Was the decision AWJ's or Biggar's?

Curious to know what you think about the kick for goal-v-kick for touch "discussion".  Let's ignore the aftermath because that would clearly influence comments and thoughts

Surely AWJ has to have the final say as he is captain? He dictates the tactics and tempo and if he felt that there was a greater need to get the scoreboard ticking again, it was up to him. I wouldn't have been surprised if he had asked Biggar or 1/2p for their opinion but he is accountable to the coach for what happens.

Alternatively, was Biggar, by his actions, saying that he didn't fancy the kick although it wasn't that windy and it was from the "right" side of the pitch?

Biggar isn't the kicker. Halfpenny is.

Surely the blame lies with AWJ. After all he is the captain. So it is his responsability.

Griff wrote:Biggar isn't the kicker. Halfpenny is.

But Biggar is the one who called out to AWJ and decided on the kick to touch after the decision was made (refereeing error).

Biggar: Or Al you wanna go corner?
AWJ: Kick.
Ref: Shot is indicated.
Biggar turns his back to AWJ and goes for the corner. Ref ignores that the decision was made.

AWJ says go for the posts, kicker should go for the posts. It's not a democratic decision. His stock fell as the captain on my opinion.

Scottrf wrote:

Griff wrote:Biggar isn't the kicker. Halfpenny is.

But Biggar is the one who called out to AWJ and decided on the kick to touch after the decision was made (refereeing error).

Yes, he kicks to touch. I was responding to the bit about him saying he didn't fancy the kick between the posts when the weather was fine and it was on the 'right' side for him. Do we know for sure that Biggar in particular said 'I don't fancy that kick at the posts even though the conditions are good and it's on the right side"? Or is there some guesswork going on?

Biggar doesn't appear to say anything about not being able to make the kick. Neither seem to consult Halfpenny although I think AWJ is discussing with Warburton. Biggar made his mind up and didn't really seem interesting in the captains opinion.

Scottrf wrote:

Griff wrote:Biggar isn't the kicker. Halfpenny is.

But Biggar is the one who called out to AWJ and decided on the kick to touch after the decision was made (refereeing error).

Biggar: Or Al you wanna go corner?
AWJ: Kick.
Ref: Shot is indicated.
Biggar turns his back to AWJ and goes for the corner. Ref ignores that the decision was made.

Just reading your script above and could it not be misinterpreted that when Biggar asks whether to go for the corner and AWJ says 'kick' then maybe Biggar thought he meant yes kick for the corner?

No because he's motioning with his thumb all of the time and the kick command is to the ref, rather than Biggar.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCScrumV/status/835951556423905280

He also said in the press conference 'I would have liked to have gone for the three'. 'Kickers didn't want to so we just went for the corner.' looks pretty dejected. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/new-video-footage-reveals-exactly-12661035.amp

Scottrf wrote:

Griff wrote:Biggar isn't the kicker. Halfpenny is.

But Biggar is the one who called out to AWJ and decided on the kick to touch after the decision was made (refereeing error).
.

Good point,actually. Once the ref points to the posts, the non-offending team is obliged to kick (to prevent them taking a sneaky quick penalty when the defensive team are walking back to the posts). Wasn't there a game when the ref forced the attacking team to go for goal because the kicking tee had been brought on even though the captain had said he wanted to go down the line?

Happened for Saints this season. Probably not the game you're thinking of but Diggin ran on with a tee meaning we had to kick for goal.

OK. But I still can't see anywhere where Biggar, who is not the goal kicker, turned down the kick at goals because it was too hard or he didn't fancy it.

Anyway, not sure how it makes him a bad captain, which is what a lot of the comments on various threads seem to imply. If his player had a brain fart and took it upon himself to change the plans then what's AWJ meant to do? Grab him by the throat and choke the life out of him? I'm sure if it is the case then behind the scenes there'll be some very stern words said. But a player having a brain fart during the game is hardly indicative of a bad captain. If it was, then any player who is carded, back chats to the ref, gives away a cynical penalty is then by extension a bad reflection on the captain himself. And that would be pretty much every captain in every game. I personally think that, yet again, we have a gross over reaction to something that might have happened in the heat of the moment. People outraged unnessecarily, IMO.

what's AWJ meant to do? Grab him by the throat and choke the life out of him?


