Rugby videos of tackles, tries, funny incidents and more: New Zealand win despite spirited England comeback

Sunday, November 07, 2010

New Zealand win despite spirited England comeback

England put in a spirited second half comeback but it wasn’t enough as the All Blacks held on for a 26-16 win at Twickenham. Tries by Hosea Gear and Kieran Read as well as the class of Dan Carter gave the visitors a 20-6 lead before England fought back.

It was impressive stuff at times as New Zealand looked in control but the hosts fired back at them, first through Dylan Hartley and then coming within inches as former New Zealand rugby league international Shontayne Hape was edged out in the corner.

His former teammate, Sonny Bill Williams, had a fairly subdued day with his main contribution being a trademark offload that led to Gear’s try. "I think the jury's still out," said coach Graham Henry.

"I don't think he'll be entirely happy with his game but he'll be better for the experience. What else would you expect? His first game, in front of 82,000 at Twickenham, is a pretty big ask. I'm pretty happy with what he displayed."

Williams himself was quite dissatisfied, despite not doing too much wrong.

"I spent the few hours after the game feeling proud of myself for accomplishing what I said I wanted to do when I came across to rugby," said Williams, "But I was disappointed with my own game and I am looking for a bit more game time to improve on my performance.

"I pride myself on my workrate and the intensity was a huge step up from the national competition at home in New Zealand. It was a rollercoaster out there. I did a couple of good things and a couple of bad things. The only way you will improve as a player was through game time. We have class players but hopefully I will get another shot," he added.

The All Blacks conceded their first try in an Autumn Test since 2006, but will be happy with the win as England showed that there’s plenty of potential and lots to work with. Coach Martin Johnson said the mood was right after the loss, despite the comeback.

"I didn't want them to be happy with the comeback and happy to be near. If you want to get better you don't go around being satisfied. There were lots of good stuff but let's not pat ourselves on the back," he said.

England face Australia next, while New Zealand travel to Edinburgh to play Scotland.

Time: 02:54
Note: Longer highlights will be posted soon if possible.

first!big improvements for england

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 5:01 pm
Would have loved to have seen replays for those TMO decisions. The commentators seemed to be surprised about the New Zealand one being awarded and their first impression about the England one was double movement. Anyone any thoughts on the decisions?

By Seán, at November 07, 2010 5:03 pm
About the TMO:
For Gear's try, the evidence was inconclusive: like Cueto's infamous no-try, the angles give different conclusions, so the try shouldn't have been awarded.
Hartley did give a double movement in my opinion.
The final TMO of the match, Hape's no-try, should have resulted in a penalty try as he is taken out high around the neck.

By Guy, at November 07, 2010 5:14 pm
FOURTH!

By Flooz, at November 07, 2010 5:20 pm
Hartley's wasn't a double movement. His legs stayed in the same place. You are allowed to stretch for the line.

He pulled a dirty move on McCaw though.

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 5:23 pm
The tackle on Hape should have been deemed illegal; shoulder charge without any use of the arms.

As for Hartley's try, Ashton was offside, but Cueto was started onside caught up with him and therefore played him onside, before he was body checked out of contention.

In all it was a bad day for the Ref. For two of the tries he went to indicate a try before suddenly asking for the TMO. Seems like he let his nerves get the better of him on the day.

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 5:30 pm
IMO hape should have been awarded a penalty try because the tackle was illegal (a bit shoulder chargy).

but hartley's was double movement too so swings and roundabouts...

By Chris Boy, at November 07, 2010 5:34 pm
hartley's was double movement, as he clearly pumps his legs, lifts them of the ground in order to get the momentum to place the ball forward

By Luxi, at November 07, 2010 5:47 pm
I'm still thinking about a post from RD not too long ago where a lot of people, inlcuding kiwis, would blindly criticize Sonny bill ... and yet here he is (Conrad being injured) not too pretentious, aware of how much work he still has to provide... so way to go...

By jay, at November 07, 2010 5:47 pm
"hartley's was double movement, as he clearly pumps his legs, lifts them of the ground in order to get the momentum to place the ball forward"

Momentum? He didn't actually move forward. He stretched. His legs did kick, but they never moved closer to or further from the try line.

By KG, at November 07, 2010 5:58 pm
Not a lot more to be said, apart from the disgraceful rear headbutt to Lewis Moody, the slow motion showed the guy pull on Moody's shirt and dive in connecting the headbutt, all done with full knowledge, no accidental clash. For such a great team do they need to resort to that? Come on England bring home the Webb Ellis cup next year x

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 6:09 pm
Did anyone catch the un-called headbutt of AB hooker on Eng#7? In the first half. Lined him up and lowered his head when entering the ruck.
or Eng #7 (?) forearm to the head entering the ruck in second half?

England could have won this if not for their penchant of knocking on near the try line. And give some lessons to their kicker too!

The tries:
AB #1: try should count as he clearly got the ball down in goal but there was no conclusive evidence that he foot was in touch prior to grounding.

AB #2: no contest.

Eng #1: 6 one of one half a dozen of the other. but i lean towards no try for the reasons already stated by others.

Eng #2: penalty try for illegal tackle. AB hooker is ficken dirty player.(see headbutt above)

SBW played like an AB should. His offloads are unnatural.

By Stubbee, at November 07, 2010 6:16 pm
1) Sorry, that England try was a shocker -- clear offside plus a double movement.

