Team for Italy

[16th man]

I was always taught jumping into a tackle was illegal. I was surprised it was awarded at the time. Nigel on Twitter has also said he wouldn’t have let the try stand due to the jump either. It does need clearing up. Going back a few years, lions v ABks I can’t remember who the player was, but he jumped at Kieran Read whilst running at him, read tackled him in the air and got penalised, dodgy decision in my book, Read said to the ref, ‘so I can just jump into any tackle now and not be tackled legally’ (or something similar) which of course is a complete nonsense.

It was Sinkler and he had jumped to recieve a pass into his midriff and Read hit him before his feet were on the floor. That was in open play but May's was going for the tryline so he could have been tackled without penalty.

The day we start feeling sorry for the All Blacks as a dodgy call has gone against them for once is the day we should all pack it in.

[Mellsblue]

Jonny Hill’s hands, catch and pass, for Watson’s first try..... niiiice.

[Puja]

Tbh, I didn't see any problem with it whatsoever. Varney actually runs into him as much as Farrell makes a positive attempt to tackle - for my mind just a rugby incident.

Puja

It was a cheap, cowardly shot. Watching it on replay, for me, Farrell only starts accelerating in to the back of Varney once the ball has gone. It’s not as if he doesn’t have form for such. Even if it is a legitimate attempt at a tackle it’s still head to head contact initiated by Farrell. Either way, it’s a pen at worst and a ticking off at best.
If WR brought in a rule that cowardly cheap shots were illegal, and I wish they would, it’d be a yellow.

From my (admittedly poor) memory, there's barely any time between ball passed and contact when the replay's in real time, and Varney initiates the contact as much as Fazlet. I certainly don't remember seeing Faz accelerating into contact. Does anyone have a video for me to rewatch and be corrected?

Puja

Found it!



It's on super-super-super slow-mo which makes it impossoble to tell timing and has Dallaglio bloviating over the top (best to turn sound off), but it does give you a good view of the movements. Varney passes and takes two further steps through momentum and makes contact with Farrell, who plamts his feet and doesn't move forward at all. If you wanted to be harsh, Farrell does definitely lean in to Varney to make sure the contact is on his terms, but I'd defy anyone to do differently if you realised someone was about to run into you.

Farrell does a lot of dodgy tackles and deserves punishment for them. That was not one of those occasions.

Puja

[morepork]

He launches into it after the ball has been released, but maybe his reactions really are that slow.

[Oakboy]

Farrell does a lot of dodgy tackles and deserves punishment for them. That was not one of those occasions.

Puja

Puja, did you not think that Farrell could have easily avoided any contact at all if he was in tune with the game?

[Raggs]

He braces himself for an impact, he lined up the player beforehand because the player had the ball at the time. He puts in bad shots, but this is really nothing.

[paddy no 11]

It's a pen for me, hes blindsided the guy, he can easily avoid head to head

Not the crime of the century by any means

[I R Geech]

Farrell does a lot of dodgy tackles and deserves punishment for them. That was not one of those occasions.

Puja

Puja, did you not think that Farrell could have easily avoided any contact at all if he was in tune with the game?

Looks to decide to initiate contact after the ball has gone. Not the worst thing ever but just cheap and unnecessary. Just the sort of thing that Eddie will love and the haters will hate.

[FKAS]

Farrell does a lot of dodgy tackles and deserves punishment for them. That was not one of those occasions.

Puja

Puja, did you not think that Farrell could have easily avoided any contact at all if he was in tune with the game?

Looks to decide to initiate contact after the ball has gone. Not the worst thing ever but just cheap and unnecessary. Just the sort of thing that Eddie will love and the haters will hate.

Would he have liked it if the try had been chalked off because of the late hit? Varney dips another 6 inches to make that pass and the initial contact is chest to head and then he's in real bother.

It's terrible technique. When will someone force him to learn how to tackle properly.

[Dan. Dan. Dan.]

To be honest, and I'm as anti-Farrell as the next guy, I'm not sure why anyone is really talking about this. The weirdest part about it was Varney clutching his head after going down as there was absolutely no point where there was any contact with his head.
As Puja said, Farrell's tackle technique stinks and he's a ticking timebomb, but anyone who has played a game of Rugby will know that the odd chest bump after the ball has gone is part and parcel of a physical game.

