England - the third round

[Graigwen]

Any thoughts on JD2 at 12? He seemed quietly effective from what I remember; not sure this is a long term solution and we really should be giving Jonny Williams game time.

I would welcome views on this as well.

He usually seemed to be in the right place doing the right things in an unspectacular way.

.

[Sandydragon]

Any thoughts on JD2 at 12? He seemed quietly effective from what I remember; not sure this is a long term solution and we really should be giving Jonny Williams game time.

I would welcome views on this as well.

He usually seemed to be in the right place doing the right things in an unspectacular way.

.

The Fail gave him a rating of 5, our worst player.

That seems harsh. He did nothing wrong, although our wide players seemed to get the ball earlier with Sheedy and Halaholo at 10 and 12.

I still don’t think he is back up to pace and Jonny Williams is in better form, but as part of a unit with North still finding his feet at OC and up against big ball carriers and an expected English onslaught I understand why Privac went for his experience.

[Mikey Brown]

The media seem to be largely blaming the ref.

I mean they’re making a massive deal about the controversial moments, I hope that doesn’t suggest anyone who knows what they’re talking about thinks we deserved to win that more than you.

I do think many of the refs calls were bollocks, but that becomes meaningless when we drew level. Similar to the Scotland game to be honest. Both teams had the opportunity and only 1 team took it.

Still on course for the most devalued slam in history though

[Sandydragon]

The media seem to be largely blaming the ref.

I mean they’re making a massive deal about the controversial moments, I hope that doesn’t suggest anyone who knows what they’re talking about thinks we deserved to win that more than you.

I do think many of the refs calls were bollocks, but that becomes meaningless when we drew level. Similar to the Scotland game to be honest. Both teams had the opportunity and only 1 team took it.

Still on course for the most devalued slam in history though

I think most of us would agree that the calls were very marginal and there would have been howls of protest if those tries hadn’t been given. But then we have been on the wrong end of refereeing calls and as you write, England were back level and seemed more in contract at 24 all before a raft of boneheaded penalties took the game away from them.

Eddie needs to have a look at his tactics as whilst some of your key players are missing match sharpness, his highly aggressive tactics are contributing to the penalty count in my opinion.

[Numbers]

I would be furious if the first try was allowed against Wales. I would feel hard done by with the second.

I wouldn’t be furious if our dozy backs switched off expecting a penalty shot at goal, took an unofficial water break and then the opposition scored a very smart try.

They had 22 seconds to get themselves sorted and three English players had strung out on the blind side but only two, including Ford, were ambling back into the line on the open side still quite close to the posts. They had their backs to the penalty taker and the ref raised his arm, said time on and then blew his whistle to restart the game.

it was a quick piece of thinking by Biggar and Adams - probably preplanned.

England, especially Daly, switched off again for Hardy’s tap penalty and try. You could argue that many of the English weren’t up to speed for international rugby having played so little hard and competitive games.

Our second try was a thing of beauty! LRZ knocked the ball down onto his leg, it then went backwards and the sliding Slade hit it forward with his knee before it hit the ground. No knock on and a great opportunistic try for Williams. The on-field decision was try, The assistant ref said try and then that was confirmed by the TMO.

We rode our luck and came away with a winning bonus point. Celebrate a remarkable victory.

Agree about Biggar and Adams. However, I think they're justified in feeling miffed with the ref. He asked Farrell to talk to his players, which is why they were not properly set. He didn't give him sufficient time in my view.

How long does it take to say we're on a yellow card warning to a team of players in an empty stadium? It certainly doesn't require a huddle...

[Numbers]

Any thoughts on JD2 at 12? He seemed quietly effective from what I remember; not sure this is a long term solution and we really should be giving Jonny Williams game time.

I would welcome views on this as well.

He usually seemed to be in the right place doing the right things in an unspectacular way.

.

The Fail gave him a rating of 5, our worst player.

