We value your privacy

We and our partners store and/or access information on a device, such as cookies and process personal data, such as unique identifiers and standard information sent by a device for personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, and audience insights, as well as to develop and improve products.

With your permission we and our partners may use precise geolocation. You may click to consent to our and our partners’ processing as described above. Please note that some processing of your personal data may not require your consent, but you have a right to object to such processing.

More Options

Sun 4 Nov 2018 | 02:53
Owen Farrell puts in match-winning hit against South Africa

21
Comments

England fly half Owen Farrell made a huge match-winning tackle on centre Adriaan Esterhuizen in the final play of the game against South Africa on Saturday but the legality of the hit has been questioned.

Referee Angus Gardner consulted the television match official before blowing the final whistle and the challenge was deemed legal, however commentators and pundits had differing views.

During the live commentary on Sky Sports, Stuart Barnes said that it “was not an attempted tackle” and was surprised that no penalty was awarded to South Africa.

Speaking to the BBC, England head coach Eddie Jones said: “The bloke ran at him hard and he hit him around the chest, and that’s legal.”

Following the final whistle, Farrell discussed the tackle, saying: “If you watch that full speed, he has a big run up on me, and we both bounce off each other and end up on the floor. It’s hard to wrap your arms around when you’re both hitting each other at that much force, but I tried to.”

The final score was 12-11 to England in the opening match of the autumn test series and prior to Farrell’s tackle, South Africa fly half Handre Pollard had an opportunity to win the match from a penalty kick, but hit the upright.

England will now play the All Blacks on Saturday, 10 November at Twickenham for the first time in four years.

Here is a RFU wrap up from the game’s action

Posted By: Shaywaterworth

21 Comments

  • jimmy23
    12:51 PM 06/11/2018

    I think many people won't agree with my position on this, so I fully admit this is coming from a biased English-man.We get constant complaints about how the game is going soft and we've seen refs get a hard time for punishing hits similar to this or less. Here was a cracking, if boardline hit which a ref decided to let off, yet people are not happy with it. It doesn't feel all that long ago that most would have praised Farrell here instead of condemning him.  

    • pickay
      1:03 PM 06/11/2018

      I am with you. While it was borderline, I don't have a problem with the ref (upon review) deciding to let it go.

  • pire
    7:34 AM 06/11/2018



    Was on this site allot before, but
    the system has changed from objective rugby assessments to cheap
    "tabloid" like headlines that promotes conflict among rugby fans. 90%
    of Springboks articles are negative, so it would be realistic for bok fans not
    to be bothered with it.

     

    The "match-winning tackle" headline implies that the boks would have run in for a try from
    half way, something they have not been able to do for 80min, so glad you guys gave SOME credit to them.

    This site is full of years &
    years of red & yellow card tackle videos.
    For a moment it looked like Tuilagi was on the field. Circumstances played a
    big role here and the referee caved. If the roles were reversed, do you think the result would have been the same?

  • colombes
    9:34 AM 05/11/2018

    At first sight i was like "game on! both players were running at each other at full speed".... But at the second sight, you can see Farrell was more interested to accomplish a solid hit than accomplish a textbook tackle. Fortunately for him, Gardner judged he tried to wrap his arms around Esterhuizen... So that's a new message for the players, you can hit a player as long as you make a good movement with your arms. To be serious, in almost every situations, this action would result in an automatic penalty. The fact it was the last action influenced the ref decision.

    • im1
      1:16 PM 05/11/2018

      "So that's a new message for the players, you can hit a player as long as you make a good movement with your arms." no - that's always been the message

      • colombes
        9:10 AM 06/11/2018

        Make a shoulder charge look like a legal tackle? no-that was not always the message 

        • im1
          2:38 PM 06/11/2018

          so you agree it looked liked a legal tackle?

          • colombes
            3:58 PM 06/11/2018

            Yep, but it looks legal but it doesn't.Don't get me wrong, i like solid tackles, but when you see many "borderline" tackles (too high or lead with the shoulder) sanctioned and this one ignored, refs have a difficult task to remain consistentsNot surprised to read players and pundits questioning "ok, so can we tackle like that... or not?"

