Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Jones' verdict on Smith kicking the ball dead rather than playing on

(Photo by Alex Davidson/The RFU Collection via Getty Images)

Eddie Jones has defended the decision by Marcus Smith to kick the ball dead rather than launch a last-gasp England counterattack to try and win Saturday night’s drawn Autumn Nations Series clash with the All Blacks. A beaten-looking English side had amazingly fought back from losing 6-25 to score three tries in the closing eight minutes at Twickenham to pull level.

ADVERTISEMENT

However, after Smith had kicked the conversion of the second Will Stuart try to tie up the score in a contest that New Zealand appeared set for a long period to win comfortably, the out-half decided to kick the ball into the stands to end the game following the final seconds restart from halfway by the Kiwis.

At the time, the momentum was fully in favour of England given their intoxicating grandstand finish against an opposition that was reduced to 14 players when Beauden Barrett was yellow carded on 72 minutes for foul play at a breakdown just before the first Stuart try.

Video Spacer

Video Spacer

Smith, though, spurned the invitation to launch one last-gasp counter and there were some boos from England fans when he opted to punt the ball off the pitch rather than attack the space in front of him. His coach, though, had his back at the post-game media conference, insisting that it was the type of decision he had no influence over and that he had to support his player in that type of situation.

Asked about the kick out at the end, Jones said: “It is always up to the players, mate. I trust their decision-making. I’m not on the field, I don’t have access to them, so I just trust their decision.” So do you back it then, do you agree with it? “As I said, that’s their decision.”

Related

Over to skipper Owen Farrell then, what was the discussion on the pitch before the New Zealand restart? “We just wanted to see where we were at at the ruck. If we got go-forward and got on the front foot and we had an opportunity we wanted to take it, if not we wanted to make a good decision. I think that was what was done.”

Jones’ counterpart, New Zealand boss Ian Foster, had a very different view of what happened. “Was I surprised? Yeah, I was. All I know is if you flipped it over I would have liked our guys to have a crack so I am not sure what their tactics were but to be fair to them, they were running hot for seven, eight minutes. Things were going really well and they probably felt like getting back to a draw was a massive achievement in that time and so they probably decided to take it.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Jones later described the second-half contribution of Smith as the youngster’s finest 40 minutes so far in an England shirt. It was while speaking about the even more inexperienced starting scrum-half Jack van Poortvliet, who endured a difficult evening before he exited with an injury, that the coach sang the praises of both, especially the No10 Smith.

“JVP, the bone went through his finger. Something like that. He is a tough young bloke so he should be okay,” he said before rating the No9’s performance in a match where his early intercepted pass gave the All Blacks an early lead.

“A brilliant young player, that is one of the best games for him, where things don’t go well you have got to battle through. That is when they learn a lot and I thought for two young halves, JVP and Marcus, that is the best 40 I have seen Marcus play Test rugby. Aggressive, decisive, wanted to own the game, not as an individual but as part of the team. That was a big step forward for the young man.”

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

3 Comments
b
buster 669 days ago

ABs wouldn't of been allowed home if they played for a draw.
Gutless

C
CT 732 days ago

Would you expect him to be against the on field decision of his player, obviously not

M
Martyn 732 days ago

Jones will see this as a victory as it may just have saved his ass.
Saying that, the ABs should never have put themselves in that situation. Is it me, but this ABs team don't seem was fit under Foster, for the past 18 months, they've failed to play a full 80 minutes. Bench was also poor today, Laulala over Newell was a shit decision, Sotutu over Akira Ioane, NAH. Even TJ failed to fire. Poor choices which has been Foster & co's problem all year!!

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 21 minutes ago
'Passionate reunion of France and New Zealand shows Fabien Galthie is wrong to rest his stars'

Where? I remember saying "unders"? The LNR was formed by the FFR, if I said that in a way that meant the 'pro' side of the game didn't have an equal representation/say as the 'amateur' side (FFR remit) that was not my intent.


But also, as it is the governing body, it also has more responsibility. As long as WR looks at FFR as the running body for rugby in France, that 'power' will remain. If the LNR refuses to govern their clubs use of players to enable a request by FFR (from WR) to ensure it's players are able to compete in International rugby takes place they will simply remove their participation. If the players complain to the France's body, either of their health and safety concerns (through playing too many 'minutes' etc) or that they are not allowed to be part in matches of national interest, my understanding is action can be taken against the LNR like it could be any other body/business. I see where you're coming from now re EPCR and the shake up they gave it, yes, that wasn't meant to be a separate statement to say that FFR can threaten them with EPCR expulsion by itself, simply that it would be a strong repercussion for those teams to be removed (no one would want them after the above).


You keep bringing up these other things I cannot understand why. Again, do you think if the LNR were not acting responsibly they would be able to get away with whatever they want (the attitude of these posters saying "they pay the players")? You may deem what theyre doing currently as being irresponsible but most do not. Countries like New Zealand have not even complained about it because they've never had it different, never got things like windfall TV contracts from France, so they can't complain because theyre not missing out on anything. Sure, if the French kept doing things like withholding million dollar game payments, or causing millions of dollars of devaluation in rights, they these things I'm outlining would be taking place. That's not the case currently however, no one here really cares what the French do. It's upto them to sort themselves out if they're not happy. Now, that said, if they did make it obvious to World Rugby that they were never going to send the French side away (like they possibly did stating their intent to exclude 20 targeted players) in July, well then they would simply be given XV fixtures against tier 2 sides during that window and the FFR would need to do things like the 50/50 revenue split to get big teams visiting in Nov.

305 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ 'England's blanket of despair feels overdone - they are not a team in freefall' 'England's blanket of despair feels overdone - they are not a team in freefall'
Search