England vs Argentina

[Banquo]

That midfield should be starting the remaining games. They need as much time together as possible to try and help them click on attack. We can sub off Ford and Manu when we are in a comfortable position. Farrell can bench or keep his spot in the stands.

I'll be interested to see what Silver Balls does with the bench. He loaded it up for work rate and physicality for the Pumas. May we see a bit more attacking intent? Perhaps Rodd or Ribbans to come in and offer more mobility if we're going to chase tries and bonus points.

Who does Ribbans replace to offer more mobility out of interest?

I agree on the midfield, the wings need a look, but he's a bit boxed in there. Back row will be interesting if Curry gets a ban.

I was thinking Ribbans might add more carrying and offloading threat from the bench in place of Martin. Martin will tackle all day but he hasn't brought his club carrying game to international rugby yet and isn't really knock for offloads. You'd have Martin on the bench for Japan and the knock out stages but maybe give the team a little more carrying for Chile and Samoa.

Ok, so not mobility but physicality...I agree. I don't think shiny bellend rates him though.

[Banquo]

I'd forgotten Arundell- he's probably not had enough rugby to start as yet?

[Oakboy]

I agree with Banquo, it was unlucky. It was 'reckless' and he was more upright than he should have been, but it is a very hard technique to judge a player coming down from so high.

he was over-hyped and not composed.

I think that's conjecture and wrong.
He was running towards where the ball was likely to be fielded. He was unlucky to be red carded for a rugby incident- the comparison with Faz and Billy is a wrong one btw. The way you are headed is effectively uncontested kick chases.

Fair enough. You know more about this in a hands-on sense than me. I think, though, that there are technique/timing similarities to players being pinged for laying on the wrong side at rucks. That used to account for several penalties per game. All got pinged, however 'unluckily'. Now they aren't getting caught there any more despite the earlier shouts of, 'he could not avoid it'. IMO, (possibly wrong as I accept your superior knowledge), Curry could have behaved differently and avoided the head clash just by easing off and waiting an instant. He chose not to and lost 77 minutes.

[Mellsblue]

I agree that ideally all players would be running round crouched (only half joking).

Curry had a microsecond to react. He was unlucky. The only way you will stop what is clearly a rugby accident (compared to piss poor technique of Farrell and Vunipola) is just to stop competing hard tbh.

I agree with Banquo, it was unlucky. It was 'reckless' and he was more upright than he should have been, but it is a very hard technique to judge a player coming down from so high.

But, if 'unlucky' gets you sent off you have to re-programme your behaviour to avoid being unlucky. I agree Curry was unlucky but he was over-hyped and not composed. 'Opponent going up to catch the ball' = warning bell. 'Opponent possibly dipping into me' = warning bell etc. Thinking any other way = card. Liking/disliking that matters not a bit. Playing the 80 minutes does.

The dictionary definition of luck:
‘success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.’
You can’t ‘reprogramme your behaviour to avoid being unlucky’.

[Sandydragon]

Without wanting to make generalisations, I do think Argentina are an emotional team now led by a very emotional coach. When emotion like that is channelled in the right way it can be an asset, but it can also be an Achilles Heel as we saw last night. Once Argentina are rattled, history suggests that they don’t have the composure to come back from it.

Raynal possibly helped us a bit, but I don’t recall any of the decisions being overly contentious. IIRC, those that led to points on the board for England were all stonewall penalties.

Sometimes refs compensate whe theres been an early red, but I don’t think that was the case. Argentina totally lost their composures and then the match. The only penalty I thought a bit 50/50 was one of the scrum penalties but overall i thought the refereeing was very good.

[Oakboy]

I agree with Banquo, it was unlucky. It was 'reckless' and he was more upright than he should have been, but it is a very hard technique to judge a player coming down from so high.

But, if 'unlucky' gets you sent off you have to re-programme your behaviour to avoid being unlucky. I agree Curry was unlucky but he was over-hyped and not composed. 'Opponent going up to catch the ball' = warning bell. 'Opponent possibly dipping into me' = warning bell etc. Thinking any other way = card. Liking/disliking that matters not a bit. Playing the 80 minutes does.

The dictionary definition of luck:
‘success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.’
You can’t ‘reprogramme your behaviour to avoid being unlucky’.

So, if exactly the same scenario arises in the next match and Curry gets red-carded again are you happy with that? Or, should Curry learn how to avoid it? However we define luck in this instance, the fact is that the game is now being refereed/administered in this way to reduce strikes to he head. The 'just a rugby incident' or 'unlucky' scenarios ARE attracting cards. Fore-thought and technique have to adapt, surely?

[Mellsblue]

But, if 'unlucky' gets you sent off you have to re-programme your behaviour to avoid being unlucky. I agree Curry was unlucky but he was over-hyped and not composed. 'Opponent going up to catch the ball' = warning bell. 'Opponent possibly dipping into me' = warning bell etc. Thinking any other way = card. Liking/disliking that matters not a bit. Playing the 80 minutes does.