2) Not a good day for the ref. His work at scrums, imo, was almost as bad as the Aussie game last week. WHatever happened to not blowing the whistle and letting the big fellas have a go?

3) This game got ugly in a hurry. Inexcusable headbutt from Mealamu, and then Hartley does him one better by dropping an elbow on McCaw, while McCaw was on the deck. At least Brad Thorn saw it and knocked the stuffing out of him for it.

4) Looking fairly at the ABs, Ellis is no test player, no idea why Henry holds onto him. And Joe Rock's days are behind him. SBW wasn't a standout, but he played fairly well and showed glimpses of his enormous talent.

5) Although England is definitely getting better, their attack still isn't where it needs to be. 10 mins in the AB 22 against 14 men and 0 points to show for it? I know they have injuries, but Tindall and Cueto aren't test level players anymore.

By Douglas, at November 07, 2010 6:32 pm
and what about those 2 lineouts given to nz when english player was clearly off the field when receiving the ball.

Should have been eng lineout, not nz i reckon.

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 6:49 pm
Not much to say on the AB performance. They look sharp but I really hope for them Carter will not get injured. Good start from SBW.

For a first game since the Summer Test, I found England play very encouraging, hope they can confirm on the following games.

I found the first try very dubious but overall AB deserved their win.

Mealanu probably played his last game of the year.

By Flipje, at November 07, 2010 7:05 pm
double movement means stopping short of the line, touching the ball down and without getting to your feet stretching for the line. That's what he did, no try. What on earth does pumping legs have to do with anything? Double movement is illegal for one simple reason, once you're on the ground you can't play the ball. Your momentum should take you or you need to let it go. In any case, there was an off-side and then a forward pass before they got to that point.

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 7:28 pm
Englands 2nd last attack where Hape went out was poorly executed.

The defenders just spread the ball wide and didnt move in first to take any defenders out like the All Blacks would of done.

Still - encouraging signs by England, had the AB's run ragged at times - something that many wouldnt have forseen or thought possible this time last year.

Typical England blooming before the World Cup

By BigBucks, at November 07, 2010 7:51 pm
...I don't quite understand England. The knock-on by Easter early in the game is sadly indicative of the state of English rugby: Tindall sucks in two tacklers, and somehow still manages to offload it, but Easter is not looking for an offload, so he knocks it on. In something like the Currie or ITM Cup, that wouldn't happen.

But then the second half rolls around and they start playing a more continuous, flowing game. Why not do that from the get-go? They did well for the first 5 minutes, then seemed to let off the gas for the next 30 or so, then came back...

I think Hartley's try was...acceptable. Could've gone either way, and I was a bit surprised they gave it, but it didn't look like a double movement to me. He didn't try to crawl on his knees towards the line; he just lifted his body so he could place the ball - which you're allowed to do.

How good of a captain is McCaw, though? It's been said over and over again, but it merits repeating. The guy just had Hartley try to clear out his face, asks the ref if he saw it, but when the ref still gives the penalty against NZ, he just sighs and says lets it go. Calm, cool, and collected.

By jeremiah johnson, at November 07, 2010 7:55 pm
"Double movement is illegal for one simple reason, once you're on the ground you can't play the ball."

I think Law 15.5 indicates otherwise. Both (c), (d), and (g) say the player can place the ball after being tackled to the ground, with (g) referring specifically to being tackled near the try line.

The question might be whether or not Hartley placed the ball "immediately", since he first had to lift his body up in order to place the ball out. But perhaps they gave the try because if you consider the scenario where Hartley had placed the ball backwards, he still probably would've lifted his body in the same way and then placed it back. I doubt anyone would've objected to that, so the fact that he placed it forward is irrelevant.

Either way...some questionable referee and TMO decisions throughout the match to say the least.

By who knows..., at November 07, 2010 8:05 pm
"What on earth does pumping legs have to do with anything? Double movement is illegal for one simple reason, once you're on the ground you can't play the ball. Your momentum should take you or you need to let it go. In any case, there was an off-side and then a forward pass before they got to that point."

15.5 (c) A tackled player may release the ball by putting it on the ground in any direction, provided
this is done immediately.

I'm not sure what exactly what "release" means in relation to the rugby ball, it isn't defined in the IRB law book. But:

15.5 (g) If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground
the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down.

I don't see anything about "double movement" in the rule book only this:

15.5 (f) If a tackled player’s momentum carries the player into the in-goal, the player can score a try
or make a touch down.

However, this law seems to be to allow sliding in, not to disallow stretching for the line.

I've always been quite shady on the double movement rule as I can never find anything from the IRB which defines it. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place or something.

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 8:09 pm
"The question might be whether or not Hartley placed the ball "immediately", since he first had to lift his body up in order to place the ball out. But perhaps they gave the try because if you consider the scenario where Hartley had placed the ball backwards, he still probably would've lifted his body in the same way and then placed it back. I doubt anyone would've objected to that, so the fact that he placed it forward is irrelevant."

If Hartley was deemed to not have placed the ball "immediately", then surely the tackling player would have to be penalised under 15.4 (a) has he didn't acutually release Hartley until after he had placed the ball on the try line.

15.4 (a) When a player tackles an opponent and they both go to ground, the tackler must
immediately release the tackled player.

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 8:12 pm
From my interpretation, if the tackler had actually released Hartley, and then Hartley moved forwards and placed the ball in the try area (not stretched while keeping his legs at the same point on the pitch, as he did), this would have counted as double movement. However, this is not what happened. The tackler didn't release and Hartley did not move his legs further up the pitch but reached out and grounded the ball as allowed by 15.5 (g) and so I believe it was a try, not double movement.