In a word Yes, send a message to the rest of the team. I, AM, IN, CHARGE.

First point, AWJ says the kickers didn't fancy it. But it does seem like he's presuming this from the actions rather than a discussion.

As for whether it makes him a bad captain, it does show that one of his players wasn't following his lead. And he was unsure without consulting Warburton (not a terrible thing in itself IMO). But tbh I think it reflects worse on Biggar who it  seems took it upon himself to overrule the captain's decision.

Scottrf wrote:First point, AWJ says the kickers didn't fancy it. But it does seem like he's presuming this from the actions rather than a discussion.

As for whether it makes him a bad captain, it does show that one of his players wasn't following his lead. And he was unsure without consulting Warburton (not a terrible thing in itself IMO). But tbh I think it reflects worse on Biggar who it  seems took it upon himself to overrule the captain's decision.

Exactly. If anything Biggar is the problem. And like I said, if that is the case then he'll get a rollicking off camera. But not during the game.

On the other point, any good captain in the modern game listens to his players. Yes, he should have the final decision but for me it's a very old fashioned to say that the captain is weak if he listens to those around him (not you saying this necessarily Scott, but the general tone on this thread and elsewhere). For me it would be stupid of a captain NOT to listen to his players.

Sorry, but the kickers didn't fancy it line is BS. He used that afterwards to explain why he'd been over ruled. It was Biggar's big gob that rocked his confidence in his decision and IMO he is failing his Captaincy exams and has kissed his Lions captaincy credentials goodbye. If Warburton interfered, which i doubt, he should know better as former skipper.

Point is though, this debate is staggering. 3 points down approaching the half you take the fecking points. And that failure is a coaching failure, these situations should be being talked through in the team room.

It reminds me of just how lacking in leadership and maturity Wales are both on and off the park.

Griff wrote:OK. But I still can't see anywhere where Biggar, who is not the goal kicker, turned down the kick at goals because it was too hard or he didn't fancy it..

Griff, I didn't say that he did. My question was did his actions of wanting to go for touch imply he didn't fancy a shot at goal. Ok, the OP may have been better worded but let's not get hung up on it

Isn't this similar to what happened to Robshaw a couple of years back? The captain wants one thing but his kicker decides on something else.

I guess it all comes down to respect on the field and trusting your captain. Robshaw was crucified in the media for it btw, but that's the press for you.

InjuredYetAgain wrote:

Griff wrote:OK. But I still can't see anywhere where Biggar, who is not the goal kicker, turned down the kick at goals because it was too hard or he didn't fancy it..

Griff, I didn't say that he did. My question was did his actions of wanting to go for touch imply he didn't fancy a shot at goal. Ok, the OP may have been better worded but let's not get hung up on it

Who didn't fancy a shot?! Biggar is not the goal kicker! Biggar taking it upon himself to kick for the corner and Halfpenny not fancying the shot at goal are two different things (obviously).

If a kicker doesn't fancy a kick forcing them to take a kick is stupidity, they don't fancy it because they aren't confident of making it and forcing them to do it just makes it tougher mentally

marty2086 wrote:If a kicker doesn't fancy a kick forcing them to take a kick is stupidity, they don't fancy it because they aren't confident of making it and forcing them to do it just makes it tougher mentally

As said above, Halfpenny is the kicker. Wasn't consulted. Biggar decided and overruled the captain rather than giving his opinion to the captain. Sorry state of affairs.

Yes, I didn't see Halfpenny consulted at all. Therefore, my conclusion is that Biggar either misunderstood AWJ and thought he meant kick for the corner (unlikely), or he just took it upon himself to decide. In that precise moment I don't think you can blame AWJ. It's like blaming Hartley for Daly's tip tackle and red card in the AIs, I.e. a player does something spur of the moment. Now, people will argue that AWJ is to blame because Biggar was not scared of the consequences of overruling his captain. I guess we'll never know unless Biggar comes out and says it but it could just have been one of those blood rushing to the head moments for Biggar rather than plain insubordination, lack of respect or over ruling, etc. Would be nice to find out though.

