Jump to content

4 Nov: England v New Zealand KO 2.30pm (BBC TV)


Who will win?  

80 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?

    • England by 13 points or more
      4
    • England by 7 to 12
      17
    • England by 1 to 6
      14
    • Draw
      0
    • New Zealand by 1 to 6 points
      20
    • New Zealand by 7 to 12 points
      22
    • New Zealand by 13 points or more
      3

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 04/11/18 at 14:30

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

because when he makes the decision to tackle he has no idea what Tomkins might do, he could side step, he cpuld dummy to pass, he could hold the ball etc. In that short space of time between Tomkins doing what he does next (or any other player) the brain does not have enough time to process and then change that into a mechanical action. You can rely on instinct of you like but playing committed sport you have to go with what you see in the moment and act on that otherwise pulling out or being half hearted you'll fail and get done by a player like Tomkins.

Sorry but I totally disagree with yours and others thoughts on this, when it's obviously late, sure, you can pull out, but the contact we are discussing here there's little the player can do other than make a committed tackle based on what he sees. You cannot change human physiology nor how quick the brains capacity to process info any quicker than our synapses can do..

Then we’ll have to agree to disagree!

I take your point about thinking time and it’s fine fine margins that we’re talking about but in my judgement Bromwich had the time to react and reduce his impact, he didn’t and he got penalised

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 800
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If the Kiwis are going to play a game based around building pressure which is what it looks like Maguire is going for they cant make multiple back to back errors it undoes all the hard work. Very close game again, the Ref was way better than the ref in the 1st test but thought the England try where they went to check the try with the English video ref was very marginal. With different officiating interpretations in 2 key incidents this series could be 1 nil to NZ with heading in the last game which goes to so how close this series has been.  but thats the way the ball bounces congratulations to England on winning the series  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OMEGA said:

Then we’ll have to agree to disagree!

I take your point about thinking time and it’s fine fine margins that we’re talking about but in my judgement Bromwich had the time to react and reduce his impact, he didn’t and he got penalised

If he can't reduce his impact because he has thrown his body, it is still a penalty, because he has simply been too slow getting there. There is one person to blame for a tackle on a player without the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, deluded pom? said:

You seriously believe a coach can tell his players to react a split second late? A split second? 

Yes quite easily and its also something a player can easily do. In almost every hit on a player kicking the ball the tackler knows that they are not going to make that tackle before the kicker kicks the ball but yet they do it anyway. That isn't a coincidence. One it affects the kicker due to the pressure, two it rattles the kicker and three its a nice easy hit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dave T said:

If he can't reduce his impact because he has thrown his body, it is still a penalty, because he has simply been too slow getting there. There is one person to blame for a tackle on a player without the ball.

As Big Jim Mills said after being penalised for a late tackle

”I got there as quick as I could”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Damien said:

Yes quite easily and its also something a player can easily do. In almost every hit on a player kicking the ball the tackler knows that they are not going to make that tackle before the kicker kicks the ball but yet they do it anyway. That isn't a coincidence. One it affects the kicker due to the pressure, two it rattles the kicker and three its a nice easy hit. 

OK.

rldfsignature.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If the player doesn't have hold of the ball, it is late.

If we don't think tacklers are happy to go a split second late on purpose, we are being naive.

Sorry but that is utter nonsense, have you ever played sport, of any kind never mind contact sport? Have you ever driven a car, rode a bicycle? 

A pedestrian walks out in front of me whilst I'm cycling (it happens a lot in the modern era), in your eyes if I hit them it's my fault because I should be able to react instantaneously and brake in a nano second, that's not how known physics/biology works.

I can use my knowledge to hazard a guess what they might do at the side of the road but I cannot 100% know, if I presume they are always going to walk out then I may as well not cycle at all because I would be stopping/slowing at the sight of any pedestrian at the side of a road within a few metres of me.