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 8:19 pm
^ Fair enough point, Anonymous.

By who knows..., at November 07, 2010 8:20 pm
Sorry, that was referring to the bit about Law 15.4.

By who knows..., at November 07, 2010 8:21 pm
Ashton is a mile offside isnt he?

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 8:21 pm
Go to 1.12 of the video, the moment the camera changes. Pause it. You can see quite clearly that Ashton is behind Flood when Flood kicks the ball. Not sure what the fuss is about this. I have it paused slightly after Flood kicked the ball and Ashton still hasn't passed him.

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 8:32 pm
As a neutral, what i find astonishing is to see all the english fans being happy and surprised to have lost by just 10 points. Is that really this ambition that english rugby has, to lost by 10 points against the AB's? I didn't read any comment complainig about the fact that england lost for the 7th or 8th time in a row against NZ...

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 8:53 pm
Quote: As a neutral, what i find astonishing is to see all the english fans being happy and surprised to have lost by just 10 points. Is that really this ambition that english rugby has, to lost by 10 points against the AB's? I didn't read any comment complainig about the fact that england lost for the 7th or 8th time in a row against NZ...

-----------------------

England have been terrible for the past few years. Had a real slump. And they are probably happy because they were expected to be run over by the ABs and they only lost by 10 points because they had some bad calls made against them, some match defining e.g. the disallowed try, and some not, e.g. Easter's passing from in touch being seen as him running out of play. They also appear to be redeveloping the ability to compete with the best.

This is also coming from a "neutral".

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 9:33 pm
Hopefully the fans' attitude doesn't reflect that of the English players, otherwise they'll lose for another 8 times in a row.

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 9:51 pm
^^ Ok but i've known english teams and supporters much more overproud than they are today. And that's this kind of mentality that allowed them to be world champs. A non-overproud englishman is like a dead englishman. This is my very personal french opinion though, i speak for myself.

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 9:56 pm
yes ashton was offside and yes hartly (new zealand born by the way) made a double movement and the hape (what do you know another new zealander) try could have gone either way, but calling a shoulder charge on a desperate lunge to save a try would have been absolute bullsh*t.

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 10:19 pm
hartleys try was legal. flood kicks the ball, ashton was offside but cueto who was onside from the kick ran infront of ashton (before being illegally blocked by williams), therefore making ashton onside.

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 10:22 pm
Terrible officiating in this game. Alot of people are saying it would have been closer if the refeering was better but i think the all blacks wouldve won by alot more actually.

Hard to say wether gear scored, looked to me like his foot was on the line but hartley's try was definately NOT a try. Stupid play by mealamu, now he's been cited. Hartley should also be cited for the elbow to the head of McCaw.

By Jaco, at November 07, 2010 10:30 pm
Does anyone who thinks Hartley's try should definitely not have counted care to explain why?

Hartley's actions did not break any rules in the IRB rule book and in fact, what Hartley did is specifically mentioned in the rule book as being legal. The only cause for ambiguity in the rule book is the word "immediately" used in 15.5 g. However, if Hartley was deemed to have not done so "immediately", then the tackler would have committed a penalty according to 15.4 a as the tackler would had to have let go "immediately" (word used in 15.4 a). However, the referee did not penalise either player so I guess he deemed that they both did what they did within the required time frame.

So if anyone cares to explain what rule Hartley broke to score, I'd appreciate it very much.

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 11:00 pm
If there had been a decent ref the game would have been a blow out.

AB's by +25.

SBW looked pretty good, those offloads are insane. Imagine how good this guy will be with a few more tests and a super 15 under his belt.

Also, Brad Thorn, you are a legend... I loved how he knocked that hooker to the ground with one shove. CLASSIC

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 11:05 pm
On the All Blacks website, Hosea Gear's try against England was given to Rico Gear. I wish this to be changed immediately as this is misleading.

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 11:07 pm
even the HH commentary knew it was a double movement. It always amazes me when a ref/tmo gets that sort of thing so wrong.

not to mention the 4 meter offside.

England VERY lucky to get away with a 10 point margin.

By Double Movement, at November 07, 2010 11:08 pm
Clear offside on the England try.

By Tom, at November 07, 2010 11:31 pm
The ref cut England a huge amount of slack in this game, England were not in the same class and the ref kept them in it.

By Jono, at November 07, 2010 11:32 pm
Hartley was tackled, he should have been penalised.
He should have released at that point, he did not play the ball immediatly, he went to ground, ball under him a second passed and then lifts the ball and pushes it forward from a tackled position.
He should have been penalised for not releasing.
Also the English chaser for the kick thru was about five metres offside.
Completely illegal try, should never have been allowed, terrible reffing.
And I'm neither a kiwi or an Englishman that's a compeltely nuetral opinion.

By Nuetral, at November 07, 2010 11:36 pm
Which laws did Hartley infringe? Everyone keeps saying it was illegal but his actions are specifically mentioned as legal under the IRB laws. See Law 15 of the IRB rule book and read all the rules contained within it. Hartley breaks no rules.

"15.5 (g) If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground
the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down."

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 11:51 pm
"He should have released at that point, he did not play the ball immediatly, he went to ground, ball under him a second passed and then lifts the ball and pushes it forward from a tackled position.
He should have been penalised for not releasing.
Also the English chaser for the kick thru was about five metres offside."

