Yeh great and then next week against the aussies we have people banned

Im glad we didnt 'down tools' and have a punch up, instead we used the tools to beat them

I find the tactics totally against what the Hakka is all about.

ie this is a line, you step over it and we warriors will retaliate in honor of our people and you will get a smack round the chops......

Then they start with the cowardly cheap shots on already prone players?. I does not fit at all.

A man on man fist fight is fair enough but all the warrior code type thing is dispelled when you act like a coward.

Jury is still out on Kearney like you said, especially if this was premeditated.

What we did last night was totally the right way to play the game. What i am saying is that a large part of me wanted to see some retaliation. I know that that is not right but it would certainly have been justified.

And you can stop with the "yeah great" type reply's. Its not big and its not clever

Isaac Luke wants banning for a while and a big fine the 5hithouse, would have loved someone to chin him for doing that to Chase.

Correct me if I'm wrong but i thought yellow cards are for technical infringements and not for foul play. Therefore the ref could not give yellow cards and his only option was penalty and no further action or penalty and on report or penalty and straight red. The elbow should have been red and the chase incident was clearly seen as a deliberate attempt to injure a player unfairly and therefore should also have been red.
I'm glad we stayed above it all and stuck to playing rugby.

As far as I'm aware, grapple tackles and chicken wings are a couple of things that warrant a sin bin.

I was shocked by how New Zealand played last night. I know they had a weakened team, but never expected them to try and win the game by using blatant housing tactics. The on report rulings where winding me up. How on earth does it benefit England in the context of that game? A penalty.. yet the players who are committing the foul can stay on the field and maybe get a ban for a game in the future which may not even involve England.

The NZ player may end up being punished in the end but England will gain no advantage whatsoever so what is the point?..

Went last night , watched it this morning, NZ cheap shots, well done England for not getting dragged into giving away penalties and retaliating, as for the refs, bottlers, on TV he said " forearm to the head, no more " no more should have straight red.
Looking forward to next week, let's we are not talking about the ref but I suspect we will be.

I have said it for a long time now and will say it again - the "on-report" is nothing other than an excuse for referees to cop out of making a decision - it is a disgrace to the game and should be scrapped. It started out as a reasonable idea but now has become utterly discredited.

Last night the incident with Chase was exactly why it should be binned - the referee can clearly be heard saying that he saw what happened - in which case he should have absolutely no excuse not to take action - in this case a red card. If Luke does not get a very long ban then the game is in a worse state that I thought.

I think T.Leuiuai was also shocked by the housing tactics used last night. Tommy could easily have caught Sammy on that last run, as Sammy was nowhere near top speed. Last "attempt" at a tackle was a missed (by a country mile) ankle tap by none other than Tommy Leuluai, who, playing for Wigan, would've executed perfectly without breaking a sweat.

exactly....ban it, and make the refs take action on the field.

Chase tackle was a disgrace....how many players did we have up before the beak for dangerous leg tackles?..non as bad as that.
and there was a blatant attempt at a chicken wing on Briscoe? that went completely un noticed (except by me)

OK - I can see why they don't use the video ref for potential 'on report' issues. Where do you draw the line? Set the line too low, and you risk the game being very 'stop start' with virtually everything being referred upstairs, with referees using 'suspected foul play' as an excuse for a second look at something they missed, where there clearly isn't any.

The ref is in radio contact with all of his match officials, so maybe - however this may be long winded - the referee needs to consult everyone, and if one is of the opinion that there was 'definitely' foul play, then the ref is allowed to refer it. Even better, maybe borrow the rule from NFL where the coach or the captain is allowed to appeal to the ref to refer the decision?