England World Cup Warm Ups

by No 7&1/2 Wed 24 Jul 2019, 11:28 am

First topic message reminder :

Don't expect the snazzy pics produced on better match threads!

England Wales 11th August
Wales England 17th August
England Ireland 24th August
England Italy 6th September.

Squad for the world cup is due 2nd September so theres a chance the 1st 3 could be used for selection purposes and likely to see some combos not considered 1st choice.

BBC saving me typing:

England: Daly; McConnochie, Slade, Francis, Watson; Ford, Heinz; Genge, Cowan-Dickie, Cole, Launchbury, Ewels, Curry, Underhill, B Vunipola.

Replacements: Singleton, Marler, Williams, Kruis, Ludlam, Youngs, Marchant, Cokanasiga.

Wales: L Williams; North, J Davies, Parkes, Adams; Anscombe, G Davies; Smith, Owens, Francis, Beard, Jones, Wainwright, Tipuric, Moriarty.

Replacements: Dee, Jones, Lewis, Ball, Shingler, T Williams, Biggar, Watkin.

by Gooseberry Tue 13 Aug 2019, 9:41 am

BamBam wrote:Kruis adds a lot at the scrum, he and Itoje are apparently the best scrummaging locks so I can see why Eddie wants them there

Its a great problem to have, Lawes offers so much every time he's on the field, I just have a feeling that having an absolute rock solid set piece is so important in a tournament

Lineout is absolutely vital to Englands touch kicking based game, in terms of locks I feel they should be looking to that ahead of the scrum. The scrum still matters of course, but the front row are the leaders there whereas the locks (well and hooker on their own throw) are the primary for lineout. It should be a factor in the back row too.
I guess thats another place where having two who also cover 6 is a plus for England, they can end up with 3 line out leaders on the pitch.

by Rinsure Tue 13 Aug 2019, 9:41 am

BamBam wrote:Kruis adds a lot at the scrum, he and Itoje are apparently the best scrummaging locks so I can see why Eddie wants them there

Its a great problem to have, Lawes offers so much every time he's on the field, I just have a feeling that having an absolute rock solid set piece is so important in a tournament

All the discussion seems to be around those three, but are we forgetting what Launchbury brings to the side? His workrate, especially in defence, is up there with the very best, and his ability to get from ruck to ruck quickly offers a lot of grunt. Not as flashy as the hits from Lawes, nor as prominent in the loose as Itoje, but links between forwards and backs beautifully, and has gloriously deft offloads in the tight.

Not our best lineout weapon, I concede, however.

by TightHEAD Tue 13 Aug 2019, 9:44 am

No8 and FB is still a worry for me, woke up in the night thinking about it.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Aug 2019, 9:44 am

He was excellent in maul defence though.

by BamBam Tue 13 Aug 2019, 9:47 am

Rinsure wrote:
BamBam wrote:Kruis adds a lot at the scrum, he and Itoje are apparently the best scrummaging locks so I can see why Eddie wants them there

Its a great problem to have, Lawes offers so much every time he's on the field, I just have a feeling that having an absolute rock solid set piece is so important in a tournament

All the discussion seems to be around those three, but are we forgetting what Launchbury brings to the side? His workrate, especially in defence, is up there with the very best, and his ability to get from ruck to ruck quickly offers a lot of grunt. Not as flashy as the hits from Lawes, nor as prominent in the loose as Itoje, but links between forwards and backs beautifully, and has gloriously deft offloads in the tight.

Not our best lineout weapon, I concede, however.

Personally am a big Launchbury fan, the issue is I think he can really only be paired with either Kruis or Lawes due to his lineout weakness. I'd want to see Itoje in the side every game, so for me its whoever best compliments him, at the moment I think that's Kruis.

Lawes and Launchbury have proven time and time again that they compliment each others games and are a great pairing, would have no issue with them starting, and indeed would probably be my favoured partnership if Itoje was unavailable. I think individually they are better players than Kruis, but its the combination with Itoje which has me favouring him, and then Lawes as a great impact player

by TightHEAD Tue 13 Aug 2019, 9:51 am

If George is the hooker it would be mad not to go with Kruis and Itoje

by Soul Requiem Tue 13 Aug 2019, 9:59 am

Second row is a weird one, as individuals you wouldn't have Kruis in the 23 but the combination with George and Itoje makes him essential, he's the least impactful player too so he either starts or misses out entirely. Were Hartley going I'd probably go with Lawes and Launchbury but he's not so it's a moot point.