As I have said previously, if Hartley was deemed not to have released the ball immediately, then that would have meant that the tackler did not release immediately and so it would have been an infringement against England.

Also, Ashton was clearly not offside. Here is Flood and Ashotn just after the kick was made and Ashton is STILL BEHIND FLOOD:

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq336/bbb3dd/ssss-1.jpg

Not offside. No double movement. Clear try.

By Anonymous, at November 07, 2010 11:58 pm
Lol Ashton is number 14 numbnuts!

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 12:01 am
It's a matter of timing. A player is allowed to reach across the line to score ... but it must be "immediately". That is the only question here (ignoring the offside etc). He cannot lie on the ball for a moment or two and then place it over the line. But this is what he appeared to do and to their credit the UK commentators thought England were very lucky to get the try and I agree with them.
The Gear replay did not show conclusively that his foot had touched the ground before the try was scored and the benefit was given to the attacking side. This has been the ruling on a great many similar incidents in all countries for a long time now.
Also the desperate low dive to knock the player into the corner flag is never interpreted as a shoulder charge and rightly so. If your guy did it would you be calling for a penalty try? Like hell you would, you'd call him a hero.

By secondfive, at November 08, 2010 12:05 am
SBW got owned, especially in the 2nd half.

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 12:20 am
The problem is Hartley didn't reach out immediately. Simple call. No try.

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 12:27 am
The ref kept England in this game.

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 12:31 am
Depends on the referee's interpretation of immediately. He must have considered that Hartley did reach for the ball immediately as he didn't penalise the tackler for not releasing immediately (the tackler released Hartley after he touched the ball down).

It is an acceptable interpretation of the word immediately and he applied the same interpretation to both sides.

We all know that some referees penalise very quickly for not releasing the ball when tackled, and some penalise after a greater length of time, but as long as referees penalise both sides within the same time frames, there are no complaints. The same should apply here.

The offside call was a poor decision though.

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 12:41 am
With regards to Hartley lying on the ball, it is illegal to lie on the ball to prevent an opponent from gaining possession. Now one of the tacklers had Hartley around the legs, the other had his torso. They weren't going for the ball (even if they had gone for the ball, both were off their feet). By the time others arrived, the ball had already been placed.

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 12:49 am
Forgetting the discussions of the trys or non-trys. Was it only me or throughout all the tests at the weekend did it seem that raking seemed t return to the game more than in previous years. Is this a result in the change in the rules or just the refs?

Anyone???

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 1:21 am
The tackler DID released Hartley, but as soon as he did Hartley had a SECOND go and reached out.

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 1:27 am
The tackler did not play the ball, he simply made a tackle. Hartley was tackled, the ball trapped under his chest.
Any sane person would say that at that point he must release the ball.
If that's not illegally playing the ball from a tackled position then nothing ever is.
Hartley was lying on it for a good second or two. He then pulls it out from under him and puts it over the line.
Bullshit try.

By Bill, at November 08, 2010 2:02 am
Anonymous said...
SBW got owned, especially in the 2nd half.

Owned by who? .. the guy who's name I can't remember who was marking him when he set up that try, or generally by the team that lost?

By Devon, at November 08, 2010 2:38 am
awful finishing by england in the 74th minute, foden should have fixed reid and it woulda been a simple 2 v 1...thats the kind of thing u coach to u12's, instead foden just ships the ball straight away allowing reid to wedge across...poor finishing england

By doyler8, at November 08, 2010 2:55 am
hahahaha, thats bloody hilarious, to anon who put up the link to the pic of the offside incident. yeah the player they have marked is clearly onside however also on that picture is the english number 14 who is a good 2 meters infront of the kicker. its that 14 who is the first to the ball and it was only desperate dive by the all blacks cover defense that stopped him from picking the ball up and strolling over the line. and the hartley takes atleast 2 seconds after being tackled to score the try, thats not immediate. plus the rule saying you can promote the ball is in regards to moving your arm not your whole body which he clearly does.

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 3:14 am
That's right it was Ashton who was offside, and he was clearly a mile off.
Blatant offside, followed by a blatant double movement.
Terrible reffing to allow England's try.

By Tom, at November 08, 2010 3:30 am
The tackle of Hape was fine - used his arms, the collision was just too big too wrap properly.

The Gear try was dodgy - inconclusive, but could have gone either way.

The Hartley try was double movement. He toke too long to place it, the New Zealanders and Poms had basically already started a ruck. Compare it with the Aussie try which was disallowed for double movement.

Ashton was also 2 or 3 metres in front of the kicker on the Hartley try, so should have been a penalty before the double movement.

Not a bad game from England, they should destroy the Aussie scrum next week - can they stop the Aussies scoring tries?

By Wolfman21, at November 08, 2010 4:13 am
Nigel said...
"I'm quite concerned. Have England peaked too soon? They only lost to the New Zealanders by 10 points and there is a real danger that arrogance and complacency will set in. Coach Martin Johnson must be worried and I hope he doesn't hit the panic button. If only the referee hadn't awarded us that very doubtful try then we would have been much more obviously outclassed and I would be breathing much easier vis-a-vis our WC chances. Go England, I mean, don't go England!"

Excellent analysis Nigel. I too am worried that England have peaked too early but I'm very reassured by Johnson's post-match comments that he didn't want the English boys to "go around being satisfied" and "let's not pat ourselves on the back". I think he realises that they must perform even worse than this ninth lose in a row to the Kiwis to avoid any danger of peaking too soon.
And another point. England's defence coach Mike Ford was quite correct in saying the Tri-Nations was "not proper test rugby". The IRB should do something to stop teams like NZ coming up here and repeatedly beating us by pretending to play test rugby. The world's gone mad.

