6N 2018: Scotland v England, 24 February

First topic message reminder :

     
SCOTLAND v ENGLAND
24 February 2018
KO: 16:45 GMT
BT Murrayfield, Edinburgh

Live on [Old BBC Colonial]

Referee: Nigel Owens (Wales)
Assistant 1: Jérôme Garcès (France)
Assistant 2: Andrew Brace (Ireland)
TMO: Simon McDowell (Ireland)

A. Head to Head

135 Played 135
42 Won 75
18 Drawn 18
75 Lost 42
1,162 Points 1,623

B. Recent Form 

2 February 2013
Twickenham, London
38 – 18 to England

8 February 2014
Murrayfield, Edinburgh
0 – 20 to England

14 March 2015
Twickenham, London
25 – 13 to England

6 February 2016
Murrayfield, Edinburgh
9 – 15 to England

11 March 2017
Twickenham, London
61 – 21 to England

C. Teams

SCOTLAND 

Hogg, Seymour, Jones, Horne, Maitland, Russell, Laidlaw; Reid, McInally, Berghan, Gilchrist, J Gray, Barclay (capt), Watson, Wilson.

Replacements: Lawson, J Bhatti, WP Nel, Swinson, Denton, Price, Grigg, Kinghorn.

ENGLAND

Brown, Watson, Joseph, Farrell, May, Ford, Care; M Vunipola, Hartley (capt), Cole, Launchbury, Itoje, Lawes, Robshaw, Hughes.

Replacements: George, Marler, Williams, G Kruis (Saracens), Underhill, Wigglesworth, B Te'o, J Nowell.

TJ wrote:Aye - he should have called "advantage" but he was - in typical Owens fashion - trying to let the game flow by not giving the penalty but once the intercept happened he had to go back.

I think that's exactly how it happened.

You can't have everything with a referee. Owens has a sense of how the game is playing out, and looks to referee in sympathy with it. This means overlooking some offences for a greater good. Other referees overlook offences for different reasons (can't see them; to scared to call them; embarassed about an earlier call, so balancing the accounts etc etc)

When a referee says "hands away", or "off your feet", he's already spotted a penalty but usually doesn't award it by signalling advantage. Instead, he gives the offender the chance to stop offending, so the other team can play on. By the law, those occasions should be penalties but there are so many, it would make the game unplayable, and unwatchable, to signal them all.

Owens warned Launchbury off, the England player reacted, but the ball was disrupted, to the disadvantage of Scotland. Owens couldn't allow the try because he'd seen the penalty offence. I'm not fussed that he didn't signal it at the time, because I want referees to have some latitude.

I remember New Zealand once losing at the breakdown - it might have been in the England loss in 2012 - and complaining the opposition were always off their feet in rucks. The referee had taken the view that, since New Zealand weren't contesting rucks when that happened, it wasn't materially affecting the outcome. New Zealand felt offences should have been penalized regardless. This strikes me as similar to how Owens operated, and it's a matter of refereeing philosphy. The trick is to realize what's hapening during a game and adapt.

BamBam wrote:The lineout question is still going to be interesting. If we do go with the back row that many want to see - Robshaw/Underhill/Hughes, do Robshaw and Underhill offer enough as jumpers?

Launchbury has been claiming his fair share this tournament to the eye, I haven't looked at the stats. Can Robshaw/Underhill claim enough ball to offset losing Itoje if he is the one that is dropped?

I doubt he will the one dropped. he is the golden child and can do not wrong (even though been the poorest performing lcok for a while just now)

R!skysports wrote:

BamBam wrote:The lineout question is still going to be interesting. If we do go with the back row that many want to see - Robshaw/Underhill/Hughes, do Robshaw and Underhill offer enough as jumpers?

Launchbury has been claiming his fair share this tournament to the eye, I haven't looked at the stats. Can Robshaw/Underhill claim enough ball to offset losing Itoje if he is the one that is dropped?

I doubt he will the one dropped. he is the golden child and can do not wrong (even though been the poorest performing lcok for a while just now)

I think Itoje is being outplayed by Launchbury and Lawes at the moment, but I don't think he's doing that badly really - just not making such obvious and eye catching plays as he was doing when he first came on the scene. I also wonder how much of Lawes open field work is being enabled purely because he is playing at 6 - would he offer the same impact if he was doing the lock work that Itoje is?

On balance though, I agree he is the one that should drop to the bench even if just to take him out of the spotlight and let him concentrate on getting back to top form

No 7 & 1/2

England had Lawes,Launchbury and Itoje all starting vs Ireland...

It wasn't a change made after the Ireland game.