That Halfpenny wasn't in shot at all was odd. When a penalty is given in kickable range, the kicker will normally walk over to form at least part of the discussion team.

Maybe Wales had said something in a huddle about going for the jugular? Maybe the coaches had said something before the game? And Biggar might have reminded AWJ of the plan, causing him to change his mind? Not saying that would be right, but I can't think of anything else.

It seems odd to not consult the kicker, but it seems more odd for the kicker to not step forward for the discussion. There must have been a pre-ordained plan to not kick, which AWJ tried to change and then backed down on.

All will be revealed at a WRU press conference this afternoon when someone will attempt to explain how warburton and Biggar overruled both Lacey and AWJ,and 1/2p denying he didn't fancy the kick.World Rugby yet to explain how the penalty kick to touch was allowed with the kicking tee on the pitch and the assistant TJs behind the posts.Anybody who has met AWJ will tell you he that he tells you how it is warts and all.He didn't look happy on Saturday and this debacle is far from over.

My issue with him publicaly blaming the kickers for the decision. He may have done it on advice but as capatin its his responsibnility to own the decision. If the leadership is structured to allow the kickers precednce then fine, but its his chocie to allow that and he still is accountable.
Shifting blame on to the teamamates, even if it was their call, and making it clear you didnt like the decision isnt the making of a good captain.
Simply saying " I trust my kickers" wouldve been enough. Instead hes hung them out to dry and created this furore. I wouldnt go as far as to say he did it on purpose to deflect criticism form himself, but if its perceived that way by the kcikers then it could be very damaging for the team and his leadership.

Similar controversial decisions by Robshaw early in his capatincy were at least owned by him.


In the long run though I suspect this is much bigger news on the internet than it is the Welsh dressing room.

Scottrf wrote:

marty2086 wrote:If a kicker doesn't fancy a kick forcing them to take a kick is stupidity, they don't fancy it because they aren't confident of making it and forcing them to do it just makes it tougher mentally

As said above, Halfpenny is the kicker. Wasn't consulted. Biggar decided and overruled the captain rather than giving his opinion to the captain. Sorry state of affairs.

Who said he wasn't consulted? For all you know he had indicted a bang to the leg or a muscle injury that made it difficult

marty2086 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

marty2086 wrote:If a kicker doesn't fancy a kick forcing them to take a kick is stupidity, they don't fancy it because they aren't confident of making it and forcing them to do it just makes it tougher mentally

As said above, Halfpenny is the kicker. Wasn't consulted. Biggar decided and overruled the captain rather than giving his opinion to the captain. Sorry state of affairs.

Who said he wasn't consulted? For all you know he had indicted a bang to the leg or a muscle injury that made it difficult

I watched it. If either was talking to Halfpenny it was from 10 metres away never facing him.

Scottrf wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

marty2086 wrote:If a kicker doesn't fancy a kick forcing them to take a kick is stupidity, they don't fancy it because they aren't confident of making it and forcing them to do it just makes it tougher mentally

As said above, Halfpenny is the kicker. Wasn't consulted. Biggar decided and overruled the captain rather than giving his opinion to the captain. Sorry state of affairs.

Who said he wasn't consulted? For all you know he had indicted a bang to the leg or a muscle injury that made it difficult

I watched it. If either was talking to Halfpenny it was from 10 metres away never facing him.

You watched a 30 sec clip, did you watch Biggar walking to the position or in the build up to it?

Wasn't a hard kick. Shouldn't have mattered anyway tee was already carried on the pitch.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Wasn't a hard kick. Shouldn't have mattered anyway tee was already carried on the pitch.

Didn't see the tee on but its a tough one for a ref, if he's led to believe he misunderstood he cant exactly force them to kick it just gets problematic

marty2086 wrote:You watched a 30 sec clip, did you watch Biggar walking to the position or in the build up to it?

If Halfpenny was consulted previous to that, why did AWJ choose to go for the posts?

Scottrf wrote:

marty2086 wrote:You watched a 30 sec clip, did you watch Biggar walking to the position or in the build up to it?

If Halfpenny was consulted previous to that, why did AWJ choose to go for the posts?

