That’s the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard.

Yeah, let’s have the referee on the day make up a completely new game with laws invented as he goes along and the point is to see who can figure out the rules first.

Just nonsense.

The laws are clear. The referees need to learn and apply them, and not let their egos get out of check because they’ve got a whistle.

What would a scot know about rugby? Your only decent player is a kiwi and you once imported a coach from England for goodness sake.

When BoD dies, they will stuff him, name him in the Ireland squad. It will be the job of the 12 and 14 to carry him out after the anthems and stand him in the back line. That is how undroppable he is. Despite, as you, the fact that he’s never done anything on the big stages, and in fact the Lions had to drop him in order to win the series.

It’s not “wrong as far as Jerry is concerned” it would’ve been wrong as far as the laws are concerned, as pointed out to you many times.

Yes, he could have asked a different question, but he would have been wrong in doing so.

It seems the only reason you can construct for why he might have asked an incorrect question, is that it would have suited England and hence suited you. I know that the overwhelming trend at the moment seems to be for referees to ignore the actual laws, and do something convenient for England (move the touch line, ignore obstruction, allow sealing off at the ruck…) but on this occassion, thankfully, CJ did the correct, lawful thing.

The point is, he applied two different “interpretations” to the two teams. In doing so he flagrantly allowed England to flout the laws.

If his intention was to make the game flow, then he should have prevented England from killing the contest at the ruck. That would have allowed NZ either the opportunity to evoke the turn overs they are so adept at, or provided them with the penalties they deserved for England’s illegal play.

I’m sorry, the laws are clear. The problem is with Joubert, because he ignored them.

Besides the “try” was scored largely due to obstruction from Robshaw. If you’re going to point to a mistake by referee and fourth official then surely that takes the cake.

I also don’t like this trend to call in the TMO and then have the referee tell him what to say. It’s happened twice in two home England games. (There’s that trend again)

NZ will happily go to London every year simply because NZ in no way fears England or sees them as a threat.

The very same reason why England will never quite commit to sending a full strength team to NZ. The ready-rolled excuse of “development” is too easy a straw for the management team to grasp at before the tour even kicks off.

Personally I’m more worried about how the NZRU managed to give away the first Bledisloe Cup test to Sydney for the next decade. Surely it can’t be that the All Blacks don’t fear the Wallabies as well?

England will never produce a number 8 with the skill of Read because they obsessed with rolly-polly lard boys who can “break the gain line”. Like the original over-analyst Clive Woodward, Stuart “slide-rule” Lancaster sees the game as a mass of statistics. To him having a Billy Vunipola and a Ben Morgan who weigh more than a truck load of McDonald’s burger patties and have a similar fat to muscle content will always be shoe-horned into the team ahead of any one displaying genuine athleticism, because for 40-50 minutes they can “come around the corner” and “smash into the mid-field”. Then he can encourage the rest of his forward pack to dive into the ruck and free the ball. However what to do then, is a question which seems to have eluded the finest English rugby minds since the dawn of time. Wait for the backs to knock on and form a scrum, seems to be the best solution they can muster.

If Read was English, he’d be playing in the second row, in a second division side.

Oh – and Launchbury’s try? Obstruction by Robshaw (who had already detached early from the scrum), whether he touched it and became off-side to complete the hat-trick of illegalities is really irrelevant.

All reminds me of that lap of honour in Manchester when England won a famous moral victory in not losing too badly. (Sigh). Only England can talk up a loss quite so vigorously.

I see they’re collectively making their excuses already for next years tour. I guess they won’t be able to rely on the *interesting* refereeing we’ve seen at Twickenham. So no point in sending down their new legion of rolly-polly forwards to flop all over the ball for 80 minutes…

Stuart Lancaster insisted prior to the match that England were “ahead of schedule” to achieve his stated goal of becoming the #2 side in the world before the end of the year. I said at the time that brining up schedules was a brave or foolish move.

Now unless South Africa have a disasterous run to the end of the year, it’s looking likely England will slip back to fourth. WELL “behind schedule”

It’s nice to see Lancaster falling back into the defeated rhetoric that defines England’s usual place in the world as perennial under-achievers and squanderers of their vast resources. Yep, talking about “lesson’s learned” and “earning respect” and “taking the positives”.

All like music to my ears. He may as well come out and say it: “We Poms Have Been Put Back In Our Box. Normality Has Resumed”.

It’s an interesting phenomenon, the length of “injury time” that referees used to play before things were tightened up with the official game clock and hooter.

I remember Jonathan Kaplan playing about 25 minutes of extra time in a Bledisloe Cup clash and finally deciding time was up just as John Eales put Australia in the lead with that wide angled penalty kick.

Was it such a great performance though? Or is there a sense of hyperbole here?

After all England blew a 15-0 half time lead in just over 5 minutes. were gifted two tries and despite overwhelming territory and possesion advantage managed only to match the try count at 3 each.

England should be worried about their inability to convert clean ball into tries. They won’t always be able to rely on a hand up from the referee as they had in this game for dozens of ruck penalties.

South Africa are a similar pickle. They lack creativity and struggle to score tries.

More than anything NZ will be pondering their defense that leaked 3 tries against Scotland, 3 against England and one apiece to Italy and Wales. 8 tries. Not so long ago NZ prided themselves on not conceding any tries at all on the NH tour. Definitely a “work on” for them, especially in the propensity to yield intercepts.

Andy Farrell must have pictures of someone in the RFU playing naked golf with Satan.

Presumably his inclusion means that his son Owen will be bolted on to start at 10 since they seem to go everywhere together. That in itself will give Australia a boost.

Clive Woodward is a disgrace and a WUM and has frankly never quite recovered from his 04/05 shamings. The fact that it has taken him almost a decade to show his face in public near a rugby match is testament to that.