The dictionary definition of luck:
‘success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.’
You can’t ‘reprogramme your behaviour to avoid being unlucky’.

So, if exactly the same scenario arises in the next match and Curry gets red-carded again are you happy with that? Or, should Curry learn how to avoid it? However we define luck in this instance, the fact is that the game is now being refereed/administered in this way to reduce strikes to he head. The 'just a rugby incident' or 'unlucky' scenarios ARE attracting cards. Fore-thought and technique have to adapt, surely?

Well, you can be unlucky more than once… If you think he could’ve avoided doing it then you can’t also believe he was unlucky but, like Billy, stupid.

[Banquo]

he was over-hyped and not composed.

I think that's conjecture and wrong.
He was running towards where the ball was likely to be fielded. He was unlucky to be red carded for a rugby incident- the comparison with Faz and Billy is a wrong one btw. The way you are headed is effectively uncontested kick chases.

Fair enough. You know more about this in a hands-on sense than me. I think, though, that there are technique/timing similarities to players being pinged for laying on the wrong side at rucks. That used to account for several penalties per game. All got pinged, however 'unluckily'. Now they aren't getting caught there any more despite the earlier shouts of, 'he could not avoid it'. IMO, (possibly wrong as I accept your superior knowledge), Curry could have behaved differently and avoided the head clash just by easing off and waiting an instant. He chose not to and lost 77 minutes.

Some of those caught on the wrong side are simply crap decisions by ref or player. You have more time in general to do something about it as well. Again, I think it’s the wrong analogy.

[Stom]

Without wanting to make generalisations, I do think Argentina are an emotional team now led by a very emotional coach. When emotion like that is channelled in the right way it can be an asset, but it can also be an Achilles Heel as we saw last night. Once Argentina are rattled, history suggests that they don’t have the composure to come back from it.

Raynal possibly helped us a bit, but I don’t recall any of the decisions being overly contentious. IIRC, those that led to points on the board for England were all stonewall penalties.

Sometimes refs compensate whe theres been an early red, but I don’t think that was the case. Argentina totally lost their composures and then the match. The only penalty I thought a bit 50/50 was one of the scrum penalties but overall i thought the refereeing was very good.

I thought he was picky, but he was consistently picky and had a very good game, I thought. Completely unlike everyone's favorite in France NZ, who was awful, imo.

[Oakboy]

The dictionary definition of luck:
‘success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions.’
You can’t ‘reprogramme your behaviour to avoid being unlucky’.

So, if exactly the same scenario arises in the next match and Curry gets red-carded again are you happy with that? Or, should Curry learn how to avoid it? However we define luck in this instance, the fact is that the game is now being refereed/administered in this way to reduce strikes to he head. The 'just a rugby incident' or 'unlucky' scenarios ARE attracting cards. Fore-thought and technique have to adapt, surely?

Well, you can be unlucky more than once… If you think he could’ve avoided doing it then you can’t also believe he was unlucky but, like Billy, stupid.

I think Curry was unlucky that a fractional misjudgement resulted in him getting a red card. But, I think it WAS a misjudgement in the context of the current application of the laws etc. Curry's misjudgement was a marginal one of timing but it was still an avoidable error amounting to not offering his opponent due care and attention.

I agree that the misdemeanours from Farrell and Vunipola were worse but so what? All three led to reds, badly letting down their team-mates on the day. Severity of subsequent punishment will reflect the degree of misjudgement.

All three players should have been capable of not being carded. None went on to the field deliberately trying to get sent off obviously but all three did under current playing conditions. It was not referees ruling under time pressure but the well-publicised back-room adjudication.

[francoisfou]

Captain Courtney's prematch motivational address to his team:

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more (forgetting about Fiji). Close the wall up with our English dead (Owen and Billy). Cry "God for Kevin, England and Saint George."

[Which Tyler]

I should also add, around the cards - What does annoy me is that neither Mallia nor Curry (nor Ford) underwent an HIA. If there's a cardable head contact, then by definition there's been a potentially concussive head contact, and by definition there should be an HIA.

[FKAS]

I should also add, around the cards - What does annoy me is that neither Mallia nor Curry (nor Ford) underwent an HIA. If there's a cardable head contact, then by definition there's been a potentially concussive head contact, and by definition there should be an HIA.

Both Curry and Mallia left the field after their collision. They both got bandaged up and the medics would have surely checked them for basic signs of concussion. Any indication of concussion would have then resulted in a full assessment.

Carreras only got a yellow because it was hip to shoulder on Ford. If it was direct contact to the head then it would have been red. Ford was clearly fine to continue, didn't stay down and didn't grab his head. Why should England be disadvantaged for 10 mins because of Argentinian foul play? I'm all for looking after players but we have to follow the medics rather than cycling off players every 10 mins on the off chance.

