Are you sure England is better then Samoa?

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Just Browny said:

I actually hope Samoa do test us. It's great - and no fault of England's - to see us march down the field and score in the set after each kick off, but it tells us relatively little about how we will build pressure when it isn't that easy and we are facing a well-disciplined Kangaroo defensive line. We need to be tested if we are to be ready.

Our defence has not been tested yet either.

[WN83]

1 minute ago, DavidM said:

Buzz Rothfield with an interesting take 

‘ It’s not foul play, it’s just this running style that he’s got ‘

Ha ha.

Maybe our lads can go round suplexing the opposition and just say "yeah, it's my tackling style, what of it?"

[Dunbar]

11 minutes ago, WN83 said:

Is this a new thing or is it what he's been doing all year? Sometimes I suppose these things can creep in to your game and the lad is bumping people off left, right and centre by doing it, so he won't want to bin it but he should have no choice. 

Yes, he has been warned about it in the NRL this year.

[Dunbar]

12 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Buzz Rothfield with an interesting take 

‘ It’s not foul play, it’s just this running style that he’s got ‘

Funny how that 'style' only happens in the stride he hits the defensive line.

I'm just picturing him running downfield like that... John Cleese in the Ministry of Funny Walks would be jealous.

[north yorks trinity]

38 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

If bans are to punish foul and dangerous play then it cannot be more clear cut.  If it were a one off then fair enough.  But he does it over and over.

The question I would ask is why he would behave like this. Like someone else said, there's no way that is a natural running style and so it must be a conscious decision (you could even say premeditated) and if you're already on a warning, why would you consciously do something that's likely to get you banned or sent off. The fact that he didn't get banned or sent off doesn't really change my original question. He's either very stupid or has taken a calculated gamble that a largely English review panel wouldn't dare ban him from playing England and that gamble has paid off.

Actually, I doubt it's really thought through to that extent so I'm still struggling why he would do something so reckless, both to his own chances of playing and to the health of his opponent.

[north yorks trinity]

23 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Our defence has not been tested yet either.

I think it was tested on Saturday, admittedly not for long spells of concerted pressure, and coped well.

[Niels]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

This may sound like I am having a go at the individual player, but I am not.  I like Suaalii, I think he is a great talent.

But we have handed out bans for loads of things this year - in Super League and the NRL - high shots, crushers, late hits, attacking the legs of player or the standing leg of a kicker etc etc but I would say not one of them is as dangerous as a 16 stone player running at you at full speed, deliberately raising his knee and recklessly hitting you in the head or collar bone etc.

If bans are to punish foul and dangerous play then it cannot be more clear cut.  If it were a one off then fair enough.  But he does it over and over.

You always make good points so I don't like disagreeing. However I would like to try an alternative view. 

My own take is that I agree this is the case in Sl. However, the threshold has been a lot lower in this world cup. Therefore I think it would be unfair to raise the bar again for the semi final. Also I think the panel can only look at the incident on report not consider his style of play.

Additionally, I read that the panel is mostly English. Therefore they would have to be extremely certain before banning a star player of England's opponents. I appreciate some will say this is irrelevant but justice has to be seen to be done also.

 

 

[FearTheVee]

Let's just call it what it is - cynical, dangerous foul play which he should be receiving bans for.

If there is not a sufficiently diverse disciplinary panel (ie too many English) then just add that to the pile of amateurish organisational decisions.  There is no excuse for that.

Edited November 7, 2022 by FearTheVee

[WN83]

3 minutes ago, Niels said:

You always make good points so I don't like disagreeing. However I would like to try an alternative view. 

My own take is that I agree this is the case in Sl. However, the threshold has been a lot lower in this world cup. Therefore I think it would be unfair to raise the bar again for the semi final. Also I think the panel can only look at the incident on report not consider his style of play.

Additionally, I read that the panel is mostly English. Therefore they would have to be extremely certain before banning a star player of England's opponents. I appreciate some will say this is irrelevant but justice has to be seen to be done also.

 

 

The panel was Jerome Guissett, Paul Dixon, Nathan McAvoy and Phil Vievers, so 50/50 in terms of English and overseas, although admittedly it is Superleague heavy.  

Edited November 7, 2022 by WN83

[FearTheVee]

2 minutes ago, WN83 said:

The panel was Jerome Guissett, Paul Dixon, Nathan McAvoy and Phil Vievers, so 50/50 in terms of English and overseas. 

So 4 players who played the most part of their career in England?  And you say that is 50/50?

Nobody can tell me with a straight face that panel could not be perceived as being sympathetic to English RL.  Amateurish.

Edited November 7, 2022 by FearTheVee

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, Niels said:

You always make good points so I don't like disagreeing. However I would like to try an alternative view. 

My own take is that I agree this is the case in Sl. However, the threshold has been a lot lower in this world cup. Therefore I think it would be unfair to raise the bar again for the semi final. Also I think the panel can only look at the incident on report not consider his style of play.

