it badly wrong in a fairly clear framework.
What’s your reason for it being badly wrong? I’m curious.
I’ll spell out my track of the framework.Head contact? Yes.
Foul play? Yes. Tackler never dipped. Therefore high tackle.
What was degree of danger? Shoulder to head is high in my book from a tackle driving up. Ref thought the same but this part is opinion rather than clearly defined. Guidelines might mention direct vs indirect as a consideration but that doesn’t mean then you can’t red an indirect contact.
Mitigation? None. -
@Crucial said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
What’s your reason for it being badly wrong? I’m curious.
The tackler's head hits the ball carriers shoulder first. There is head contact but it isn't "direct" head to head in the first instance.
We've seen tackles this year where there was a head clash but the point of first impact is not the head. They were ruled accordingly by the onfield team of officials.
-
@NTA said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
@Crucial said in Womens RWC 2021 -NZ to host:
What’s your reason for it being badly wrong? I’m curious.
The tackler's head hits the ball carriers shoulder first. There is head contact but it isn't "direct" head to head in the first instance.
We've seen tackles this year where there was a head clash but the point of first impact is not the head. They were ruled accordingly by the onfield team of officials.
But that isn’t a rule in the process so you can’t claim that the ref isn’t following protocol. Just that other refs see it differently (like many aspects of the game)