This decision making is no different to making a committed tackle, you commit, interpret what's unfolding in front of you but despite all the second guessing and experience you have in the circumstances you have no option to commit, to make the tackle or to carry on cycling without braking. To ask either to react in the way you are wanting to just does not and cannot happen. If the action of the ball carrier or the pedestrian gives the tackler or cyclist enough time to avert their course/actions and still hits the person without any slowing or reduction in the hit then you would be correct, it would be a late hit or careless on the part of the cyclist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Both games have been really fine margins. Luckily for us we got the breaks this time and came out on top 

Totally agree.  A couple of penalties the other way and we could have lost both games.  The Kiwis are a quality team.

Makes it even more of an achievement in beating them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

Makinson is currently trending top 10 nationally on Twitter.

Good to see someone get a hat trick, anyone!   But Makinson defended as well.

NZ are a good team so having won, it shows that we are a bit useful as well.  But above all it was that we kept going. NZ were very good, and when they were fresh they are very dangerous. But we kept going and as Hodginson said they were working on each play at a time, not distracted. That got them over the opening exchanges.  And ultimately they wore NZ down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

Sorry but that is utter nonsense, have you ever played sport, of any kind never mind contact sport? Have you ever driven a car, rode a bicycle? 

A pedestrian walks out in front of me whilst I'm cycling (it happens a lot in the modern era), in your eyes if I hit them it's my fault because I should be able to react instantaneously and brake in a nano second, that's not how known physics/biology works.

I can use my knowledge to hazard a guess what they might do at the side of the road but I cannot 100% know, if I presume they are always going to walk out then I may as well not cycle at all because I would be stopping/slowing at the sight of any pedestrian at the side of a road within a few metres of me.

This decision making is no different to making a committed tackle, you commit, interpret what's unfolding in front of you but despite all the second guessing and experience you have in the circumstances you have no option to commit, to make the tackle or to carry on cycling without braking. To ask either to react in the way you are wanting to just does not and cannot happen. If the action of the ball carrier or the pedestrian gives the tackler or cyclist enough time to avert their course/actions and still hits the person without any slowing or reduction in the hit then you would be correct, it would be a late hit or careless on the part of the cyclist.

You are just justifying a late hit. Dress it up however you like.

The ref agreed and penalised the Kiwis twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Both games have been really fine margins. Luckily for us we got the breaks this time and came out on top 

Hardly a fag paper between the top 3 nations now and for the foreseeable future i reckon.

This is real,this aint another false dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Wayne said Tommy was in a league of his own today . Absolutely . We eulogise over the star turns of other nations but that was as good an individual performance in a Test as you will see 

Correct,if that was Billy Slater of a few years ago we'd be drowning in our own drool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Route66 said:

Another fantastic game,great showcase for the sport ,more games need to be on the BBC if we want to expand in this country 

Must say the beeb team and presentation is excellent and portrays a great image for the game . The forum after is good to

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick review of the game stats for England.

Makinson (as we know) was outstanding.  Three tries and 170 run metres which topped the English effort.

McGilvary was solid again with 129 metres despite getting no attacking chances.

The three starting middles all went well.  Luke Thompson ran the most with 156 metres while Graham and Tom Burgess both contributed 137 metres.  Chris Hill was strong off the bench again with 111.

Tom Burgess and John Bateman topped the tackle breaks with 4 each followed by George Burgess, Hodgson and Makinson with three each.

Josh Hodgson topped the tackle count with 44 while Thompson put in 41 and Whitehead 38.

While Makinson was deservedly man of the match, what a game Thompson had.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By way of contrast,  swallowed my pride yesterday and tried to watch the England union game, in an unbiased and objective manner......... I lasted 5 minutes before I got soooooooo bored I had to turn the TV off. Todays game, once it settled down, had me on the edge of my seat, it contained everything good about our sport. I suppose my point is, that if we can't grow our game off the back of this series, will we ever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.