[Which Tyler]

Both Curry and Mallia left the field after their collision. They both got bandaged up and the medics would have surely checked them for basic signs of concussion. Any indication of concussion would have then resulted in a full assessment.

Carreras only got a yellow because it was hip to shoulder on Ford. If it was direct contact to the head then it would have been red. Ford was clearly fine to continue, didn't stay down and didn't grab his head. Why should England be disadvantaged for 10 mins because of Argentinian foul play? I'm all for looking after players but we have to follow the medics rather than cycling off players every 10 mins on the off chance.

Bandaging up a bleeding wound =/= HIA
The purpose of an HIA is to assess a head injury for the possiblity of consussion. A "check for basic signs of concussion" is NOT an HIA, and is NOT what should be done in advance of an HIA. IIRC Mallia was not off the pitch for the minimum time for an HIA to be performed.
Curry left the pitch because he was sent off, not because he needed an HIA (and HIA may or may have been done whilst off the pitch, we don't know, but he wasn't called off for one)

As I've said elsewhere, I haven't seen enough to decide for myself how much of Carreras' force went through Ford's head - hence I put his name in brackets as I don't know if dangerous contact with the head was or was not part of the reason for the card.

my point is, as written "If there's a cardable head contact, then by definition there's been a potentially concussive head contact, and by definition there should be an HIA."

[Banquo]

Both Curry and Mallia left the field after their collision. They both got bandaged up and the medics would have surely checked them for basic signs of concussion. Any indication of concussion would have then resulted in a full assessment.

Carreras only got a yellow because it was hip to shoulder on Ford. If it was direct contact to the head then it would have been red. Ford was clearly fine to continue, didn't stay down and didn't grab his head. Why should England be disadvantaged for 10 mins because of Argentinian foul play? I'm all for looking after players but we have to follow the medics rather than cycling off players every 10 mins on the off chance.

Bandaging up a bleeding wound =/= HIA
The purpose of an HIA is to assess a head injury for the possiblity of consussion. A "check for basic signs of concussion" is NOT an HIA, and is NOT what should be done in advance of an HIA. Mallia was not off the pitch for the minimum time for an HIA to happen, so we know that it didn't.
Curry left the pitch because he was sent off, not because he needed an HIA (and HIA may or may have been done whilst off the pitch, we don't know, but he wasn't called off for one)

As I've said elsewhere, I haven't seen enough to decide for myself how much of Carreras' force went through Ford's head - hence I put his name in brackets as I don't know if dangerous contact with the head was or was not part of the reason for the card.

my point is, as written "If there's a cardable head contact, then by definition there's been a potentially concussive head contact, and by definition there should be an HIA."

Yep, they need check against all the players recorded baselines imo. If they can't, they should stay off.

[FKAS]

Both Curry and Mallia left the field after their collision. They both got bandaged up and the medics would have surely checked them for basic signs of concussion. Any indication of concussion would have then resulted in a full assessment.

Carreras only got a yellow because it was hip to shoulder on Ford. If it was direct contact to the head then it would have been red. Ford was clearly fine to continue, didn't stay down and didn't grab his head. Why should England be disadvantaged for 10 mins because of Argentinian foul play? I'm all for looking after players but we have to follow the medics rather than cycling off players every 10 mins on the off chance.

Bandaging up a bleeding wound =/= HIA
The purpose of an HIA is to assess a head injury for the possiblity of consussion. A "check for basic signs of concussion" is NOT an HIA, and is NOT what should be done in advance of an HIA. IIRC Mallia was not off the pitch for the minimum time for an HIA to be performed.
Curry left the pitch because he was sent off, not because he needed an HIA (and HIA may or may have been done whilst off the pitch, we don't know, but he wasn't called off for one)

As I've said elsewhere, I haven't seen enough to decide for myself how much of Carreras' force went through Ford's head - hence I put his name in brackets as I don't know if dangerous contact with the head was or was not part of the reason for the card.

my point is, as written "If there's a cardable head contact, then by definition there's been a potentially concussive head contact, and by definition there should be an HIA."

Mallia was off for 8 minutes. The statutory 10 minutes is there to stop teams racing their players through the process to get them back out there. Doesn't take 8 mins to sort out a cut to the eyebrow. That would suggest to me he's been looked at and if he hasn't then the independent doctor should step in, I believe they are still included pitch side.

I'm all for obvious head contact with force being a forced HIA. In against incidents like Ford's where there's no clear evidence of head contact resulting in a player leaving the pitch for a minimum 10 mins almost hampering the defending team as much as the transgressors (depending on the players going off).

Now were the rules to be changed so that a yellow card that results in a player going for a HIA to be increased to 15 mins, I'd be for that. I'd also be up for fining teams who don't conduct HIAs where there's clear head contact ala Mallia and Curry.