Because maybe it was Halfpenny and Biggar who spoke, Halfpenny could have told him to take the next kick as he wasn't feeling right

It wasn't exactly hard to consult him he was two feet away and both looked at him contrary to what you said

Biggar looks at the ref, neither looks at Halfpenny. I wonder if you know which one Halfpenny is or you're just playing silly buggers.

Halfpenny wasn't consulted, it's obvious to everyone else.

Scottrf wrote:Biggar looks at the ref, neither looks at Halfpenny. I wonder if you know which one Halfpenny is or you're just playing silly buggers.

Halfpenny wasn't consulted, it's obvious to everyone else.

You mean the short guy with the scrumcap and 15 on his back standing beside Ball, Webb and Moriarty?

It seems you didn't watch the clip at all as Biggar clearly turns to him and AWJ looks at him and Warburton but you just be a silly boy

I'd agree overall Jones should take into account his kickers thoughts, he just did it too late in this instance.

AWJ after speaking with Halfpenny.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd agree overall Jones should take into account his kickers thoughts, he just did it too late in this instance.

True, that being said though did he someone say kick meaning to the corner and he meant at goal?

Strange he went to Warburton and didn't include Halfpenny, if it was a case of Halfpenny having a problem it could have meant a missed kick and an injury made worse not that it turned out well anyway

Its questionable captaincy. AWJ knows Halfpenny, they've played together probably 50 times. The captain should know his kickers range and if a kicker doesn't fancy a shot from the opposition's half then really I wouldn't call him a world class kicker... and yes you can't call Laidlaw a world class kicker if he's subject to 5 metres beyond the 22 at the max... a lot of kickers percentages would be better also if they only took such kicks.

It was on the margins of his range but whats the chances of him making the kick? Statistically I bet its significantly better than Wales scoring a try from a lineout 5 metres out.... and that statistically if you took the kicks vs. a 5 metre lineout you'd end up with a higher score.

Jones meant posts marty, ref signalled and tee on. That should have been it. I'm sure jones will remember to check first from now on anyway!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Jones meant posts marty, ref signalled and tee on. That should have been it. I'm sure jones will remember to check first from now on anyway!

I meant did AWJ misunderstand when talking to his team

yappysnap wrote:Isn't this similar to what happened to Robshaw a couple of years back? The captain wants one thing but his kicker decides on something else.

I guess it all comes down to respect on the field and trusting your captain. Robshaw was crucified in the media for it btw, but that's the press for you.

Very much so, and I defended him fervently at the time. I assume you're talking about the South Africa game in 2012 (I believe). As ever, context is everything.

It was a horrible game. The weather was atrocious, the standard of rugby incredibly poor, with the ball and pitch very soggy, making the pace of the game slow, and neither team looked like threatening the tryline, particulary as the game drew to a close, as most of the game was played out around the 10m lines. England had a penalty with a few minutes to go, pretty much central, and just in front of the 10m line I believe. With Farrell kicking, it's a relatively straightforward goalkick- even in the conditions- whereas a kick to touch from there is a lot trickier.

Here's the important part, the weighing up of factors. Having not threatened the try line, that kick would have had to have got them at least 10m from the SA line, hopefully closer. Anything less, and frankly, having not threatened the SA line for most of the game, it would have been completely against the run of play had England scored the try to win. So the first thing to consider is two kicks by Farrell: one at goal vs. one to touch. One is a 50:50 success/failure, the other less explicit as a binary choice, but nevertheless a spectrum for success. The target of the posts is significantly easier to hit than the target to touch that would get England into a try scoring position. Farrell scores with his kick at goal.

The second part is recovering the ball after the kick. In terms of the kick to touch, this would obviously be the lineout. The kick at goal results in fielding a restart. Both are contested (in theory), with the benefit of the lineout being field position over the restart, yet the benefit of the restart being that you only have to score a penalty or drop goal, rather than get over the try line.