Ireland dominated possession and territory and won the battle of the breakdown.

So no I don't think lessons have been learnt.

I don't see any evidence of England adapting as of yet.

If we had we'd see England reverting to a proper backrow for the 6 nations.

I think Itoje and Cole look absolutely flogged at the minute. I'd consider giving them the day off v France.

Yes we did and we got butchered. Sorry but you just want to say you want a different back row don't you? So do I. But by saying that Englands coaches wouldn't have noticed and learnt this vs ireland particularly for me at the lineout is where I'll continue to say you're wrong. Make an argument to say that overall the coaches seem to be putting more emphasis on set piece than breakdown and I'll whole heartedly agree.

Losing 2 lineouts to 1 lineout is a bit of an exaggeration in terms of being butchered.

I feel you are putting too much emphasis on the lineout in regards to the loss.

It was one below par game at lineout time, the issues at the breakdown aren't a one game thing.

The emphasis of Jones' England hasn't changed that's my point.

Before Ireland, the lineout was important to Jones' England, post Ireland the lineout is still important.

There has been no shift towards fixing the issues which have dogged England.

This is why I don't think England have learnt from the Ireland game.

Even if you take out Lawes or Itoje you still have Robshaw as a potential back up jumper.

Maitland's try from the air - Finn's pass looks even more sexy from this view!

Did you watch the england ireland game? The lineout took the wind out of sails completely. Even the ones we were winning were horrible quality. I don't like the back row with a lock there. Just trying to point out to you that it's pretty obvious the reasoning. Set piece particularly the lineout and a string of injuries. Clearly the coaches do review all games so trying to temper the exaggeration. It's a balance that England have gone for. You see that don't you and the same as me feel the balance may be best served the other way. Just because he coaches at present don't agree doesn't mean they're sat twiddling their thumbs. As a vast quantity of he's discussions in the past look at why they are going for it?

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Maitland's try from the air - Finn's pass looks even more sexy from this view!

oops................ forward

cascough wrote:

TJ wrote:The ref can never see every offence and also if he did whistle of every offence then the game would be so stop start.  A case in point is the robshaw turnover.  Clearly off his feet.  Owens calls hands away ( the offence has already been committed at this point).  Scotland get the ball back and throw the interception.  Owens whistles.  If Scotland had got the ball away cleanly he would have ignored Robshaws offense but as they didn't he had to whistle it

Fans also only see when they are sinned against - not when they are sinners.  I counted 4 high tackles on Scots players unpunished. One pullback off the ball etc etc.

It was an advantage to Scotland having Owens - his style of reffing the breakdown favours them and also the players are used to him.

But thats not why you lost - you lost because of fantastic breakdown work and inflexibility in tactics

If you're referring to the incident I think you are, it was Launchbury. Owens asked him to release, Launchbury did, and Owens told him he was fine. Owens did not play advantage and play moved on (ie the ball was passed away). When it was intercepted, Owens suddenly decided actually Launchbury holding on WAS an offence (which contradicts the communication and lack of playing advantage) and brought play back. I actually have no problem with Launchbury getting pinged for what he did (although would point out it's no different from things Scotland were allowed to do) but telling him he's fine, not playing advantage and then bringing play back is NOT good reffing. It's not clear (ie either it's a pen or it's not. It shouldn't be based on what happens next) and it's contradictory to the prior communication. It must have been incredibly frustrating to play that.

I completely agree with this interpretation. You can see on the close-up replay Launchbury look up at Owens and release the ball. Owens was at first satisfied with this, and later changed his mind. I've never seen that happen before.

Regardless of the decision, there was a lot of rugby to be played afterwards and we should only comment on what actually happened. Potentially, had Care's try been given, Scotland could have been spurred on to attack more and maybe have even scored a TBP for themselves. We'll never know.

Scotland were well worth their win. My shouting at the TV for every perceived breakdown offence by Scottish jacklers was more in the vein hope that Owens would throw us a bone. The raw fact is the English back row and forward pack as a whole did not do their job of securing quick, clean breakdown ball. Most of the time, they didn't secure the ball at all.

In terms of permutations now, we need to win both our remaining games if we're going to win this tournament and get the "Three-peat", unless Scotland slip up against Italy (unlikely). Scotland will take 5 points from Italy in Week 5.

[Now]
Ireland pld 3 pts 14
England pld 3 pts 9
Scotland pld 3 pts 8

Scotland beating Ireland represents our best chance at winning the tournament. Assuming Scotland beat Ireland, we beat France and Scotland beat Italy with a bonus point, the table would look like this (potential bonus points in brackets):

Scotland pld 5 pts 17 (+1)
Ireland pld 4 pts 14 (+1)
England pld 4 pts 13 (+1)

England would have to beat Ireland in the final week to have a shot, but a try bonus point against France would potentially leave us needing any win, rather than having to rack up a bonus point and/or catch up a points difference disadvantage.