Firstly, the 80k+ who show up to Twickenham aren’t rugby fans. As George Orwell said “‘A bomb under the West car park at Twickenham on an international day would end fascism in England for a generation”. These guys show up for a chance to wave the St George’s cross, below the national anthem and then back to the Range before the scones get cold.

The folks on the street who’ve never watched a game but buy the Telegraph and gawf loudly at the lot of the colonies in having been ‘taught a lesson’ by Mother England’ aren’t rugby fans either even if they are part of the supposed 1.6 million registered rugby players in England, having put their names down on a school list when they were 8.

It’s this legion of bobbing headed numpties that I pitch my historical warning of this post at. If you get it already, there’s no reason to read it, or post. So if you’ve got nothing to add but a bad attitude then I suggest you don’t let the door hit you on the Plurar R on the way out.

Did your mother let you drink too much sugary cordial? Or is it just past your bedtime?

Or, were made to look Brilliant. For example they looked good against Fiji too, but not so good Against Australia and SA. It depends on the opposition on the day and how much energy and enthusiasm they have. Small margins can be leveraged into wide chasms at this level if one side is under the weather. Having said that it was 3 tries each wasn’t it? With the better missed chances going NZ’s way, so perhaps it was a misconception based on the ensuing hysteria and a lot of Clancy’s penalties?

I just can’t understand why England fans have such a bad reputation as a bunch of arrogant fair-weather followers when I see such elloquent and lucid points as yours being made Jorceylin.

You are Missing the point, perhaps, rather than the article being pointless.

Before what?

That’s it Katzilla. When all else fails, we can always rely on denial.

“England’s rugby players awoke to headlines of “The Incredibles” and “World Beaters” on Sunday”

As a comment on the weakness for hysterical twaddle in rugby journalism in England then you make some valid points.

The Lions however, will play Australia, and not NZ. Last time I looked Australia had beaten Wales numerous times on the trot, and knocked off England at home too.

Two words: RUCK MONKEY.

England were allowed to compete for the ball in unsupported body positions, and it was this advantage that they leveraged to win the breakdown and the game.

Check the difference between Clancy’s rulings and Barnes’ in the AUS v WAL match.

Add to that they bizarre “team warning” when Read leapt to compete for the restart, and the subsequent AB reaction of not bothering to compete for the restart and you have to wonder how much of the win was handed to England on a plate.

NZ were naive and foolish in continuing to under-commit to a messy rucks. But they lost composure in chasing the game and having fought back to 14-15 the time had arrived for game management and slowing the pace, but they upped the ante and found their legs weren’t following where their minds were going.

In the short term, the solution is to congratulate England on a fine victory and take a well earned vacation having secured the #1 spot, RWC, inaugural RC undefeated and a fine run of post RWC victories (second best in history? behind another AB team?)

The second thing is to reflect on the “high tempo” thing and whether there’s a time to slow things down and take the sting out of an opposition who have their tails up…

I think he’s referring to the Noro Virus when he says “weakened”.

I don’t believe that personally. The game was won and lost at the breakdown. I believe NZ suffered here on two fronts. First, they’ve been susceptible in the tight all season and suffered when the opposition floods the area and then probes around the fringe relentlessly. Secondly, England were allowed to compete for the ball at the ruck in un-supported body positions. Check the difference between Clancy’s rulings on ENG v NZ and Barnes’ calling of Wales v Aus. Barnes was pinging players as soon as a knee touched the turf. Clancy was allowing full bridging and the “ruck monkey”. NZ didn’t like it and Aaron Smith spent his 65 minutes with hands raised appealing to Clancy to penalise. But Clancy was not forthcoming…in fact he didn’t whistle for an Englishman off his feet at ruck time until 78 minutes had elapsed. Then he could suddenly see ALL of them, and 30 seconds later a yellow card was issued. Suddenly, quick ball flowed and NZ looked themselves for a brief spell.

It’s all about the breakdown. Don’t get me wrong I’m not complaining, NZ were naive to not adapt, as they had seen similar adjudication during the first half of the final NZ v SA RC match, but had apparently not learned.

Add to that the restart where Clancy bizarrely pinged Read for competing and then watch the subsequent restarts as NZ are too frightened to compete for the ball and risk a yellow from the tetchy, and apparently anti-All Black referee.

What poo.

England’s victory over NZ was fashioned at the breakdown. Where George Clancy allowed England to compete in unsupported body positions in the style of 2008/9. Fair due to England, they made the most of being able to muck-up AB ball and win turn overs, however unjustly.

Aaron Smith needed a kick up the bum for spending 65 minutes appealing to the unflinching Clancy rather than just clearing the ball out.

And NZ collectively needed a kick up the bum for not committing more players to the ruck. This was a return of the deficiencies shown in Ireland #2 and Bledisloe #3. Reminiscent of NZ’s inability to repel the Welsh 13 man lineout. NZ *need* to find a solution to a team willing to commit more players to a phase than they deem should be necessary.

I’m sad to say that like the captain of the titanic, everything that Richie McCaw believed was wrong. But keeping calm and trusting their systems, NZ were sleep-walking into the catastrophe that ensued. They lacked the ability to think outside the box and realise they were playing a game in that uncomfortable era of 2008/9 when NZ were vulnerable, and they needed to think of a solution on their feet, before their legs went on them.

Owen Farrell was what he always is, a pawn in a bigger game. He kicked some nice goals. But his impact on the game was nothing in comparison to the England pack who were sublime. I believe illegally sublime, in that I don’t recall any of them entering a ruck legally, or staying on their feet let alone supporting their own body weight. But you have to play the referee, even if he’s apparently had a stroke and forgotten the law interpretation directions of the IRB for the last 5 years.