Here's another crucial piece of context. England had looked solid on their own ball. Both teams had. Defence hadn't been particularly aggressive. As long as England held onto the ball after fielding the restart, and did their absolute best to get the ball back into the South African half, the South African defence would be even more passive as to not concede the penalty. If they do, it's a kick at goal to win. If they remain passive, you work your way into a drop goal position. To me, the penalty scenario seemed the more likely, as South Africa looked like breaking. I honestly believe Robshaw felt the same, and believed his team could go back up the other end and score.

Anyway, back to fielding the ball. South Africa somewhat bizarrely kicked it short (remember England only have to get into South Africa's half with possession and then any transgression probably means SA lose), however, Moritz Botha didn't field the ball, either he knocked it on or it slipped through his hands into touch, I can't remember. That's where they lost the game, unfortunately for them. Who's to say that doesn't happen at the lineout though? After all, this was the second point to weigh up, before the third factor (which never came to pass) which was retain possession until you get into a scoring position (a try for the kick to touch, drop goal or penalty territory for the kick at goal).

The press reaction was atrocious. Truly dreadful, a lot of people who have little empathy for the flow of a rugby game villifying a man for basically supporting his teammates to continue what they were doing rather than go for a blood and thunder decision and ignore the previous 78 minutes which suggested that they probably wouldn't score a try. It ended up hampering his captaincy to the point where 3 years later he was getting hammered for doing the opposite. The irony of a critical media that bears no responsibility...

Bringing this back to Wales, as with England, each decision to choose to forgo a kick at goal has been- in the context of the game- a valid decision. Not the 'right' or 'wrong' decision, but justified. For Wales, each kick has been very close to the touchline, at a time when they were threatening a try and/or building pressure on the opposition for several minutes, at a time in the game where the lead a try would have given them would be a big statement, psychologically and on the scoreboard.

The real problem with Wales is that they've done this 5 times so far this championship, and 5 times they've come up short. The least infamous 2 were against Italy in the first quarter, when they went for the corner, won the lineout, but I believe got turned over in the maul for one of the penalties, and simply failed to get over the tryline for the other.

Focussing on the more famous 3- the two successive decisions against England, and the most recent one against Scotland- and the real, blindingly obvious problem is that they turned the ball over almost immediately. When the kicked for touch against England, I can't remember what the offence was for, possibly truck and trailer? Or did they simply lose the lineout, it was stolen/not straight? The 5m scrum against England was given as a penalty to England. The lineout against Scotland was incorrectly setting up the maul, so obstruction, penalty to Scotland.

5 attempts, and 5 abject failures. This is unacceptable. This, to me, is that old, Welsh mental weakness, as they're talented enough players to not repeatedly do this, and have shown they can do it. Yes, you take into account this weakness in you're a World Cup or whatever, when the result is absolutely everything (and in that case, maybe you do go for the points), but as of now, Wales are in a transition period, and are trying to develop away from a game where scoring less than 20 points and relying on your defence wins you the game. They recognise the need to score tries, and are trying to rectify this. The problem is the execution and ability to do so; the problem is most certainly not the desire and decision making that goes for touch rather than rejecting a difficult kick at goal. Getting hammered by the fickle fans and media is only going to create another Robshaw situation where- when it really matters- the pressure and latent memories of all these mistakes affects the decision making and execution process, and Welsh players bottle it in a key moment during a World Cup/Grand Slam/Lions game.

As for Biggar and AWJ, it doesn't look good. Discussion is good, but I think Biggar's overstepped the mark and treated 'Al' like his club captain rather than his national team captain. There's a different standard playing for Wales than the Ospreys, and he should get criticised for that. I dare say there's an element of frustration on Biggar's part, too: he seems overly keen to kick for the corner as he's not the one kicking for goal. He bears none of the responsibility for the lineout, nor appreciates the forward battle as well as AWJ would have been (i.e. how tough will it be to win the lineout and get over the Scottish tryline). Whilst the lineout and try is a justified decision, I can't help but feel he's a bit too keen to keep the ball away from Halfpenny, where he might not have been had he been lining up the shot. It doesn't look good for him.

Nevertheless, AWJ should have kept his mouth shut. You don't keep tight lipped to the media in the week leading up to the match only to then hang your teammates out to dry to avoid a repeat of the criticism he received after the England game. I appreciate it's not a nice position to be in, getting unfairly criticised by gobshights in the yellow press etc., but deal with it behind closed doors/only make it public once the tournament is over, if needs be.