That seems harsh. He did nothing wrong, although our wide players seemed to get the ball earlier with Sheedy and Halaholo at 10 and 12.

I still don’t think he is back up to pace and Jonny Williams is in better form, but as part of a unit with North still finding his feet at OC and up against big ball carriers and an expected English onslaught I understand why Privac went for his experience.

There's a fair chance they are using him at 12 to help North with his defensive positioning as JD2 is an excellent defender of the 13 channel.

[Numbers]

I'm not sure how the 2nd try was allowed however, if you knock the ball forward I was always taught you had to regain control of the ball for it not to be a knock on, I don't know if that law has changed but if it has it's for the worse.

England killed themselves with penalties, just as they did against Scotland.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Any thoughts on JD2 at 12? He seemed quietly effective from what I remember; not sure this is a long term solution and we really should be giving Jonny Williams game time.

I would welcome views on this as well.

He usually seemed to be in the right place doing the right things in an unspectacular way.

I hardly noticed him. His ESPN stats back this up:
JD2 (replaced at 49 mins): runs: 4; metres run: 1; tackles: 3 (0 missed)

North: runs: 10; metres run: 28; tackles: 9 (1 missed)

Halaholo: runs: 2; metres run: 4; tackles: 4 (0 missed)

While he's no liability, he's not up to speed. We should start Halaholo or Johnny Williams, with the one who doesn't start on the bench. JD2 can get back to speed for the Scarlets.

[Sandydragon]

Any thoughts on JD2 at 12? He seemed quietly effective from what I remember; not sure this is a long term solution and we really should be giving Jonny Williams game time.

I would welcome views on this as well.

He usually seemed to be in the right place doing the right things in an unspectacular way.

I hardly noticed him. His ESPN stats back this up:
JD2 (replaced at 49 mins): runs: 4; metres run: 1; tackles: 3 (0 missed)

North: runs: 10; metres run: 28; tackles: 9 (1 missed)

Halaholo: runs: 2; metres run: 4; tackles: 4 (0 missed)

While he's no liability, he's not up to speed. We should start Halaholo or Johnny Williams, with the one who doesn't start on the bench. JD2 can get back to speed for the Scarlets.

Aside from leadership, which is an assumption rather than something I can prove, I didn’t think he did that much. Nothing wrong but equally when the rest of our back line had plenty of positive moments he seemed the least productive.

I wonder if it’s best to keep him for the Italy match and let him get his form back or to revert to Jonny Williams?

[Son of Mathonwy]

I wouldn’t be furious if our dozy backs switched off expecting a penalty shot at goal, took an unofficial water break and then the opposition scored a very smart try.

They had 22 seconds to get themselves sorted and three English players had strung out on the blind side but only two, including Ford, were ambling back into the line on the open side still quite close to the posts. They had their backs to the penalty taker and the ref raised his arm, said time on and then blew his whistle to restart the game.

it was a quick piece of thinking by Biggar and Adams - probably preplanned.

England, especially Daly, switched off again for Hardy’s tap penalty and try. You could argue that many of the English weren’t up to speed for international rugby having played so little hard and competitive games.

Our second try was a thing of beauty! LRZ knocked the ball down onto his leg, it then went backwards and the sliding Slade hit it forward with his knee before it hit the ground. No knock on and a great opportunistic try for Williams. The on-field decision was try, The assistant ref said try and then that was confirmed by the TMO.

We rode our luck and came away with a winning bonus point. Celebrate a remarkable victory.

Agree about Biggar and Adams. However, I think they're justified in feeling miffed with the ref. He asked Farrell to talk to his players, which is why they were not properly set. He didn't give him sufficient time in my view.

How long does it take to say we're on a yellow card warning to a team of players in an empty stadium? It certainly doesn't require a huddle...

It really doesn't need a huddle at all. What do the players think the ref was telling Farrell? It's totally obvious if the ref has a word with the captain after a few penalties that the players need to tighten up discipline.