Or, if Ireland beat Scotland, England beat France and Scotland beat Italy with a bonus point, the table would look like this (potential bonus points in brackets):
Ireland pld 4 pts 18 (+1)
England pld 4 pts 13 (+1)
Scotland pld 5 pts 13 (+1)

A try bonus point against France would just keep us in the hunt if Ireland picked up one against Scotland (19 and 14), although it would take some thrashing of Ireland to deliver the Championship. Or, if Ireland managed a 4 point victory over Scotland, a bonus point (18 and 14) would give us some chance at least, especially if we could rack up the points difference against France. It means we wouldn't have to chase the try bonus point at least, and we could potentially win the Championship with a low-scoring 8 point win.

I don't think we need to play like Scotland to do this. We don't have two 7s capable of winning a string of turnovers by themselves. When we were at our best under Eddie, we had Haskell at 7. He wasn't winning turnovers himself, but he was smashing would-be jacklers off the ball. I'd bring in Underhill to see what he can do in this role and Haskell onto the bench. Itoje would drop to the bench for me and Kruis would come out of the 23 altogether.

I'd like to see Harry Williams come into the starting line-up as well, I've been impressed with his impact coming on in the last couple of games. Cole has been playing well, but Williams brings more of an edge around the pitch. I'd like to see if he can do it for 50+ minutes, knowing I have a steady hand in Cole on the bench. Maybe if Williams could take some off the workload from Mako around the park, we'd get more out of both of them.

I'd also switch Watson to full back and bring in Nowell. We need the try bonus point, I want my three best try-scorers in that back 3. I'd have Brown on the bench in case Watson has a mare, but I think now is the time to try it.

Finally, and I almost can't believe this one myself, but I'd have Wigglesworth starting over Care. I think Care is a more skillful player, but here's why I would go that way round:

Firstly, look at the Australia game in the Autumn, and then look at the Wales game in the Six Nations. I can't find the exact minute Care came on against Australia, but after Daly's try in the 53rd minute, Foley kicked Australia back to 13-6 on the 63rd minute. After that, Care was instrumental in England scoring 3 tries in the last 10 minutes, including one himself. Against Wales, England swapped Care off for Wigglesworth in the 65th minute at 12-3 and ended up winning 12-6. There was no extra spark against a team trying to chase the game from a near identical position.

Secondly, look at how Laidlaw has galvanised the Scottish team after their game against Wales. He doesn't make many breaks himself, but he facilitates others. With Ford and Farrell our creative force (see Russell and Horne for the Scots) and 4 strike runners out the back (Joseph, May, Nowell, Watson or Jones, Seymour, Maitland and Hogg, depending on which side of the border you're sitting), it's almost better to have a 9 who doesn't play quite so much heads-up-and-looking-for-gaps and just looks to deliver the ball, either to a pod of forwards or to his backs.

Let's get Wigglesworth starting and the team playing with structure, and Care coming on and bringing chaos later in the game.

My 23 for the France game would be:
Mako, Hartley, Williams, Launchbury, Lawes, Robshaw, Underhill, Hughes, Wigglesworth, Ford, May, Farrell, Joseph, Nowell, Watson.
George, Marler, Cole, Itoje, Haskell, Care, Te'o, Brown.

It's not a time to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but signs have been there for this England team and it's time to tweak a couple of things to fix these issues, especially in light of Saturday's loss.

Neck roll on Farrell from Watson is the more obvious infringement to point out fly.

4 high tackles from English players on Scots, a couple of neck rolls and a pull back of the shirt by an english player are some of the things I saw that the ref didn't. Its a good job us one eyed fans are not refs

No 7&1/2 wrote:Did you watch the england ireland game? The lineout took the wind out of sails completely. Even the ones we were winning were horrible quality. I don't like the back row with a lock there. Just trying to point out to you that it's pretty obvious the reasoning. Set piece particularly the lineout and a string of injuries. Clearly the coaches do review all games so trying to temper the exaggeration. It's a balance that England have gone for. You see that don't you and the same as me feel the balance may be best served the other way. Just because he coaches at present don't agree doesn't mean they're sat twiddling their thumbs. As a vast quantity of he's discussions in the past look at why they are going for it?

Yes but you are cannot highlight the lineout when it's not the lineout which is why we lost to Scotland. Lineout's importance vs Ireland has been exaggerated by yourself also.