[Which Tyler]

So... you're saying that he wasn't off for long enough for an HIA, yet had an HIA anyway, and that the reason there's a minimum time has nothing to do with needing a minimum amount of time?
That's an odd take.
So you start with not enough time, then you subtract some time, and you really can't end up with enough time. We don't know how long it took to tidy up Mallia's blood injury, so we don't know how much time to subtracts from "not enough"
Mallia didn't have an HIA.

IMO he should have had.

Curry wasn't take off for an HIA
IMO he should have been, automatically.

Why are you continuing to go on about Ford?

I wouldn't be up for increasing the yellow card to 15 minutes. I would be up for teams no conducting HIAs where they should have done. We know Mallia didn't, we don't know if Curry did, but if it was, it was later than it should have been.


FTR, it's perfectly fine to disagree with my personal opinion without tying yourself up in knots to do so.

[Banquo]

This is giving me a headache..

[FKAS]

So... you're saying that he wasn't off for long enough for an HIA, yet had an HIA anyway, and that the reason there's a minimum time has nothing to do with needing a minimum amount of time?
That's an odd take.
So you start with not enough time, then you subtract some time, and you really can't end up with enough time. We don't know how long it took to tidy up Mallia's blood injury, so we don't know how much time to subtracts from "not enough"
Mallia didn't have an HIA.

IMO he should have had.

Curry wasn't take off for an HIA
IMO he should have been, automatically.

Why are you continuing to go on about Ford?

I wouldn't be up for increasing the yellow card to 15 minutes. I would be up for teams no conducting HIAs where they should have done. We know Mallia didn't, we don't know if Curry did, but if it was, it was later than it should have been.


FTR, it's perfectly fine to disagree with my personal opinion without tying yourself up in knots to do so.

The minimum is to ensure its not rushed. It's not unusual to see players standing waiting for the HIA period to end in order to come back on, it's not a specifically timed thing. You don't have the medical records you have no idea what was checked in the changing room, neither do I. We're guessing. It's entirely possible to ask the player the questions whilst he's being stitched up. It's entirely possible they didn't bother, in which case they should be fined.

Curry didn't return to the field so it's an entirely moot point.

[oldbackrow]

According to espn Mallia went off 3' for blood injury and came back on 11'.

[16th man]

On the evidence of today so far, either the citing officer is going to be busy upgrading a bunch of yellows to red, and asking the TMO exactly what they were looking at for the Kriel shot, or the Curry disciplinary hearing will be watching quite the show reel of near identical, or worse, challenges deemed not to be worthy of a sending off.

[morepork]

So... you're saying that he wasn't off for long enough for an HIA, yet had an HIA anyway, and that the reason there's a minimum time has nothing to do with needing a minimum amount of time?
That's an odd take.
So you start with not enough time, then you subtract some time, and you really can't end up with enough time. We don't know how long it took to tidy up Mallia's blood injury, so we don't know how much time to subtracts from "not enough"
Mallia didn't have an HIA.

IMO he should have had.

Curry wasn't take off for an HIA
IMO he should have been, automatically.

Why are you continuing to go on about Ford?

I wouldn't be up for increasing the yellow card to 15 minutes. I would be up for teams no conducting HIAs where they should have done. We know Mallia didn't, we don't know if Curry did, but if it was, it was later than it should have been.


FTR, it's perfectly fine to disagree with my personal opinion without tying yourself up in knots to do so.

The minimum is to ensure its not rushed. It's not unusual to see players standing waiting for the HIA period to end in order to come back on, it's not a specifically timed thing. You don't have the medical records you have no idea what was checked in the changing room, neither do I. We're guessing. It's entirely possible to ask the player the questions whilst he's being stitched up. It's entirely possible they didn't bother, in which case they should be fined.

Curry didn't return to the field so it's an entirely moot point.

This is not a neurometabolic assessment metric. Especially when the pain of stitching up + lidocaine is a variable. The player's head (brain) got shunted backwards relative to the forward force upon impact which is almost a controlled experimental model of trauma. You don't need medical records for that.

[jngf]

I am increasingly starting to think Lewis Ludlam is the most underrated test player since the late 90s incarnation of Richard Hill. His workrate is enormous and he also reads the game very well. In the absence of Billy V he should start at 8 against Japan,with the form openside of J Willis or B Earl getting the 7 berth.

[Tom Moore]

After this afternoon, presumably Curry's defence on Tuesday is a video of Kriel's tackle.

[Which Tyler]

After this afternoon, presumably Curry's defence on Tuesday is a video of Kriel's tackle.

Hopefully that defence won't fly... because Kriel is sited before then.
Wouldn't be surprised to see the Chillean sited as well (hope so - it certainly needs to be looked at properly)