By Rodney, at November 08, 2010 4:23 am
That's right Rodney, the English shouldn't 'pat themselves on the back', after all there's alot more test matches between now and the World Cup that they need to lose to maintain their consistency.
After all, it's no shame to lose to teams that aren't even playing proper rugby. They're playing some kind of sham-rugby, succesful, points-scoring, sham-rugby.

By Tom, at November 08, 2010 4:54 am
for all the talking about English improvement and bla bla, have you guys even noticed the ABs WON, yes the actually beat you, again, for the 9th time. and while we are at it, they have also beat all the UK sides for 2 tours now.

im so glad all 3N teams won their games this weekend, and hope ABs show Scotland what their true level is. blogs like this one make me want to puke: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/johnbeattie/2010/11/can_scotland_beat_the_all_blac.html

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 4:57 am
What's up with Lewis Moody? He was involved in multiple scuffles during this match -- Mealamu, a couple with Kaino, and Nonu. Media supposedly reporting that Mealamu went after Moody after some "derogatory remarks about his family."

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 6:10 am
SBW got owned? haha sorry I must have been watching another game.

The game I watched he ran through both England centers consistently freeing his hands and set up a try and several line breaks.

Anon troll, stop trolling buddy.

By Nicko, at November 08, 2010 6:24 am
Yes - could you guys compile all the nasty stuff from the game ie the Mealeamu head butt(accidental according to Ted!!), the Hartley forearm on Richie and the Kaino-Moody handbags?

By Louren, at November 08, 2010 6:38 am
Anonymous said...
im so glad all 3N teams won their games this weekend, and hope ABs show Scotland what their true level is. blogs like this one make me want to puke. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/johnbeattie/2010/11

You're right about that blog. His total blindness to his own team's antics as he calls them, and the celebration of mediocrity in the 6N is so typical.

By Devon, at November 08, 2010 6:50 am
Shocking there's even question on the Hape try-saver.

A penalty try would have been a joke. What was Toeava supposed to do, slide along the grass on his back in an attempt to make a 'legal' wrap tackle?

The bias some people show is beyond belief. Toeva made a very genuine attempt at a legal tackle. It was mainly body contact without arms because Hape went under him(which is legal). If Hape was a few inches higher it would have been a text book legal tackle.

What do people want in that situation? I can't believe some of the blatant bias from England fans on the incident in question.

Toeava made an attempt at a legal tackle. That's all that's needed. An attempt.

By Chris, at November 08, 2010 7:49 am
I also agree with many who say the refereeing favoured England. Okay, 1 or 2 decisions did go against England, mistakes happen.

The point is this, the general ref interpretations are the only thing that made England competetive. The same happened in League over the four nations. The refs allowed a slow play the ball, which favours the inferior team(England in both codes).

In this game NZ weren't allowed quick ball. If the game was reffed to SH standards and interpretations England would have had another 20 put on them!

By Chris, at November 08, 2010 7:52 am
why has no one commented on the first try forward pass by muliaina?

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 8:49 am
TBH there is no such thing as a double movement in rugby unuion, that is a rugby league rule. thus in union its deemed playing the ball on the ground while tackled.

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 8:52 am
Hilarious stuff guys, bunch of NZ guys showing they can't win graciously.

I honestly don't see a single person bigging up England, or anything in the press saying anything other then this was an improvement in the right direction by England.

Henry even said after the game it was tougher then they expected and England are getting back to being a good team.

Regardless everyone knows they lost and never looked like winning, but the pleasure is in seeing they improved and didn't fold under pressure as they have been known to do in the last few years.

after the 5 or so seasons of constant regression we're seeing the shoots of improvement again and for that everyone is happy.

For the NZ guys complaining about the ref, surely a great team would adapt and take the game away from the ref?

No point complaining about it after the game do something during the game or have a coke and a smile and shut the fuck up after it.

But there you go.

RE: the trys? who cares, I've seen far worse decision given all the time and at the end of the day it didn't change the result.

The real question you should ALL be asking yourself is at 20 points up why wasn't Carter and Richie strangling the England come back? Pressure on, play into the corners and make England play out of their half which they aren't ever going to do.

Because NZ has a massive problem with closing out games that you've won early on, and arrogantly think you can play rugby for 80 minutes of the game, and until you learn to do that you'll always allow under par teams to come back at you like this.

Just enjoy the victory and be gracious, but get yourself a plan B and get it fast.

Well done on the win it was deserved purely because the first 20 minutes was fantastic you took the game away from England and that's why they couldn't play in the first half as they did in the second - good possesion, but if I was Henry I'd be pretty concerned over the overall performance.

By goodNumber10, at November 08, 2010 9:10 am
goodNumber10 said: "RE: the trys? who cares."

Who cares? .. maybe all those England fans complaining about Hape being pushed out in the corner for example. And now Eng are even whingeing to the press about it. And all those England fans desperately trying to make a case for the awarded try that they would have moaned about for years if it had been scored against them.

"... and arrogantly think you can play rugby for 80 minutes of the game."

Just what point are you trying to make here? Did the rest of us miss an announcement on this? Is rugby not played for 80 minutes any more? Maybe this determination to play the game out to its full and play as well as you can, what you weirdly call arrogance, is what it takes to be the #1 ranked side for months on end.