[Puja]

Farrell does a lot of dodgy tackles and deserves punishment for them. That was not one of those occasions.

Puja

Puja, did you not think that Farrell could have easily avoided any contact at all if he was in tune with the game?

In super-duper-duper slow-motion, yeah sure. In real time, those two steps by Varney are made in under half a second. I will grant you that he could've chosen not to lean into the contact to make sure he bounced Varney backwards, but that contact's happening unless he literally throws himself to one side to avoid it.

Puja

[Puja]

If we're talking interesting refereeing decisions, does anyone else think that Itoje's getting the rough end of the decision stick recently. This week he gave away two penalties. The first was early on for being a tackler who failed to evaporate within 2 seconds from the bottom of a pile of bodies (while not actually obstructing the ball). He got that early last week as well and I wouldn't mind it so much if it was a standard that the ref kept up for any other ruck for the rest of the game. The second was when he was first man at a ruck, bent over and picked up the ball without a single body part touching the ground, and the ref called him for being "too long". Literally bent over and placed both hands on the ball, so never touched the ground at all and then pinged. Then, 2 minutes later, Lawes jackals with his hands on the floor past the ball, rakes the ball back - fair turnover.

I'll swear it's like he's got an anti-invisibility cloak right now.

Puja

[Raggs]

He's getting pinged a lot, but I wouldn't say any of them were "wrong", just perhaps harsh. He's seemingly a target.

[Spiffy]

He's getting pinged a lot, but I wouldn't say any of them were "wrong", just perhaps harsh. He's seemingly a target.

He's got away with so much in the past, especially in the offside department, that refs are over compensating now. It will all settle down.

[Raggs]

He's getting pinged a lot, but I wouldn't say any of them were "wrong", just perhaps harsh. He's seemingly a target.

He's got away with so much in the past, especially in the offside department, that refs are over compensating now. It will all settle down.

More than likely. But he's good enough to play clean anyway. Always feel Launchbury is such a good example here, rarely gives away numerous penalties because he just doesn't tend to end up in positions that run the risk of them, and yet still has a massive influence on play.

[Mellsblue]

I’m still of the opinion it’s a cheap shot. Not card able, probably not a pen but definitely a talking to. I’ve played rugby, in fact I’ve played over 22 years worth of games of rugby, chest bumps are part of the game but it doesn’t mean it’s legal. Getting punched in the face at the bottom of a ruck is part of the game....

[Mikey Brown]

If we're talking interesting refereeing decisions, does anyone else think that Itoje's getting the rough end of the decision stick recently. This week he gave away two penalties. The first was early on for being a tackler who failed to evaporate within 2 seconds from the bottom of a pile of bodies (while not actually obstructing the ball). He got that early last week as well and I wouldn't mind it so much if it was a standard that the ref kept up for any other ruck for the rest of the game. The second was when he was first man at a ruck, bent over and picked up the ball without a single body part touching the ground, and the ref called him for being "too long". Literally bent over and placed both hands on the ball, so never touched the ground at all and then pinged. Then, 2 minutes later, Lawes jackals with his hands on the floor past the ball, rakes the ball back - fair turnover.

I'll swear it's like he's got an anti-invisibility cloak right now.

Puja

The refs have been instructed to target anyone perceived as a threat to Farrell's captaincy.

[switchskier]

If we're talking interesting refereeing decisions, does anyone else think that Itoje's getting the rough end of the decision stick recently. This week he gave away two penalties. The first was early on for being a tackler who failed to evaporate within 2 seconds from the bottom of a pile of bodies (while not actually obstructing the ball). He got that early last week as well and I wouldn't mind it so much if it was a standard that the ref kept up for any other ruck for the rest of the game. The second was when he was first man at a ruck, bent over and picked up the ball without a single body part touching the ground, and the ref called him for being "too long". Literally bent over and placed both hands on the ball, so never touched the ground at all and then pinged. Then, 2 minutes later, Lawes jackals with his hands on the floor past the ball, rakes the ball back - fair turnover.