            • im1
              8:58 AM 07/11/2018

              Completely on the lack of consistency and difficult of players to understand what they can/cannot do. But it is clear from the laws of the game and clarifications/guidelines issued by World Rugby (for anyone who has bothered to read them and understand what they mean) that this tackle was legal.So the response to any player/pundit asking "ok, so can we tackle like that... or not?" should be similar to when Poite told Haskell that he was the referee not Haskell's coach i.e. read the laws (with you coach). 

  • im1
    8:53 AM 05/11/2018

    was there foul play......? Yes there was, Esterhuizen led with the forearm of his non-ball carrying arm.

  • katman
    8:10 AM 05/11/2018

    If that "tackle" had happened at any other time of the match, it would have resulted in a penalty and a card. I have no doubt about this. But because time was up on the clock, England were one point ahead, 70,000+ home fans were baying for the win and the penalty would most likely have been slotted, Angus Gardner couldn't make the correct call. Even with the TMO replay. And that is the crux of this story. If Farrell had pulled out a crowbar and bust Esterhuyzen across the head with it, Gardner would have called it "marginal" and blown the final whistle. Yes, the Boks should not have been in that position. They had plenty of opportunities to put daylight on the scoreboard, and they blew their chances. But that doesn't absolve Gardner or World Rugby from this lamentable decision.

    • katman
      6:34 AM 06/11/2018

      On the upside, there is now clarity on what constitutes a legal hit. I see Rassie and the boys are making some last minute training adjustments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEAuXB7h2Ps 

    • im1
      1:46 PM 05/11/2018

      There was no contact with the head or neck so the only relevant law of the game is this; https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=9 16 - A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without attempting to grasp that player." So, based purely on the laws of the game, if the referee is happy that there was an attempt to grasp by Farrell then that is all that is required for it not to be a penalty. HOWEVER - could it be that the referee has incorrectly interpreted the law and not applied it as per World Rugby clarifications/guidelines....? We have heard a lot of commentators/pundits reference the recent guidelines issued by World Rugby on dangerous tackles.No, because the recent guidelines are just for high tackles/contact with the head/neck. They have absolutely nothing to do with shoulder charges/no arms tackles, unless there is contact with the head or neck, in which case it is an exacerbating factor (likely leading to a red card). If anyone can find anything in this that says otherwise then post it here https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9

    • 45678
      9:50 AM 05/11/2018

      Katman, if you look at the picture at the top, we’re not dealing with a SBW arm tucked under, shoulder hit to the face. The arm doesn’t fully wrap, but there is an attempt to and that’s all that matters. It’s not to the face, but the chest. We’re in danger of penalising tackles for being a little bit hard

      • 45678
        9:56 AM 05/11/2018

        Btw, I thought saffa’s loved the physical stuff? If it was the other way round would the reaction be the same? I doubt very much

  • 45678
    8:02 PM 04/11/2018

    For a bit of balance, could you find a clip of George Kruis getting hit in the face by 2 shoulders at a ruck just before the penalty pollard missed (I think) The ref just waived it away saying it was a fair contestI numbers have been down, but the title is pure click bait RD

    • rugbydump
      10:29 AM 05/11/2018

      Did Owen Farrell not put in a match-winning hit against South Africa?

      • 45678
        11:25 AM 05/11/2018

        It’s just a tackle. There were probably about 200 of them in the game. This just happened to be the last!Any luck with the Kruis incident?

        • rugbydump
          2:42 PM 05/11/2018

          Nope, it's hardly 'just a tackle' when it's clearly the biggest talking point of a fairly dull game. And in terms of your click bait accusation, the title really could have been a lot more dramatic, considering how divided fans are on this. But you're always grumpy with your comments, so we're used to it now. ;)

          • 45678
            3:05 PM 05/11/2018

            It’s been so lonely on here the past few months - Need to get your attention somehow!

            • rugbydump
              4:57 PM 05/11/2018

              Fair enough. Regulars haven't quite taken to this different commenting system. Site traffic isn't down though so hopefully we'll get more discussions fired up on here again too. 

Related Articles