Australian coach Ewen McKenzie was left thinking of what might have been, after two controversial tries sparked England into coming from behind to beat the Wallabies 20-13 at Twickenham on Saturday.
rugby365
England were 6-13 behind early in the second half when fullback Mike Brown, from just in front of his own line, launched a counter-attack that led to a converted try for England captain Chris Robshaw in the 50th minute.
Video replays showed the fullback had his foot on the touchline.
Seven minutes later, England crossed Australia’s try-line again when flyhalf Owen Farrell, who missed three first-half penalties, surprised the tourists by exploiting a gap between Wallaby captain Ben Mowen and hooker Stephen Moore.
The television match official checked for a possible obstruction by England replacement hooker Dylan Hartley on Moore before the try was awarded by Irish referee George Clancy.
England prevented an Australia side who’d posted 33 points, albeit conceding 41 in defeat by world champions New Zealand in Dunedin in October, from scoring at all in the second half.
McKenzie, reflecting on England’s first try, said: “Obviously, it was flashed up on the big screen.
“That was a 90-metre turnaround and there’s seven points at the end of it.
“Theoretically, we should have been having a line-out five metres out [from England’s line].
“You rely on these things, but in the end we will just look at the opportunities we had and the mistakes we made.
“The second one [England try] had the benefit of the TMO looking at it without the pressure of the moment.
“We can debate those things, it’s like forward passes, there were a bunch of those too. We can debate those things until you are blue in the face.
“It’s not going to change the outcome,” former Wallaby prop McKenzie, a member of the Australia side that beat England in the 1991 World Cup final at Twickenham, added.
An increased intensity from Stuart Lancaster’s side proved too much for the visitors, and McKenzie was disappointed that they could not handle the pressure.
“We didn’t handle the second half as well as we would have liked. England squeezed us a bit at crucial moments and were able to manage the game,” McKenzie said.
“I thought we did pretty well in the first half. We fought a 7-1 penalty count against us at the 35-minute mark, yet we led at half-time.”
The Wallabies will be concerned about flank Scott Fardy, who was stretchered off the field with a bad knock.
McKenzie said Fardy was standing up in the dressing room after the match and did not appear to be badly hurt.
He will be subject to follow-up testing in coming days.
McKenzie has a valid point on both tries… and the calls by the match officials were diabolical!
Putting myself in Aussie shoes… eish… we as South Africans would have been absolutely livid (like we saw happen when Bismarck du Plessis got those wrong calls in New Zealand).
The match Officials have a huge amount to answer for in the 2013 season… it has been a shocking season for incorrect calls, all over… Super Rugby, June Internationals, Currie Cup, The Rugby Championship and now at the End Of Year Tours.
That said, England was the strongest side in both halves, wayward kicking by Farrell keeping them pegged in the 1st half.
Overall, the match was not of good quality… and both England and the Wallabies would have to show a dramatic improvement from hereon in on the End Of Year Tours.
@ GBS:
I have to agree. The officials have been a disgrace to rugby this year.
I feel that they have given these guys too much power. And most of these guys try to catch the spotlight ahead of rugby.
If this is a sign of things to come, then officials will kill rugby within two years.
@ grootblousmile:
The second Pommie try reminded me of the Sharks vs Lions game. I think it was Stokkies that scored, but the try was disallowed by theTMO, because he felt that CJ had obstructed a Sharks player. At the time I said that in another game and different officials, the try would have been allowed. The problem is that the laws of rugby are so open to interpretation. The reason for awarding this try was that the England player’s obstruction was not so great. Maybe a better reason was that the England player had held his line.
The first try was a shocker, but to be fair to the touch judge and ref, they had to judge the action at full speed, and from a distance. But, on the flip side, the commentators picked the infringement up from their position in the commentary box. So there they should have made use of the TMO.
But it seems as if the officials are not up to speed on the rules (and they def know more than me), and therefore we have these shocking decisions. However, on the balance of play, I think England deserved the win in the end.
Very interesting article by Sir Clive Woodward in the dailymail.co.uk today. With special reference to that first try. Brown did have white stripes across his boots – I wonder if it really did make a difference, but the article does highlight how much a coach needs to take into consideration!!!
‘If I were England coach I would not allow my players to wear fluorescent boots. This is not an issue with players appearing ‘flashy’, which they do, but this is a rugby decision.
I understand players have important sponsorship deals and the latest trend is high-visibility, multi-coloured boots. You can still have your logo but I want players in black boots for a simple reason.
If you are the referee and you are looking up at a line of defenders who are creeping forward on the offside line by a matter of inches, then a luminous boot is far more likely to catch your eye.
Most penalties in rugby are given for offside — why give the referee an excuse to penalise you? It comes down to those marginal gains, those one per centers as we called them, that make the difference.
Compared with England’s dazzling white strip, New Zealand’s all-black kit can already offer a small advantage when a referee is peering into the darkness of the bottom of the ruck. So why give yourself a further disadvantage out in the line, too?
The only exception to the black-boot rule is the back three — I want them in white boots. Mike Brown was wearing blue boots but, significantly, they had white detail across the toe caps and I wonder if that is why the touch judge did not spot he was in touch before his run?
Wingers and full back might get an edge by wearing white boots as they frequently brush the touchline — but the rest should be in black.’
@ Just For Kicks:
i have been away for a while and i missed all discussions of the Springbok squad, what was the feeling about the inclusion of Schrueder the WP no who played his worst game to be rewarded by HM?
@ superBul:How are you feeling, Supers, I hear you’re up and down those steps like a 20 year old!!
Consensus seems to be the Schreuder is indeed a strange choice, what, with McLeod and Kockott in the wings. Loads of debate over that issue, Scarra doesn’t get away unscathed either, but doubt he will get any game time.
@ Just For Kicks:
In planning, but for now the steps are taken like a 90 year old man.
But it looks alright, no concerns yet
Just a long road ahead
Welcome back, Super, pray you have a speedy recovery from your surgery.
Users Online
Total 59 users including 0 member, 59 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,488,633 Page Impressions
_