In terms of the pressure of the Welsh captaincy, somewhat suprisingly in my mind, he's not dealing with it well. I noticed he made several consecutive errors in the first quarter against Scotland, silly things like knock ons, and in fact he's made quite a few across the 3 games. As Warburton and Robshaw's regeneration has shown, it sometimes helps just focussing on your own game, and unfortunately players like Biggar are (perhaps not intentionally) making it a harder transition for AWJ to both deal with the captaincy and focus on getting the basics right in his own game. After all, he was the one who gave away the penalty against Scotland: could it be that the confusion over the kick to touch made the slight difference in terms of fine, mental margins that are the difference in Test rugby? I think it's reasonable to say it reduced his focus enough to make the error.

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd agree overall Jones should take into account his kickers thoughts, he just did it too late in this instance.

True, that being said though did he someone say kick meaning to the corner and he meant at goal?

Strange he went to Warburton and didn't include Halfpenny, if it was a case of Halfpenny having a problem it could have meant a missed kick and an injury made worse not that it turned out well anyway

Not really. He's talking to the next most senior member of the pack to gauge whether they think they have enough pressure on Scotland in this moment to go for the jugular. If not, then you defer to the kickers. The first option should be 'can we score a try here', not 'can we score with a kick'.

miaow wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd agree overall Jones should take into account his kickers thoughts, he just did it too late in this instance.

True, that being said though did he someone say kick meaning to the corner and he meant at goal?

Strange he went to Warburton and didn't include Halfpenny, if it was a case of Halfpenny having a problem it could have meant a missed kick and an injury made worse not that it turned out well anyway

Not really. He's talking to the next most senior member of the pack to guage whether they think they have enough pressure on Scotland in this moment to go for the jugular. If not, then you defer to the kickers. The first option should be 'can we score a try here', not 'can we score with a kick'.

I suppose its 6 of one etc

If he goes to Halfpenny and he says no I don't think I can make the kick and he talks to Warburton and says no they cant get the try then they are screwed either way

marty2086 wrote:

miaow wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd agree overall Jones should take into account his kickers thoughts, he just did it too late in this instance.

True, that being said though did he someone say kick meaning to the corner and he meant at goal?

Strange he went to Warburton and didn't include Halfpenny, if it was a case of Halfpenny having a problem it could have meant a missed kick and an injury made worse not that it turned out well anyway

Not really. He's talking to the next most senior member of the pack to guage whether they think they have enough pressure on Scotland in this moment to go for the jugular. If not, then you defer to the kickers. The first option should be 'can we score a try here', not 'can we score with a kick'.

I suppose its 6 of one etc

If he goes to Halfpenny and he says no I don't think I can make the kick and he talks to Warburton and says no they cant get the try then they are screwed either way

Haha, yes, and I think that's part of the problem. That probably was the case: no one was really emphatically confident enough to say 'yes, we can score this way'. Quite frankly, Halfpenny doesn't look as good a goalkicker as he once was since his return from injury, and Wales are so short on confidence as a collective and as a forward unit that they're second guessing whether they have the ability to retain and drive a lineout against Scotland (no disrespect intended to Scotland).

It's mental toughness that Wales are desperately short of, and it's why they kept coming short against the SANZAR teams despite winning Grand Slams. The problem now is that they don't even believe in themselves against Italy, let alone Scotland or England! Turning down a kick for the corner when 9-7 up and Italy offering absolutely nothing? That was the difference between them getting 3 and 4 tries, not Liam Williams's knock on right at the death against Italy.

Wales have the players. Clearly. They showed against England that, when they get up for it, they're as good as England and Ireland, and individually, I think there's a case to say they have some of the best players in Europe (Webb, Liam Williams, Warburton, Tipuric, Faletau though out of form). The problem is the footballing instincts in attack- turning pressure into points- is something they're woefully out of practice doing for Wales.