The similarity in the losses to Scotland and Ireland is not the lineout.

Lineout has been a focal point of England in Jones in entire tenure.

Well it seems as if the problems are being ignored because they aren't being fixed, cracks being papered over.



Robbo I like that 23.

Er I didn't highlight the lineout against scotland. And no I don't believe I am over egging it vs ireland. Even going into the last quarter last year we were in the game. Promptly had a lineout stolen. I think it's that game that convinced them that they can't weaken the lineout by having someone like Robshaw over lawes.but I may be wrong. Why do you feel he's gone with lawes consistently. Injuries as I've pointed out and what?

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Maitland's try from the air - Finn's pass looks even more sexy from this view!

I cant stop watching that - just an unbelievable piece of skill and vision under huge pressure - It's the way he puts the ball into the perfect space, about 5m away from Jones - what a pair of stones.

well no you can't highlight the lineout because it wasn't an issue vs Scotland.

My point is it's foolish to come to the conclusion England have a bad lineout based on one lineout loss in 1 game when it's been generally consistent under Jones even when we've not had locks in the backrow.

Jones was picking Lawes,Itoje and Launchbury before the Ireland game - what are you having difficulty with understanding?

It was not a reaction to the Irish defeat.

Dear me. Didn't mention the scotland game. Responded to a point you made about no lessons being learnt from the ireland game. Why do you feel the coaches gor with lawes in the back row? What does he bring in their eyes?

Ok chaps - this thread is about Scotlands glorious victory over the Auld Enemy not some minutiae about lineouts V ireland ;-)

No 7&1/2 wrote:Neck roll on Farrell from Watson is the more obvious infringement to point out fly.

That wasn't a neck roll, it. Looks like that from that view but he actually grabs him by the chest.

It was. It happens.

Ref is the sole decider of fact. It wasn't. Farrell didn't complain either about it.

Ok. Sorry let me rephrase. Watson cleared Farrell out by going round the neck and it was missed.

:-)

In that case there are a load of things that look like neck rolls by english players and high tackles that were also missed

SecretFly wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Maitland's try from the air - Finn's pass looks even more sexy from this view!

oops................ forward

I was ready to say, stop baiting Fly... but watching it a few times.. I think it is. Look where Russell is passing the ball, in relation to the line and then look at the catch, in relation to the pitch markings. I think it probably was half a meter forward.

Oh.. for clarity, I meant the first pass, the long one, not the last pass before the try scored.

One thing that clip highlights for me is the way the english backs do not work at the breakdown. Jones initial break is hauled down 3 white shirts are in position behind the tackle. One scot goes in to make a ruck. No attempt by the english players to disrupt the clean ball scotland got despite having more players there earlier. the ball was there for the taking.

Fair enough tj. Owens missed a few things all refs do.

No 9 - if you look that closely then almost every backs try has a forward pass hence the refs look for "clear and obvious" and " direction of the hands"

Bar Farrell tj who gets over the ball. And is cleared out round the head. 1 min 27 on the beeb highlights.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Fair enough tj. Owens missed a few things all refs do.

Aye. I was screaming about the high tackles ( from my nest behind the sofa) fans only tend to see when they are sinned against not when they sin

Some do it appears.

TJ wrote:No 9 - if you look that closely then almost every backs try has a forward pass hence the refs look for "clear and obvious" and " direction of the hands"

Yes I know how it goes.. but Russell is not running forward at speed at the time, so the "momentum" of the ball wouldn't be a factor. Also, look at his hands closely and they don't go backwards and the angle of his body is facing the touch line, not the posts. All this, as well as the ball landing about half a meter in front of the pitch markings indicates a forward pass to me.

BUT... as per the disallowed Anscombe try against England, is done. Decision made, game over..

My comment was simply, I thought Fly was baiting, but closer examination, I reckon he was right... it was a forward pass.

7/1/2  different ruck.  I'm talking about the one down the right.  

You can see 3 white shirts lined up behind the ruck, one scot on the ground, one scot forming a ruck and one scot acting SH.  No attempt by those 3 white shirts to disrupt the ball.  they just took themselves out of the game
[img]Image1 by TandemJeremy, on Flickr[/img]

Brown goes to but is stopped. The ball is then moved on quickly.

Aye - but they had a small window of opportunity to stop that quick ball but didn't even try

What version of the bonus system are we using,4 tries and a losing bonus point,or that current in the top14.
Three tries more than your opponents score plus losing bonus point.?
It seems it was down to complancey they underestimated Scotland,home advantage in this competition is
huge.
England still have a very real hope of winning the championship,BUT no Calcutta Cup,Triple Crown,or
Grand slam.
As an Anglo=Scot couldn't lose on this one Scotland I`m glad to say deserved this one and have made
real strides in this team recently.