By Devon, at November 08, 2010 9:33 am
Wow, all these comments seem to have gotten worse overnight....

I was actually extremely suprised at how humble the NZ fans were and how the Eng fans had accepted the game....

lest we not forget that all the newspaper hype is exactly that....its going to sell a paper...

Also do not forget that whilst this is a big game it effectively does not mean anything...i.e. its not like eng have been knocked out of the WC because of that try/no try stuff....

I thought England showed promising stuff, (to a point) which can only be expected from the underdogs....

Lets face it, we all knew it was either going to be close(ish) or a whitewash...(or blackwash)

So hats off to NZ, it wasn't too surprising but you deserved the win....hats off to the Eng players, it wasnt that great, but judging by past games it was fantastic!

on a side note Mealamu...what were you thinking?!? if that doesnt get cited or picked up on I will be very shocked...was just stupid really...

anyone notice how headbutting seems to be the 'In' thing at the moment, last year it was gouging and now headbutting...

By (u-p)rick, at November 08, 2010 9:47 am
Hilarious stuff guys, bunch of UK guys showing they can't lose graciously

By goodNumber10 should've, at November 08, 2010 10:06 am
yeah that was a really out of character thing for mealamu to do. reports are coming out that something was said about his family but still no excuse. will more than likely end his tour because of a silly brain explosion. bit surprised hartly wasnt sited for his elbow, but thats irb inconsistency for yah.
At the least that means hika elliot will finally be able to make his debut. not at mealamus level but is a real future talent.

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 10:12 am
"Hilarious stuff guys, bunch of UK guys showing they can't lose graciously"
UK = England, Scotland, Wales and N-Ireland.. You're still in School?

Some intresting calls both ways. How was the shoulder charge on Hape not spotted, they had it in slow mo! have to laugh.
Like someone mentioned, this game isn't some WC qualifier, so no big deal.
Scrappy from both sides, but good to see Englands young side showing potential and passion.

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 11:44 am
What does that BBC muppet (the one linked to earlier) mean by this? 'Oh, and thank goodness they performed their old Haka before the England game, as the new one is an insult.'
Wtf. If anything, the new one is a compliment, which is probably why it seems like they're performing it less now, saving it for the big ones. I highly doubt they'll do it against Scotland. :)

By Scotsdale, at November 08, 2010 11:50 am
Anonymous said...
"Hilarious stuff guys, bunch of UK guys showing they can't lose graciously"
UK = England, Scotland, Wales and N-Ireland.. You're still in School?

I was very cleverly mirroring the "NZ" in the silly original post with "UK" in my reply for the sake of effect. Sorry you don't appreciate my efforts and yes I do know what UK means, and no I'm not still at school. Thank you for your attention.

By Number10should've, at November 08, 2010 11:56 am
"is what it takes to be the #1 ranked side for months on end."

being ranked number 1 counts for sod all when you haven't won a world cup in over 25 years.

and please feel free to link up all the english whinging in the press.

I guess this is completely different to the whinging all the NZ fans made over a fractionally forward pass?

Death threats to a ref anyone? lol!

And you show your class by ignoring every other point i made, NZ played well, and did what they needed to but there is being ambitious and being sensible, and when the pressure is on you need to sometimes close a game out and play the %'s.

NZ didn't do that on Saturday and let england back into it, they didn't do it against Australia and lost the test match.

The WC quarter final against France? They didn't close the game out and carried on trying to play running rugby for the full 80 minutes.

Yes that's 4 years ago but it's the same problem that lost the game in Hong Kong and the same problem that let England get a second wind when really it should have been a good 25 point difference.

By goodNumber10, at November 08, 2010 11:58 am
" was very cleverly mirroring the "NZ" in the silly original post with "UK" in my reply for the sake of effect. Sorry you don't appreciate my efforts and yes I do know what UK means, and no I'm not still at school. Thank you for your attention."

Don't lie, you messed up and showed your ignorance.

just accept it.

By goodNumber10, at November 08, 2010 11:59 am
" was very cleverly mirroring the "NZ" in the silly original post with "UK" in my reply for the sake of effect. Sorry you don't appreciate my efforts and yes I do know what UK means, and no I'm not still at school. Thank you for your attention."

Don't lie, you messed up and showed your ignorance.

just accept it.

By goodNumber10, at November 08, 2010 12:00 pm
Enough about whether the tries were valid or not; what do you guys think of the All Blacks line-up?

I think they should definitely make significant changes with the back line. First off, Sonny Bill still looked like he was playing league but I liked how he played and by the World Cup could be a valuable player. Although his style of play definitely does not fit with Nonu's. Nonu isn't exactly... Smart, to say the least, so I believe that with Sonny Bill's size and speed he could play as second five (or inside center) next to one of, what I believe, the most under rated All Blacks at the moment, Conrad Smith at outside center. They would make a great combination. Secondly, Gear had a great game and definitely a great wing but Joe... His time is up, definitely should be replaced with Cory-Jane who is just brilliant. And definitely no Sivivatu. His time is also up. Even though he can be a bit of an idiot some times, Jimmy Cowan is the best half back (scrum half) for the All Blacks. What do you guys think of this? Also, who should be Dan Carter's replacement at first five (fly half)? Cheers.

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 12:10 pm
Anonymous said...
How was the shoulder charge on Hape not spotted, they had it in slow mo! have to laugh.
Like someone mentioned, this game isn't some WC qualifier, so no big deal.