That's not going to change overnight, but it is a lot better than 2014/15, in my opinion. They are developing, albeit not enough to win Test matches. They were better defensively than England, and better at the breakdown than them, but were not better at breaking the line and scoring tries. England had one sustained period of pressure and Youngs eventually got over. Wales had pressure, and England infringed a few times at the rucks to concede 3 points, but ultimately, having got back down in the 22 after taking the 3 points, it was the Welsh inability to score quickly (Liam Williams's try came after maybe ten minutes, maybe longer, of the play being down in England's half) that lost them the game, so that when the momentum changed in the last 6 minutes or so, England needed only one score to win the game, and they're more than good enough to do that, which they did.

Anyway, as for the decision making, Wales need to get into the mindset of pressure does not equal points. They need to take the next step and rather than congratulating themselves for 'winning' the game of the basics, start getting over the tryline. That means that, yes, the first option should always be to look for 5 points instead of 3: something like Danny Care's little tap penalty against Italy has disappeared from the Welsh game it seems.

I think the team looks as good now as it has for a long time, to be honest. The sad thing is- as everyone noted before the tournament- every team has improved as well. I think Alex King has actually improved the attack, or maybe it's the absence of Gatland and Howley as Head Coach (though he'd never get credit for it), but it's still not enough. We're still holding onto too much of the past. Roberts needs to be dropped asap. There is absolutely no point of bringing Scott Williams- a player who looks excellent for the Scarlets as someone able to play the kind of tough, running rugby Wales want to be playing- off after 60 minutes for a ponderous juggernaut who is easily read by the opposition. The sooner we trust our outside backs to actually play rugby again- and that doesn't mean throw Sam Davies in without a paddle- the better. It's no surprise that Ken Owens and Liam Williams have looked better than they have done for a while without the shackles of a restrictive gameplan. We need to sweep away the last of the old guard- and for me, that is epitomised by Roberts, but frankly Jon Davies, Lydiate, Baldwin, North, Cuthert, Halfpenny, Samson Lee are all included in the mould- and show them that there are genuine repercussions for not performing for Wales, and not being technically good enough. The difficult part is, for most of those players, the player replacing them simply isn't good enough, and this is why the team hasn't had a proper regeneration since 2011.

marty2086 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

marty2086 wrote:If a kicker doesn't fancy a kick forcing them to take a kick is stupidity, they don't fancy it because they aren't confident of making it and forcing them to do it just makes it tougher mentally

As said above, Halfpenny is the kicker. Wasn't consulted. Biggar decided and overruled the captain rather than giving his opinion to the captain. Sorry state of affairs.

Who said he wasn't consulted? For all you know he had indicted a bang to the leg or a muscle injury that made it difficult

? Are you for real ?

Sorry, i can't kick today i have a sore plum.

This is pro sport. You dont refuse a kick because you hurt.

Long accepted that the WRU Management and coaching hierarchy and several(but not all) players are disconnected and distant from the paying Welsh rugby public but Jenkins' press conference today was a classic of fake news,misinformation and omission.On Saturday I was sat about 10' from the halfway line on the penalty gate side.In the relative calm after the penalty award we could all here AWJ say 'kick' to Lacey and his TJs made their way to the posts.You then hear Biggar mouthing off to AWJ and then Warburton appearing on AWJ's left shoulder shouting 'touch,touch'.The look on AWJ's face spoke a thousand words.Unbelievably,and with the kicking tee on the pitch Lacey let Biggar kick to touch.The Scottish supporters around me went ape and understandably so as would we if we were the recipients.There was no mention of the roles played by Biggar and Warburton at the time nor Warburton's comment after the match by Jenkins.As for 1/2p i'd remind him that you can take the boy out of Gorseinon but not Gorseinon out of the boy.He should tell Jenkins et al to stick their Gilberts.

miaow wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

miaow wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd agree overall Jones should take into account his kickers thoughts, he just did it too late in this instance.

True, that being said though did he someone say kick meaning to the corner and he meant at goal?

Strange he went to Warburton and didn't include Halfpenny, if it was a case of Halfpenny having a problem it could have meant a missed kick and an injury made worse not that it turned out well anyway

Not really. He's talking to the next most senior member of the pack to guage whether they think they have enough pressure on Scotland in this moment to go for the jugular. If not, then you defer to the kickers. The first option should be 'can we score a try here', not 'can we score with a kick'.