I'll swear it's like he's got an anti-invisibility cloak right now.

Puja

I don't remember the first but for the second there was not a chance that he was getting up again unassisted and then he continued to hold the ball after his feet left the floor. It was pretty blatant to me. He's been getting the rub of the green for too long. Lawes should have been pinged too

[Puja]

If we're talking interesting refereeing decisions, does anyone else think that Itoje's getting the rough end of the decision stick recently. This week he gave away two penalties. The first was early on for being a tackler who failed to evaporate within 2 seconds from the bottom of a pile of bodies (while not actually obstructing the ball). He got that early last week as well and I wouldn't mind it so much if it was a standard that the ref kept up for any other ruck for the rest of the game. The second was when he was first man at a ruck, bent over and picked up the ball without a single body part touching the ground, and the ref called him for being "too long". Literally bent over and placed both hands on the ball, so never touched the ground at all and then pinged. Then, 2 minutes later, Lawes jackals with his hands on the floor past the ball, rakes the ball back - fair turnover.

I'll swear it's like he's got an anti-invisibility cloak right now.

Puja

I don't remember the first but for the second there was not a chance that he was getting up again unassisted and then he continued to hold the ball after his feet left the floor. It was pretty blatant to me. He's been getting the rub of the green for too long. Lawes should have been pinged too

But he did get up again unassisted. He stood up with the ball and popped it back to Youngs. I think you're thinking of a different occasion to me.

He's getting pinged a lot, but I wouldn't say any of them were "wrong", just perhaps harsh. He's seemingly a target.

He's got away with so much in the past, especially in the offside department, that refs are over compensating now. It will all settle down.

More than likely. But he's good enough to play clean anyway. Always feel Launchbury is such a good example here, rarely gives away numerous penalties because he just doesn't tend to end up in positions that run the risk of them, and yet still has a massive influence on play.

Launchbury's a good player, but he's never had the impact on a game that Itoje is able to. Maybe it's worth him just staying quiet for the first 20 minutes of games, cause the ones that annoy me always seem to happen early on, when the ref is looking to make a point.

Puja

[Peej]

If we're talking interesting refereeing decisions, does anyone else think that Itoje's getting the rough end of the decision stick recently. This week he gave away two penalties. The first was early on for being a tackler who failed to evaporate within 2 seconds from the bottom of a pile of bodies (while not actually obstructing the ball). He got that early last week as well and I wouldn't mind it so much if it was a standard that the ref kept up for any other ruck for the rest of the game. The second was when he was first man at a ruck, bent over and picked up the ball without a single body part touching the ground, and the ref called him for being "too long". Literally bent over and placed both hands on the ball, so never touched the ground at all and then pinged. Then, 2 minutes later, Lawes jackals with his hands on the floor past the ball, rakes the ball back - fair turnover.

I'll swear it's like he's got an anti-invisibility cloak right now.

Puja

I said exactly the same watching the game, it was a bit of a weird inconsistency. But then again, I thought the ref made a few odd calls.

I'm with Mells on the Farrell thing, I think it was an unnecessary cheap shot that on a different day could have cost England more.

[fivepointer]

Commented earlier on the thread that I thought the ref was a clear homer. We got the rub of the green on numerous occasions.
Farrell's challenge was late and it should have been a penalty. No more than that.
Itoje has always given away penalties as far as i can recall. He pushes the line and will go over from time to time.

[16th man]

We're not that far removed in time from a period where people like Lawes were praised for much more aggressive, borderline late, blindside shots on 9s and 10s are we?

[Mellsblue]

We're not that far removed in time from a period where people like Lawes were praised for much more aggressive, borderline late, blindside shots on 9s and 10s are we?

I suppose the difference is Lawes was committed to the tackle prior to the player passing the ball, whereas those arguing Farrell committed a foul are arguing he could’ve avoided making the ‘tackle’/committed after the ball was gone.

[Oakboy]

I can't help thinking of JW when Farrell's physical offerings come up for debate. The former was a hard man who could tackle with the best - but did so legally without niggle. Farrell, in terms of physical contact with opponents has a nasty streak.

[twitchy]