However I do think this kind of situation isn't fair. The refs need to be clear about when play is happening and when it isn't, and not make conflicting demands.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I just looked at the knock-on in rugby union law 11:

Knock-on
A knock-­on may occur anywhere in the playing area.
It is a knock-on when a player, in tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent, makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward. Sanction: Scrum (if the ball goes into touch, the non-offending team may opt instead for a quick-throw or lineout).

A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.
It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.

The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if:
A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (charge down).
A player rips or knocks the ball from an opponent and the ball goes forward from the opponent’s hand or arm.

I'm sure this has changed since I looked at it a few years ago. I seem to recall that for a knock-on to occur, the ball needed to hit another player or the ground. But there's no mention of this.

In fact, according to the law, a k-o only occurs when a player tackles or attempts to tackle an opponent.

Seriously, who writes this rubbish? The definition clearly isn't what everyone understands (even vaguely) to be a k-o. And "forward" is not defined.

The laws for Tag Rugby are better (and I think this is what used to be said in the standard laws) viz:

12.1
A knock-on occurs when a player loses ball possession, or contacts the ball with a hand or arm, and the ball goes forward to touch the ground or another player before this player gains, or regains, possession. Forward means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

[Sandydragon]

Agree about Biggar and Adams. However, I think they're justified in feeling miffed with the ref. He asked Farrell to talk to his players, which is why they were not properly set. He didn't give him sufficient time in my view.

How long does it take to say we're on a yellow card warning to a team of players in an empty stadium? It certainly doesn't require a huddle...

It really doesn't need a huddle at all. What do the players think the ref was telling Farrell? It's totally obvious if the ref has a word with the captain after a few penalties that the players need to tighten up discipline.

However I do think this kind of situation isn't fair. The refs need to be clear about when play is happening and when it isn't, and not make conflicting demands.

Probably the ref should have shouted a hurry up before blowing the whistle to restart the game.

[Sandydragon]

I just looked at the knock-on in rugby union law 11:

Knock-on
A knock-­on may occur anywhere in the playing area.
It is a knock-on when a player, in tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent, makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward. Sanction: Scrum (if the ball goes into touch, the non-offending team may opt instead for a quick-throw or lineout).

A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.
It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.

The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if:
A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (charge down).
A player rips or knocks the ball from an opponent and the ball goes forward from the opponent’s hand or arm.

I'm sure this has changed since I looked at it a few years ago. I seem to recall that for a knock-on to occur, the ball needed to hit another player or the ground. But there's no mention of this.

In fact, according to the law, a k-o only occurs when a player tackles or attempts to tackle an opponent.

Seriously, who writes this rubbish? The definition clearly isn't what everyone understands (even vaguely) to be a k-o. And "forward" is not defined.

The laws for Tag Rugby are better (and I think this is what used to be said in the standard laws) viz:

12.1
A knock-on occurs when a player loses ball possession, or contacts the ball with a hand or arm, and the ball goes forward to touch the ground or another player before this player gains, or regains, possession. Forward means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

Technically most kicks from hand whilst running would could as knock ons as the ball does travel forward. If LRZ had more control over the ball and had batted it backwards, for the English defender to then deflect forward it would be less contentious.

[Digby]

I just looked at the knock-on in rugby union law 11:

Knock-on
A knock-­on may occur anywhere in the playing area.
It is a knock-on when a player, in tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent, makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward. Sanction: Scrum (if the ball goes into touch, the non-offending team may opt instead for a quick-throw or lineout).

A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.
It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.

The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if:
A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (charge down).
A player rips or knocks the ball from an opponent and the ball goes forward from the opponent’s hand or arm.

I'm sure this has changed since I looked at it a few years ago. I seem to recall that for a knock-on to occur, the ball needed to hit another player or the ground. But there's no mention of this.

In fact, according to the law, a k-o only occurs when a player tackles or attempts to tackle an opponent.

Seriously, who writes this rubbish? The definition clearly isn't what everyone understands (even vaguely) to be a k-o. And "forward" is not defined.