The Hape thing has already been moaned about publicly by England and has been commented on here and on other sites. There's even photos available. There's no case to answer, move on.
And I bet this game would be a "big deal" for you if England had won. Top sides regard every test match as a big deal, that's why they're top sides.

By Ferdinand, at November 08, 2010 12:11 pm
England I'm really so to have to tell you this but Tatafu Polota-Nau has landed in London so any thoughts you may have had of destroying the Wallaby scrum are now pipe dreams… it’s not like you were going to stop them scoring tries anyway.

Saying all that the Rugby world and I are over the moon with what appears to be a shift in philosophy. Welcome to modern Rugby.

By ChinUp, at November 08, 2010 12:23 pm
Pleased to see that the English improvement we saw over the summer wasn't just a flash in the pan.

I think all realistic English fans exepcted about a 20 point loss in this game,so this was a good result. Shame we didn't play the entire game in the way we did in the second half, but I guess this is their first game together since the summer, so can't be too harsh.

Easter and Ashton had great games, Lawes and Foden showed some flashes of the players they could be and the front row performed brilliantly - I think Woodcock's nightmares may be featuring Dan Cole for some time to come and the Aussie front row are probably having counselling just to get them on the pitch next week. Even the subs bench was used well, Hartley, Fourie and Care all added something

Think we can beat Australia if we can shackle Cooper. It'll be interesting though and we'll need to cut out some of the more basic errors - how pro rugby players can't draw a man and then give the pass, I will never know. 2 overlaps were butchered that way and you can't pass up those opportunities when playing against the Southern Hemisphere.

As for NZ, I think they have to be a little worried. They showed flashes of their brilliance and then badly lost the plot when England came back at them. They were lucky only to have the one yellow card (how many penalties does the front row have to give away before a card is given??)and their scrum was badly shown up.

I'm not sure how they do it, but they need to find that mental toughness to close out games. They had England entirely on the ropes in the first half but never finished them off

By Paolo, at November 08, 2010 12:23 pm
Ferdinand the anonymous was making a reference to the point i made...

I cannot describe the game in the right words....it is not a 'big deal' as such in terms of it not being a WC match of some sort...however im well aware it is not just a joyous laugh in the park....

The way i used that was with reference to moans about the try that was/wasnt scored by Eng... people are kicking up an extreme amount of fuss about it, and this is why i said although Eng wanted the win, it was not crucial to their ongoing games....

I think a lot of you are getting sucked in by trolls....put it this way the try/no try, the headbutt, the double movement, they are all 'TALKING POINTS!' you can talk about them, raise issues and opinions...it doesnt make you a troll...and it doesnt mean you are focussing on the 'WRONG' bit....

By (u-p)rick, at November 08, 2010 1:22 pm
Wow I wanted to see the kiwis lose as much as the next person but God that decision on the Hartley try was a shocker made worse coming from a TMO
It would have been great for rugby to see England snatch it but for Gods sake cite that ref and TMO

By SharkAttack, at November 08, 2010 2:28 pm
@goodNumber10: No class?.. you'll hurt my feelings.
Look, I get your point, it doesn't always work out but I reckon the ABs' attitude of trying to play creative entertaining rugby for a whole game has won them far more matches than lost them. I'll take that any day.
I'm lucky that the team I support plays with adventure and style, to me that's what sport's about. If the ABs don't win in NZ I hope the French take it off brilliantly.
And "being #1 counts for sod all", I know you don't mean it. You'd be delighted if your guys could manage it a bit more often. Of course a couple more World Cups would be nice but when the WC becomes the only single thing that matters in rugby then the game's in trouble. If you're a real fan I hope we might even agree on that.

By Devon, at November 08, 2010 2:35 pm
Mealamu has been cited....he denies intent....cant believe it was accidental..

Very silly stuff from him!

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 2:48 pm
a shame for mealamu because he is a great player (that being said by an England fan). Hartley should also be cited - the nasty niggle is undermining the successful "mongrel" in his game..

Well done the All Blacks for another win over us. I am pleased England were a bit better too. Personally as a rugby player that believes in sportsmanship and being respectful - I feel it is possible to be positive about both sides involved. As for all the NH and SH trolls I find your attitude a bit sad. As for the All Blacks - I am glad there were a few weaknesses that England managed to exploit and meant the game was not a run away loss (although why on earth people think the try saving tackle on Hape was bad I do not know)

I think it is good for rugby all over the world if the Autumn tests are close. England is a very large (population wise) rugby playing nation and better play by us contributes to the game remaining healthy not just in SH but in the NH (not to discount the mighty Ireland, Wales and Scotland at all)...

As a result to the wag who said "can't wait for the All Blacks to show Scotland their true level", get a grip you sad individual. Scotland have some talented young players and a good back-row. I am gutted you and other bigots are capable of reducing sensible discussion to a p*ssing contest. Where do you think surnames like McGaw, Cowan, Cruden come from originally you myopic, one-eyed, self-satisfied arrogant pr*ck!

Anyhow rant over, AB's look good for the world-cup but I have a sneaky feeling OZ are going to win it (if they can just sort out their scrummaging).

By NiWiTa, at November 08, 2010 4:48 pm
lol at all the kiwis saying the ref kept England in the game...

when you have a dodgy try for the ABs, a missed penalty try at the end, a lack of yellows for NZ props getting bitched all day in the scrum...

not saying England were the better team, but there's no way the ABs were worth anything more than a 10 point margin considering they were only on top for about 20 minutes in the first half.