Good dilemma to have either way.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 13 Aug 2019, 10:14 am

robbo277 wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:
robbo277 wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:I've just been reading back the debate on scrum halves from April.
I won't name names but there's a great long debate between someone insisting every team will take 3 but Jones only has one he trusts and someone else isniting he has 5 he trusts but will only take two of them, none of which were Heinz.
Very strong opinions and both very wrong it would seem.

Let's face it this squad is not like the one we expected, even back when the training squad was announced. Francis was a rank outsider but there's three that are even more out of the blue.

How much the disciplinary issue with Brown and Two who were both fringe candidates played into that is anyone's guess but it could be called very brave to leave so many fit caps at home, and to go short with key positions like half backs and no proper full back.
I guess the flip side is it takes away the speculation and constant pressure on certain players and the style england adopt. Jones is backing his players and the system. It's kinda nice to think the coach has faith in his own opinions.

But still ....Heinz? Francis? Ronald MacDonald? Hmmm. Again though it's a pattern with Jones to pick seemingly left field players from outside the established squad who might be good enough rather than continuing to back fringe players who he feels have come up short in the past. It's not like chaps such as Robshaw Hartley and Brown haven't been given chances under him.

If anyone predicted more than 75% of this squad 2 years ago they deserve a biscuit.

75% of a 31 man squad is 24 (after rounding).

Mako, Marler, George, Sinckler, Cole, Itoje, Lawes, Kruis, Launchbury, Billy, Youngs, Ford, Farrell, Manu, Joseph, May, Watson, Daly and Nowell would have been in most people's squads. That's 19.

5 of the players selected in the squad hadn't been capped 2 years ago - Cokanasiga, Heinz, Ludlam, Singleton and McConnochie so you'd have done well to pick them - most people would have gone with Hartley, Robshaw, Care and Brown over 4 of those.

The other 7 are Genge, Cowan-Dickie, Wilson, Curry, Underhill, Francis and Slade. Not inconceivable that someone would have had 5 of them. I doubt Francis would have made many squads though and Wilson didn't have loads of support outside the North East back then.

Haha well OK have a hobnob! I am half tempted to dig back to the "Whos would be in your world cup squad" thread from 2 years ago just to check

Manu wouldnt have been in many folks squads though, that was right in the middle of his extended absences form all rugby, whilst he was looking for a move to France, and uncertainty over his long term injury future. He had never been in a matchday squad under Jones. At that time Teo was well established as the direct running options in the centers. So to have him down as a certain would have been a stretch. Quite a few people were pointing to Isiekewe and Ewels as players who would push Lawes or another out.

Cowan Dickie had dropped out of the squad altogether for Argentina.
Of the final list 3 were fringe flankers, given the large number of established/capped players available (including various converted locks covering 6) and other like Ewers, Armand and Curry getting a lot of hype not many would have had more than two of those in. Francis would have been a big push for anyone, and frankly still is. Slade would have been in a few, but Slade and Manu alongside Farrell Teo JJ Daly (who many still see as a center) Devoto Lozowski and Marchant as possibles plus god nows how many other random names chucked in isnt exactly a probable.
Genge I think you could bump to the top list to be fair though, he was pretty hot property by that point.
But 5 of those 7 wouldve been a very good prediction as you say.

Im giving 18 from your first list , 1 from your second ( Cokanasiga although most people would have left him out just to avoid having to try and remember how to spell his name), and 5 from the last list. That makes 24 which ok is a smidge over 75%, make it a chocolate hob nob for a fair chink of folk. On reflection Id reckon the squads for the previous two campaigns would've had at least that level of shake up post lions too.

But look the general point is theres been some pretty unexpected changes to the squad for this late in the cycle and some brave decisions made. Its certainly not unusual for one or two players to get parachuted in late ( Burgess 2015, Manu 2011) but this squad has quite a few and a lot of big name former core players left out. Reading the latest on T'eo it does seem that his exclusion was decided by the fight in Italy. Coupled with Jones' comments regarding mature players (despite some being quite young and inexperienced at test level) it does look like hes made decision to try and minimise the risks of poor discipline (cough Manu cough). both in terms of keeping calm heads on the field and following a set game plan, and off the field behaviour.

I guess there is more of what could be considered a core squad going than Id thought. The welcome resurrection of Watson and the leaving out of Hartley, Brown, Robshaw and Care maybe makes it feel like more of a radical shake up than it really is. I guess its not so much raw numbers but a few players who seemed so deeply ingrained left out, and those bought in so very left field that makes it feel like a very different group even 75% where there or there abouts two years ago.