The laws for Tag Rugby are better (and I think this is what used to be said in the standard laws) viz:

12.1
A knock-on occurs when a player loses ball possession, or contacts the ball with a hand or arm, and the ball goes forward to touch the ground or another player before this player gains, or regains, possession. Forward means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

Technically most kicks from hand whilst running would could as knock ons as the ball does travel forward. If LRZ had more control over the ball and had batted it backwards, for the English defender to then deflect forward it would be less contentious.

The only way it's not a knock on is if it never hit his hand, or only went backwards off the hand. There's some chat the tmo didn't think it touched the hand period, which wasn't what it looked like to me but whatever. If it came forward off the hand that's in possession and then lost forwards, nothing else matters. But to not that's not why we lost, it was the penalties throughout the match and specifically after getting back level when (as seems to be a pattern of recent times) you had patience and we didn't.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I just looked at the knock-on in rugby union law 11:

Knock-on
A knock-­on may occur anywhere in the playing area.
It is a knock-on when a player, in tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent, makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward. Sanction: Scrum (if the ball goes into touch, the non-offending team may opt instead for a quick-throw or lineout).

A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.
It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.

The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if:
A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (charge down).
A player rips or knocks the ball from an opponent and the ball goes forward from the opponent’s hand or arm.

I'm sure this has changed since I looked at it a few years ago. I seem to recall that for a knock-on to occur, the ball needed to hit another player or the ground. But there's no mention of this.

In fact, according to the law, a k-o only occurs when a player tackles or attempts to tackle an opponent.

Seriously, who writes this rubbish? The definition clearly isn't what everyone understands (even vaguely) to be a k-o. And "forward" is not defined.

The laws for Tag Rugby are better (and I think this is what used to be said in the standard laws) viz:

12.1
A knock-on occurs when a player loses ball possession, or contacts the ball with a hand or arm, and the ball goes forward to touch the ground or another player before this player gains, or regains, possession. Forward means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

Technically most kicks from hand whilst running would could as knock ons as the ball does travel forward. If LRZ had more control over the ball and had batted it backwards, for the English defender to then deflect forward it would be less contentious.

Unfortunately the laws are written extremely badly.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I just looked at the knock-on in rugby union law 11:


I'm sure this has changed since I looked at it a few years ago. I seem to recall that for a knock-on to occur, the ball needed to hit another player or the ground. But there's no mention of this.

In fact, according to the law, a k-o only occurs when a player tackles or attempts to tackle an opponent.

Seriously, who writes this rubbish? The definition clearly isn't what everyone understands (even vaguely) to be a k-o. And "forward" is not defined.

The laws for Tag Rugby are better (and I think this is what used to be said in the standard laws) viz:

Technically most kicks from hand whilst running would could as knock ons as the ball does travel forward. If LRZ had more control over the ball and had batted it backwards, for the English defender to then deflect forward it would be less contentious.

The only way it's not a knock on is if it never hit his hand, or only went backwards off the hand. There's some chat the tmo didn't think it touched the hand period, which wasn't what it looked like to me but whatever. If it came forward off the hand that's in possession and then lost forwards, nothing else matters. But to not that's not why we lost, it was the penalties throughout the match and specifically after getting back level when (as seems to be a pattern of recent times) you had patience and we didn't.

If we use Law 11 of the standard laws, a k-o can only occur in a tackle or attempted tackle. Yes, I know this is bollocks but that's what the law says.

If we use the more sensible tag rugby law (which I believe used to be the standard law) the ball needs to go forward to touch the ground or another player. It goes backwards from LRZ to touch another player, so no knock-on.

[oldbackrow]

The only way it's not a knock on is if it never hit his hand, or only went backwards off the hand. There's some chat the tmo didn't think it touched the hand period, which wasn't what it looked like to me but whatever. If it came forward off the hand that's in possession and then lost forwards, nothing else matters. But to not that's not why we lost, it was the penalties throughout the match and specifically after getting back level when (as seems to be a pattern of recent times) you had patience and we didn't.