I suppose its 6 of one etc

If he goes to Halfpenny and he says no I don't think I can make the kick and he talks to Warburton and says no they cant get the try then they are screwed either way

Haha, yes, and I think that's part of the problem. That probably was the case: no one was really emphatically confident enough to say 'yes, we can score this way'. Quite frankly, Halfpenny doesn't look as good a goalkicker as he once was since his return from injury, and Wales are so short on confidence as a collective and as a forward unit that they're second guessing whether they have the ability to retain and drive a lineout against Scotland (no disrespect intended to Scotland).

It's mental toughness that Wales are desperately short of, and it's why they kept coming short against the SANZAR teams despite winning Grand Slams. The problem now is that they don't even believe in themselves against Italy, let alone Scotland or England! Turning down a kick for the corner when 9-7 up and Italy offering absolutely nothing? That was the difference between them getting 3 and 4 tries, not Liam Williams's knock on right at the death against Italy.

Wales have the players. Clearly. They showed against England that, when they get up for it, they're as good as England and Ireland, and individually, I think there's a case to say they have some of the best players in Europe (Webb, Liam Williams, Warburton, Tipuric, Faletau though out of form). The problem is the footballing instincts in attack- turning pressure into points- is something they're woefully out of practice doing for Wales.

That's not going to change overnight, but it is a lot better than 2014/15, in my opinion. They are developing, albeit not enough to win Test matches. They were better defensively than England, and better at the breakdown than them, but were not better at breaking the line and scoring tries. England had one sustained period of pressure and Youngs eventually got over. Wales had pressure, and England infringed a few times at the rucks to concede 3 points, but ultimately, having got back down in the 22 after taking the 3 points, it was the Welsh inability to score quickly (Liam Williams's try came after maybe ten minutes, maybe longer, of the play being down in England's half) that lost them the game, so that when the momentum changed in the last 6 minutes or so, England needed only one score to win the game, and they're more than good enough to do that, which they did.

Anyway, as for the decision making, Wales need to get into the mindset of pressure does not equal points. They need to take the next step and rather than congratulating themselves for 'winning' the game of the basics, start getting over the tryline. That means that, yes, the first option should always be to look for 5 points instead of 3: something like Danny Care's little tap penalty against Italy has disappeared from the Welsh game it seems.

I think the team looks as good now as it has for a long time, to be honest. The sad thing is- as everyone noted before the tournament- every team has improved as well. I think Alex King has actually improved the attack, or maybe it's the absence of Gatland and Howley as Head Coach (though he'd never get credit for it), but it's still not enough. We're still holding onto too much of the past. Roberts needs to be dropped asap. There is absolutely no point of bringing Scott Williams- a player who looks excellent for the Scarlets as someone able to play the kind of tough, running rugby Wales want to be playing- off after 60 minutes for a ponderous juggernaut who is easily read by the opposition. The sooner we trust our outside backs to actually play rugby again- and that doesn't mean throw Sam Davies in without a paddle- the better. It's no surprise that Ken Owens and Liam Williams have looked better than they have done for a while without the shackles of a restrictive gameplan. We need to sweep away the last of the old guard- and for me, that is epitomised by Roberts, but frankly Jon Davies, Lydiate, Baldwin, North, Cuthert, Halfpenny, Samson Lee are all included in the mould- and show them that there are genuine repercussions for not performing for Wales, and not being technically good enough. The difficult part is, for most of those players, the player replacing them simply isn't good enough, and this is why the team hasn't had a proper regeneration since 2011.

miaow you took on a weakened England pack and still lost at home. The starting backrow was one of the most inexperienced England had started for some time.

I wouldn't look too much into it for crumbs of comfort.

Welsh fans too often don't see the reality. You aren't as good as you think you are.

Changes are needed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39117679

Always good to get your story set with the boys....

That's cleared up then. Next!

If the BBC story is a faithful record of events, I'm left slightly puzzled by one thing - if a shot at goal was indicated by A-W J, as the report appears to be saying, then since when was it permitted to change one's mind about it? I'd always thought that once the referee was informed of an attempt at the posts, that's the way it had to stay.