4 tries for a bonus point

Watch it again only brown had he chance as the others werent onside. Brown goes for it the Scottish player goes in competes stops brown and seals off th ruck. The ball is whipped away. The next ruck created when Farrell brings down the player bounces and gets his hands on the ball. No real way to slow it legally until Farrell did so. Here's a question on whether england should try to slow it illegally but you're risking a yellow at that stage and a number of my fellow england fans are concerned about pens anyway!

TJ wrote:7/1/2  different ruck.  I'm talking about the one down the right.  

You can see 3 white shirts lined up behind the ruck, one scot on the ground, one scot forming a ruck and one scot acting SH.  No attempt by those 3 white shirts to disrupt the ball.  they just took themselves out of the game
Image1 by TandemJeremy, on Flickr" />

Without watching the video I can't see the immediate prior shots, but that ruck looks pretty well sourced by Scotland. My only concern would be the back next to Brown (May?) needs to take a couple of paces out and push everyone a touch wider, but I can't see too much wrong there.

After a line break, a retreating outside back competing in a ruck is more likely to give away a penalty than win a turnover. Maybe they could have slowed the ball down a second and helped the outside defence more, but it's fine margins and they have to make a split-second call.

http://www.rugbydump.com/2018/02/6207/new-footage-shows-moment-owen-farrell-pushed-scotland-players-in-the-tunnel-before-kick-off

We've not seen the whole incident, but it certainly looks like Farrell was the one that started it despite the RFU claiming otherwise!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Dear me. Didn't mention the scotland game. Responded to a point you made about no lessons being learnt from the ireland game. Why do you feel the coaches gor with lawes in the back row? What does he bring in their eyes?

I feel like I am going around in circles with you. I already explained. It's why I get so frustated. Jones had already picked 3 locks in the pack already - why are you having difficulty picking this up?

England should be picking a proper backrow. That's the lesson that has not be learnt. You even said you want a proper backrow, England have to do this yet you just resort to disagreeing with the.

It's a lesson England didn't learn vs Ireland and it's a lesson that England have to learn from vs Scotland.

We'll see if England pick a proper backrow vs France.

Beshocked. Why do the coaches pick lawes?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Beshocked. Why do the coaches pick lawes?

Because he looks mean. He looks an 'enforcer' type. But the question always has been 'is he?'

Yes that's true enough for your last point. Our pack is either too mean or 2 nice. We haven't got the 3rd goldilocks factor yet apparently.

They pick Lawes because they want 3 locks in the pack but as I said this wasn't an new strategy used after playing Ireland. They did this before.

Found out vs Ireland, found out vs Scotland.

England need to use a proper backrow. Give Underhill a proper run out despite the yellow.

Robshaw,Underhill,Hughes has better balance.

England have focused too much on the 3 lock combo.

That means benching the out of form Itoje.

Itoje was out of form in the first two games as well.

That's not really a reason is it? What does lawes robshaw as he 2 flankers bring for this coaching team? You know your rugby well and said you're an expert. Why have the coaches not gone with more traditional flankers? I have no faith you'll answer this but it's an attempt to get you to acknowledge that the coaches are making decisions based on observations like those made from the ireland game last year.

Underhill gives some aggressive power which looked missing from many of the other England forwards.

England might have been bigger and stronger per man...but they looked a whole lot less dynamic and powerful than Scotland.

Ditto v Ireland last year.

Exactly Geordiefalcon well said.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Maitland's try from the air - Finn's pass looks even more sexy from this view!

Very well executed, obviously picked up that JJ is very quick to cut out the wide passes, so just float it over his head, easy right Some cojones on Russell though, get that even slightly wrong and JJ is under the posts.

No9 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Maitland's try from the air - Finn's pass looks even more sexy from this view!

oops................ forward

I was ready to say, stop baiting Fly... but watching it a few times.. I think it is. Look where Russell is passing the ball, in relation to the line and then look at the catch, in relation to the pitch markings. I think it probably was half a meter forward.

Oh.. for clarity, I meant the first pass, the long one, not the last pass before the try scored.

You're absolutely spot on, and it makes that pass above perfection!

Why?

Roll the tape from 0.06-0.07. Its absolutely flat.
From 0.07-0.09 (1 sec after the pass) it drifts forward about 1/2 a yard, exactly as you said.

Fortunately the law states its not whether the ball drifts forward in the pass, its whether it was delivered forward (hands passing back or flat).

It was flat, and that's why it wasn't forward!