If we use Law 11 of the standard laws, a k-o can only occur in a tackle or attempted tackle. Yes, I know this is bollocks but that's what the law says.

If we use the more sensible tag rugby law (which I believe used to be the standard law) the ball needs to go forward to touch the ground or another player. It goes backwards from LRZ to touch another player, so no knock-on.[/quote]
In the Definitions (https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/definitions)
"Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it."
You seem to be arguing that he didn't knock it forward but Nigel disagrees https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... k-19932005

[Son of Mathonwy]

If we use Law 11 of the standard laws, a k-o can only occur in a tackle or attempted tackle. Yes, I know this is bollocks but that's what the law says.

If we use the more sensible tag rugby law (which I believe used to be the standard law) the ball needs to go forward to touch the ground or another player. It goes backwards from LRZ to touch another player, so no knock-on.

In the Definitions (https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/definitions)
"Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it."
You seem to be arguing that he didn't knock it forward but Nigel disagrees https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rug ... k-19932005

Thanks for pointing out the definitions, I missed that. The standard laws make more sense to me now.

Okay Nigel disagrees, but that can't be derived from the law, it's his interpretation of a slightly ambiguous definition.

[Digby]

The definition of a knock-on from the laws of the game is - When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

So if it touches the hand of LRZ and it goes forward everything else is moot. And thusly Nigel's objection to the score is very much derived from the law

What this does mean is in a normal game if a player juggles and bats it back, whether in the loose or even at a lineout (and we'd perhaps more commonly see it at a lineout) that should be given as knock-on, but I suspect we'd all expect those would be play on situations. This wasn't really a play on situation, as evidenced by the reaction of LRZ, but stuff happens.

I don't feel badly for England in this because on another day LRZ doesn't even make a handling error, if we want to stop that score we need to be doing it 30-60 seconds before two officials enter the fray and reinforce the idea they've got white sticks and alsatians waiting for them to take home after the match.

[Sandydragon]

The definition of a knock-on from the laws of the game is - When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

So if it touches the hand of LRZ and it goes forward everything else is moot. And thusly Nigel's objection to the score is very much derived from the law

What this does mean is in a normal game if a player juggles and bats it back, whether in the loose or even at a lineout (and we'd perhaps more commonly see it at a lineout) that should be given as knock-on, but I suspect we'd all expect those would be play on situations. This wasn't really a play on situation, as evidenced by the reaction of LRZ, but stuff happens.

I don't feel badly for England in this because on another day LRZ doesn't even make a handling error, if we want to stop that score we need to be doing it 30-60 seconds before two officials enter the fray and reinforce the idea they've got white sticks and alsatians waiting for them to take home after the match.

Ultimately, referees will make mistakes. We've had plenty go against us. And England were level at 24 apiece. For me, England lost the game in that last 15-20 minutes. Our bench made a bigger impact and your side gave away too many penalties; Genge flopping on the ruck and Robson so obviously impeding LRZ for 2 very obvious examples of a side that has lost some composure (or is being coached to do these things and some players can make it look more innocent than others). Whilst its possible to argue that England should have been up by 4 or 8 points at that point, we scored 16 in the last 15 minutes (I assume that if neither try had been awarded then we would have taken a kick at goal and Biggar looked pretty accurate yesterday).

[oldbackrow]

Ultimately, referees will make mistakes. We've had plenty go against us. And England were level at 24 apiece. For me, England lost the game in that last 15-20 minutes. Our bench made a bigger impact and your side gave away too many penalties; Genge flopping on the ruck and Robson so obviously impeding LRZ for 2 very obvious examples of a side that has lost some composure (or is being coached to do these things and some players can make it look more innocent than others). Whilst its possible to argue that England should have been up by 4 or 8 points at that point, we scored 16 in the last 15 minutes (I assume that if neither try had been awarded then we would have taken a kick at goal and Biggar looked pretty accurate yesterday).