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 5:06 pm
I recognize that Easter had a pretty good game, but I think England should keep looking for a number 8 with some speed as well. Not taking anything from how Easter played, it did seem that he was a bit of a sluggish runner, is all I'm saying. Great in defense though...

By pop, at November 08, 2010 6:12 pm
Well Pop, I think Easter has a little more to give - his form on Sat was great - fierce in defense, the only forward to consistently break the gain line and always looking for the clever pass to set someone else free. If we could just graft some speed onto his passion and rugby brain, we'd have the best 8 in the world

There's no doubt that England need to find a successor to Easter though.

But what are the options?

Haskell? Could have been good, but no brain for rugby and an inability to see past his own image in the mirror

Crane? He's Easter a few years back

The options in my view are Guest at Harlequins and Dowson at Northampton. Guest for the longer term - he's smart, fast and tough

Just need someone to give them some international game time now

By Paolo, at November 08, 2010 7:21 pm
England and NZ clearly have no love for each other. This game got nasty, as did the 4 yellow card affair in 2008.

Also, and I say this as a non-Kiwi -- the cheap shots on McCaw have got to stop. Cooper last week, Hartley this week. Respect him or not, it's a low class move, and I actually respect him more for how he's handled them.

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 7:45 pm
i cant believe no one talks about the forward pass for nz first try by the no.6. lol

By Anonymous, at November 08, 2010 10:18 pm
NiWiTa said...
"a shame for mealamu because he is a great player (that being said by an England fan). Hartley should also be cited - the nasty niggle is undermining the successful "mongrel" in his game."

I agree on both counts Niwita. But whatever the story is behind the Mealamu incident he must wear whatever the penalty is.

"As a result to the wag who said "can't wait for the All Blacks to show Scotland their true level", get a grip you sad individual."

To be fair, I think the poster meant that the ABs would show that their game against England was not at their true level of quality, rather than being a slight on the Scottish race. That's speaking as an NZer with plenty of Scots' blood in him.

By secondfive, at November 08, 2010 11:19 pm
Where was the dodgy try for the AB's? Gear had planted the ball before his foot hit the ground, pretty clearly in slowmo!

Face it, England only scored because of poor reffing.

By The Truth, at November 09, 2010 1:15 am
if you look closely at the replays, when moody first comes flying into the ruck he connects with mealamu's head. looks accidental to me but im thinking that's what caused mealamu's "brain snap". Oh and the first try for new zealand wasn't a forward pass, its just momentum, if a player is moving at a sprint even if the ball comes out of his hands backwards momentum will carry the ball forward.

By Anonymous, at November 09, 2010 2:06 am
Goodnumber10 is missing the point.
The ref allowed stuffat the breakdown that the IRB has intentionally tried to remove from the game.
The game was slow and turgid, just the way England likes it (the only way they can play, slwly and without any emphasis on skill).
When Goodnumber10 accused NZ of arrogance for trying to play rugby for 80 minutes it summed it up.
England favour anti-rugby, they don't even want to play it for the full 80 minutes.
Disgusting.

By Tom, at November 09, 2010 3:24 am
yes Tom you're right the ref did let lots of stuff go at the breakdown.

He missed stuff such as the AB's not releasing the player after the tackle, laying on the wrong side, sealing off the ball by going to ground, players standing past the ball in the ruck, lazy running on England's quick ball and so on and so on...

But actually you are the one missing the point, it's about being sensible and in a tight game sometimes you need to take the wind out an oppositions sails.

Because at the end of the day it's got to be about winning.

If you are under pressure and still trying to chuck the ball about it's admirable but ultimately futile and nearly cost NZ the game, and shows a huge lack of respect for your opposition.

There is nothing negative about it, it's called game management, if you want to see the ball being chucked about for a full 80 i suggest you watch rugby league - but then we all saw how that worked out for you on saturday.

By goodNumber10, at November 09, 2010 8:58 am
oh my goodness, wot a load of crocks here.

it was a dull game between two below par teams.

By Anonymous, at November 09, 2010 10:08 am
100

By Anonymous, at November 09, 2010 10:41 am
went to see this game live. It was alright. NZ should have closed it out better but it was England at Twickenham - you'd expect them to come back into it wouldnt you?

SBW looked quality.

anyone see the bbc interview sam whitelock and call him Chris?!?!?!

idiots.

By felix, at November 09, 2010 2:06 pm
SBW what a legend... Made England midfield looks very average, subdued game my arse.

A couple of errors maybe but his 2nd half only seemed quiet due to the limited good ball the backs got.

By Anonymous, at November 11, 2010 3:54 am
i watched this game again in the last 10mins of the match when England had the all blacks pinned back and pressing hard for a try at almost every ruck there was a New Zealand player trying to slow down the play by lying off side or hands in .The ref was standing 5 yards away and did noting . I've never payed much notice to people when they say New Zealand get away with a lot but i would have to say it looked like 1 rule for New Zealand and another for England in this match

By westman, at November 12, 2010 7:31 pm
i watched this game again in the last 10mins of the match when England had the all blacks pinned back and pressing hard for a try at almost every ruck there was a New Zealand player trying to slow down the play by lying off side or hands in .The ref was standing 5 yards away and did noting . I've never payed much notice to people when they say New Zealand get away with a lot but i would have to say it looked like 1 rule for New Zealand and another for England in this match

By westman, at November 12, 2010 7:32 pm