Forum Topic

The guilt of Bongi Mbonambi seems to have been assumed by Mr Brooks but the latest footage released suggests he called out 'wit kant' which means 'white side' in Afrikaans which he would have shouted to indicate England had secured possession. I'm still struggling to understand the point about the clock. Refs don't call time off to listen to the complaints of players. The way time is kept in matches has changed since Mr Brooks glory days for the upper fourth's second XV.Nobody can claim to know better what is happening at scrum time that the ref, who has a detailed knowledge of the laws and is up close and personal and sees what happens in 3D. However, there did seem to be a distinct difference in interpretation between Ben O'Keefe and Wayne Barnes who in the game between Ireland and New Zealand pinged Andrew Porter three times for not pushing straight even though his pack was dominant. O'Keefe on the other hand consistently punished England due to the South African's having the go forward.This does suggest that there was a degree of subjectivity in these decisions and that, if there was one valid criticism of Farrell, it is that he didn't whinge enough rather than too much. It also points to the benefits of making a forward captain - I would have made Itoje captain simply because he could have articulated any issues with the scrums better. Farrell would have remained the leader on the pitch.If Barnes continues to interpret scrums in this way, it would totally nullify the pack dominance that South African could expect over the All Blacks. They seemed to me quite canny in wheeling whenever Ireland were making ground and if they get away with that next weekend they will be world champions.

Francis Rowe ● 1060d

At the start of the game I wanted South Africa to win by a big margin. This wasn't an anti-English thing I just wanted the result to be a confirmation of the achievement of Ireland in beating the Boks and I didn't think England were worthy semi-finalists. I also was no fan of Owen Farrell, mainly because he epitomised a more negative brand of rugby but also he had been an annoyingly effective player for both England and Saracens. From the very start it was clear that it wasn't going the way I expected to and that England were prepared to front up to the South African's physicality. The passion and commitment showed was not something you normally associate with English rugby and it was quite clear that at the heart of it was Owen Farrell. You can blame him for giving away an easy three points but when you are that fired up, controlling your mouth can be impossible. He was the ideal player for the England game plan and he executed it brilliantly. The ball being as easy to handle as a giant bar of soap was a bonus for England but constantly handing the ball back to the opposition means you have a lot of tackling and competing to get it back which is tiring work. 15 minutes in I was supporting England because it was becoming apparent they were capable of pulling of one of the biggest heists in the history of the game. If they had held on it would have been the first time in World Cup rugby that a team had won a game without making a single line break. Not one of the England team with the possible exception of Itoje would have made the bench let alone the starting line up for South Africa and that includes Farrell but his flinty competitiveness and desire made him the most influential player on the pitch. Freddie Stewart having the game of his life was critical as England's game plan would have fallen apart if he had been anything other than outstanding. I'm therefore completely mystified about what exactly Mr Brooks was watching that evening. I know lots of England fans who under normal conditions would prefer Farrell not to be picked and see a more attractive brand of rugby with Marcus Smith or George Ford but not one of them would fail to understand why Farrell was the right man for the job in this game.  He is therefore a deservedly a national hero even among his detractors. You are always going to get a dissenting voice on any issue although I suspect this is attention-seeking. Someone somewhere is probably prepared to say Sir Bobby Charlton was a terrible player and a right bastard as well.





Andrew OSullivan ● 1060d

My beef with Owen Farrell is long standing. No one, including me, will deny that he is a fantastic player. Beyond that though is the manner and showing respect toward match officials. For too long he has chided match officials and rubbed them up the woong way. There is, of course, a 'duty' for the captain to represent the views of his side and 'call out' errors. My issue is that he 'calls out' every single decision that goes against him.It is like the little boy who cries "wolf". When there is an obviously incorrect decision, like Kolbe dropping onto one knee in the scrum, when Owen Farrell complains it is waved away. Andrew, you say that"controlling your mouth can be impossible", but you have to when playing at any level. With the professional and scruitinised game you are safe that the other officals and the TMO will pick up glaring errors. The Inconsistency of the officials nad that dreadful VAR 'thing' is one of the reasons that I now rarely watch football, that and the total lack of respect for officials.He certainly does not endear himeself to match officials who have, in the overwhelming majority, been excellent throughout the tournament.As an aside I am old enough to have witnessed Sir Bobby play for a number of times including two games at the 1966 World Cup, how he never scored in that dreadful 0-0 draw with Uruguay still baffles me. A complete footballer and a gentleman who probably earned less in his career than many of the 'stars' of today earn in a couple of weeks.

N V Brooks ● 1060d