In that time England have significantly changed the way they are playing too to focus on a territorial kicking game and aggressive defence. The inclusion of Heinz absolutely seems to fit this model, but given Jones had picked 6 other scrum halves prior to turning to him and been critisized for ignoring another that does show some pretty radical and brave thinking. Its good to feel though that everyone has had to earn a place in the squad both in terms of long term performances at whichever level they were playing or through the training camps. These are players on form and responding well to whats being coached and who are on board with whats going on, thats quite different to some previous squads (notably 2007 where the splits between coaching and players widened pretty rapidly).

Im hoping this avoids the discord that was sewn by Burgess last time round and the way T'eo and Brown left the squad doesn't poison things. Theres obvious issues with the lack of cover for the half backs and lack of a proper full back which could leave England in trouble if theres minor injuries. I don't think the fifth choice winger choice is really that big a deal.

Theres still a lot of uncertainty over the first 15 and 23, but time in the remaining warm ups to work that out. With a solid win over a good Wales side, and New Zealand looking fragile I'm a bit more optimistic than I was after the 6 nations about Englands chances. It does seem like a very open cup this time around.

As a below post, I don't think I would have got 24! 19 definitely, maybe 21 all in all. I just wanted to play about with the numbers though, if you parachuted 2017-me into 2019 I'd be wondering what had happened to Hartley, Robshaw, Care, Te'o and Brown most prominently, and some of their replacements would have had me raising questions. I thought Solomona was a cert after the Argentina tour as well, but he barely for another look in.

Manu would have made my squads with all the usual caveats of fitness and availability. But even 2 years ago despite him not having featured for England for years, there was no-one better than him playing at the time. I would have possibly had Farrell, Ford, Tuilagi and Joseph and 2 of Slade, Cipriani and Te'o. Possibly not Slade actually, as I might have gone with Cipriani to cover Farrell playing at 12 (as he was then) and Te'o as a back up 12, with Tuilagi and Joseph as 13s.

Maybe I'll have a dig through old posts as well!

Robbo, you named 25 of the squad in this thread:

https://www.606v2.com/t65916-england-s-elite-performance-squad-2017-18

by Poorfour Tue 13 Aug 2019, 10:49 am

Eddie has been clear that he wanted Manu at 12 from his earliest days, and I always had the sense that Te'o was a stand in until Manu was fit, so I wasn't surprised he was dropped.

Bearing in mind that Farrell, Francis and Slade can all play 12 as well, we have adequate cover and a variety of options for how we play.

The point about fluidity is well made. The 2003 side had the option of Greenwood and Catt, both of whom could play 10, 12 or 13 if needed and that gave them the tactical flexibility they needed against defences that targeted Wilkinson. When the team had more time on the ball (and Richard Hill), they could revert to Greenwood with Tindall outside.

I am not convinced by JJ - he looked to me like he was trying too hard, and had bulked up in the upper body so much that he'd lost some agility. He didn't fit as seamlessly into the game as Watson did. I would have liked to have seen Marchant given a decent run out to at least provide some comparison. They are players with a similar style, but Marchant is probably closer to pre-injury Joseph than Joseph himself is.

by formerly known as Sam Tue 13 Aug 2019, 11:43 am

Soul Requiem wrote:Second row is a weird one, as individuals you wouldn't have Kruis in the 23 but the combination with George and Itoje makes him essential, he's the least impactful player too so he either starts or misses out entirely. Were Hartley going I'd probably go with Lawes and Launchbury but he's not so it's a moot point.

Good dilemma to have either way.

Kruis is the least impactful around the park but our set pieces seem to work best when he's involved. This England team need a lineout and scrum working to their best and so for me he has to start. Kruis work rate is vastly underrated as well.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Aug 2019, 12:36 pm

Bit of talk from the coaches then which I'm sure is purely due to the back to back games. Gatland seems to be blaming his tactics for the loss with Jones saying that there could have been a couple of reds for wales. Dont think there was but merely to get inside the head of the ref as wales have tried against us during the last couple of games.

by Soul Requiem Tue 13 Aug 2019, 12:41 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Bit of talk from the coaches then which I'm sure is purely due to the back to back games. Gatland seems to be blaming his tactics for the loss with Jones saying that there could have been a couple of reds for wales. Dont think there was but merely to get inside the head of the ref as wales have tried against us during the last couple of games.

I thought Jones said the opposite and it was in relation to Barretts red for NZ, that it wasn't a red card and there were two similar incidents in the Wales game.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Aug 2019, 12:57 pm

Picked it from this Wales not quite ready for top world ranking accolade - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49314090
No direct quotes so perhaps welsh rugby reporters being mischievous themselves again?!

by TightHEAD Tue 13 Aug 2019, 1:04 pm

There was a couple of incidents in the Wales game whereby had the TMO looked at it in slow motion then the tackler led with the shoulder and made contact with the head, there was also no arms chop tackle on BillyV missed.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Aug 2019, 1:04 pm

Nothing in the region of a red card though. If jones said barrett's wasn't hes wrong though.

by TightHEAD Tue 13 Aug 2019, 1:06 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Nothing in the region of a red card though.