Additionally, I read that the panel is mostly English. Therefore they would have to be extremely certain before banning a star player of England's opponents. I appreciate some will say this is irrelevant but justice has to be seen to be done also.

 

 

I would have been ok if Paulo had just got a caution.  I think this is a lot worse and a lot more dangerous.

[Davo5]

1 hour ago, DavidM said:

Buzz Rothfield with an interesting take 

‘ It’s not foul play, it’s just this running style that he’s got ‘

Rothfield is the only RL journalist/pundit who can give Paul Kent a run for his money as biggest idiot in the sport.

[WN83]

6 minutes ago, FearTheVee said:

So 4 players who played the most part of their career in England?  And you say that is 50/50?

Nobody can tell me with a straight face that panel could not be perceived as being sympathetic to English RL.  Amateurish.

Just a factual comment. It’s 50% Englishmen and 50% guys born overseas is it not? 
 

I’m with you, it should be mixed between Superleague and NRL guys. I wonder what it was like for the last World Cup? I doubt the Aussies Sat many of our guys on those panels but I could be wrong. 
 

 

[Davo5]

12 minutes ago, Niels said:

You always make good points so I don't like disagreeing. However I would like to try an alternative view. 

My own take is that I agree this is the case in Sl. However, the threshold has been a lot lower in this world cup. Therefore I think it would be unfair to raise the bar again for the semi final. Also I think the panel can only look at the incident on report not consider his style of play.

Additionally, I read that the panel is mostly English. Therefore they would have to be extremely certain before banning a star player of England's opponents. I appreciate some will say this is irrelevant but justice has to be seen to be done also.

 

 

Justice would have resulted in a ban for dangerous foul play,Craig Smith was forced out of the NRL 20 years ago for a similar running style,the only difference was Smith did it at a much slower speed.

[MatthewWoody]

https://nrl.sportsmatemobile.com/news/118663

[MZH]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Funny how that 'style' only happens in the stride he hits the defensive line.

I'm just picturing him running downfield like that... John Cleese in the Ministry of Funny Walks would be jealous.

Exactly, he ran relatively normally and then lifted the knee just before contact. And even if it was his style then he needs be told to change his style because it's dangerous.

[saintspete83]

Seeing those raised knees reminded me of this incident 

INTERVIEW: The tackle that finished John Stankevitch's career | LoveRugbyLeague

[Young Blood]

As I was saying when is mattered cream risen to the top. Samoa better then England. 

[The Rocket]

On 02/07/2022 at 19:40, The Rocket said:

As someone who has been watching Pacific Tests for 30+ years, these aren`t the Pacific Island National teams of the past. 

Mock them at your peril.

 

On 16/10/2022 at 02:57, Damien said:

 

You were saying.....

 

On 16/10/2022 at 07:40, Dunbar said:

Last 3 games.

2014: England 32 Samoa 26

2017: England 30 Samoa 10

2022: England 60 Samoa 6

I am going to spend an enjoyable few minutes with a can of Birra Moretti browsing some of the posts on this thread.

Not naming any names of course but they may rhyme with Sprocket and Jojo.

 

What can you say. Great big noise.

 

 

[Sports Prophet]

2 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 

 

What can you say. Great big noise.

 

 

Might be wallowing in a can of Moretti browsing posts this time.

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 

 

What can you say. Great big noise.

 

 

Samoa have done remarkably well to come back from the Round 1 defeat and get to the final.

Well done and congratulations to them.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, The Rocket said:

 

 

What can you say. Great big noise.

 

 

England were gash and played as bad as they could have with mistakes aplenty. They also gifted Samoa every try through shocking errors. Despite that Samoa still only scraped the win, they were far from impressive. 

Too many England players had believed their own hype and thought the game was already won. England turn up and they beat that Samoa team quite comfortably. Congratulations to Samoa on the win and they thoroughly deserved it on the day.

[The Rocket]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Samoa have done remarkably well to come back from the Round 1 defeat and get to the final.

Well done and congratulations to them.

Yeah not bad for the lightweight Luai, that`s what you called him and Milford well I can`t remember the exact words but basically a dud. 

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, The Rocket said:

Yeah not bad for the lightweight Luai, that`s what you called him and Milford well I can`t remember the exact words but basically a dud. 

Yes, as I say they have done really well.

Not sure what else you want me to say.

[Sports Prophet]

6 hours ago, Damien said:

England were gash and played as bad as they could have with mistakes aplenty. They also gifted Samoa every try through shocking errors. Despite that Samoa still only scraped the win, they were far from impressive. 

Too many England players had believed their own hype and thought the game was already won. England turn up and they beat that Samoa team quite comfortably. Congratulations to Samoa on the win and they thoroughly deserved it on the day.

Two of England’s try’s came off the back of glaringly poor referee calls. Those helped keep England in the game.

I don’t think you are giving Samoa the credit they deserve for that win today. The same logic you are applying to England can also be applied to Samoa. I think Samoa actually contributed to England’s poor performance.

They played tough with a man down for ten minutes as well, let alone losing their dummy half for the match early on. 

Edited November 12, 2022 by Sports Prophet