If Wales had kicked the first penalty instead of scoring a try who knows how the game would have played out, it wouldn't have just been 6 points instead of 14. England lost, not just because of the ref but their own indiscipline.

[Graigwen]

Any thoughts on JD2 at 12? He seemed quietly effective from what I remember; not sure this is a long term solution and we really should be giving Jonny Williams game time.

I would welcome views on this as well.

He usually seemed to be in the right place doing the right things in an unspectacular way.

I hardly noticed him. His ESPN stats back this up:
JD2 (replaced at 49 mins): runs: 4; metres run: 1; tackles: 3 (0 missed)

North: runs: 10; metres run: 28; tackles: 9 (1 missed)

Halaholo: runs: 2; metres run: 4; tackles: 4 (0 missed)

While he's no liability, he's not up to speed. We should start Halaholo or Johnny Williams, with the one who doesn't start on the bench. JD2 can get back to speed for the Scarlets.

Thanks for this (also thanks to Sandydragon).

I was trying to remember what I had seem him do in the game, which was very little. Well, at least he did not give anything away. It was a game where doing little would not be exposed by the opponents who had a couple of players with no discernable function. I am told Daly is played for his long range kicking although he is obviously not a very good full back. So when England had a long range shot at goal Farrel took it and missed - why???

.

[Which Tyler]

If Wales had kicked the first penalty instead of scoring a try who knows how the game would have played out, it wouldn't have just been 6 points instead of 14. England lost, not just because of the ref but their own indiscipline.

This.
The ref really didn't help (from an England perspective); had the 2 tries not been awarded, surely only the first would have been a 3 pointer to Wales, the second would have been a scrum to England?
Either way, after about 30 minutes, we improved our discipline massively, and excessively; and clawed our way back into it, drawing level.
From there it was in our own hands, having already taken the ref out of the equation.

We then had a collective brain failure, and gave away too many penalties that were just plain stupid, rather than harsh or a result of pushing to the edge. Ultimately, the better team won, the ref may have effected the margin, but not the result.

[Sandydragon]

Ultimately, referees will make mistakes. We've had plenty go against us. And England were level at 24 apiece. For me, England lost the game in that last 15-20 minutes. Our bench made a bigger impact and your side gave away too many penalties; Genge flopping on the ruck and Robson so obviously impeding LRZ for 2 very obvious examples of a side that has lost some composure (or is being coached to do these things and some players can make it look more innocent than others). Whilst its possible to argue that England should have been up by 4 or 8 points at that point, we scored 16 in the last 15 minutes (I assume that if neither try had been awarded then we would have taken a kick at goal and Biggar looked pretty accurate yesterday).

If Wales had kicked the first penalty instead of scoring a try who knows how the game would have played out, it wouldn't have just been 6 points instead of 14. England lost, not just because of the ref but their own indiscipline.

It’s all counter factual but it could have been England ahead by six points when Wales hit the gas in the final quarter. My point is that whilst annoying, those decisions didn’t lose England the game, some thing the media seems to be ignoring. In fairness, most English rugby supporters understand that.

[Sandydragon]

If Wales had kicked the first penalty instead of scoring a try who knows how the game would have played out, it wouldn't have just been 6 points instead of 14. England lost, not just because of the ref but their own indiscipline.

This.
The ref really didn't help (from an England perspective); had the 2 tries not been awarded, surely only the first would have been a 3 pointer to Wales, the second would have been a scrum to England?
Either way, after about 30 minutes, we improved our discipline massively, and excessively; and clawed our way back into it, drawing level.
From there it was in our own hands, having already taken the ref out of the equation.

We then had a collective brain failure, and gave away too many penalties that were just plain stupid, rather than harsh or a result of pushing to the edge. Ultimately, the better team won, the ref may have effected the margin, but not the result.

I think we had a penalty advantage for the second try as well.