By the letter of the law anything is possible these days, contact to the head is a risky business.

by TightHEAD Tue 13 Aug 2019, 1:08 pm

My first opinion on Barretts was that it was a harsh red, having watched it back it was a red card all day long, the players reaction gave it away. He knew.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 13 Aug 2019, 1:15 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Picked it from this Wales not quite ready for top world ranking accolade - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49314090
No direct quotes so perhaps welsh rugby reporters being mischievous themselves again?!

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/england-vs-wales-result-eddie-jones-world-rugby-scott-barrett-red-card-video-watch-a9052386.html

Eddie Jones wrote:We saw a red card yesterday which affected the game. We need to get some consistency into that area of the game. In the World Cup if you lose a player through a red card as New Zealand did yesterday, it makes the game very difficult.
I thought we saw two instances today where that could have happened. I urge World Rugby - although I don't think they do anything at great pace do they - to get some consistency in that area because otherwise we will have games being destroyed by an inconsistent official making a decision on a law that's not clear.
I thought it was ridiculous. A bloke gets tackled, (Barrett) goes to be second man in and his shoulder hits his (Hooper’s) head and he gets a red card. We can't have that in the game.
There has to be some common sense applied but maybe common sense was applied today really well. But what I'm saying is that we need to have some consistency and common sense. I think it's really important for the game.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Aug 2019, 1:22 pm

Cant agree with him then. Clear red and nothing like it happened in the wales game.

by Collapse2005 Tue 13 Aug 2019, 1:41 pm

Englands recent form is built on out muscling opponents. He is just afraid England will be next for a red.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Aug 2019, 1:49 pm

Well that and a better overall skill set. Anyone could realistically pick up a red card due to bad technique or bad luck in some cases e.g. elliot daly and high balls.

by Collapse2005 Tue 13 Aug 2019, 2:04 pm

Yeah true I just happy that the ABs are no longer exempt.

by Gooseberry Tue 13 Aug 2019, 2:04 pm

Generally speaking a team that fancies itself to win most games will be more concerned about poor or inconsistent officiating, or as 7.5 says red cards coming for offences that were just sheer bad luck as opposed to fundamentally dangerous play. It adds a lottery effect to games that doesnt suit the favourites.

by Collapse2005 Tue 13 Aug 2019, 2:06 pm

Gooseberry wrote:Generally speaking a team that fancies itself to win most games will be more concerned about poor or inconsistent officiating, or as 7.5 says red cards coming for offences that were just sheer bad luck as opposed to fundamentally dangerous play. It adds a lottery effect to games that doesnt suit the favourites.

I have limited sympathy for Barrett, he barged his shoulder and forearm into a guys head and neck. Very easy to avoid reds in that scenario in my view, dont barge into players with your shoulder and forearm, tackle instead.

by Gooseberry Tue 13 Aug 2019, 2:11 pm

Collapse2005 wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:Generally speaking a team that fancies itself to win most games will be more concerned about poor or inconsistent officiating, or as 7.5 says red cards coming for offences that were just sheer bad luck as opposed to fundamentally dangerous play. It adds a lottery effect to games that doesnt suit the favourites.

I have limited sympathy for Barrett, he barged his shoulder into a guys head and neck. Very easy to avoid reds in that scenario in my view.

Not a comment on that specific incident which I haven't even seen, but on Jones' apparent motivation for the comments he made. Most folk do seem to agree it was a red, but that shouldn't take away from the principle that its genuine acts of dangerous and foul play or outright intentional unsporting conduct that should be sanctioned with reds, not tripping on your shoes laces or something. Acts that are well oustide the established norms of play. And that the line for their use is consistently applied wherever it is set.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 13 Aug 2019, 2:23 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cant agree with him then. Clear red and nothing like it happened in the wales game.

As mitigation for Barrett, Hooper was extremely low to the ground when contact was made. However what counts against him is that at no point did he ever look to use his arms - so even if contact had been made below the head (would have needed Hooper to be higher he was that low) it would still have been an offence worthy of a yellow card for the no arms tackle.

There were two similar challenges on Heinz and Ford. In both cases the players were falling due to a tackle (as was Hooper) but in this case the Welshmen (Wainwright and Moriarty I think) were attempting to use arms. The ref penalised Wales for dangerous challenges, which means a card is always a risk, but in my opinion was correct in not handing out further sanction.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Aug 2019, 2:38 pm

I dont think Barrett was put to hurt but theres a creeping trend on trying to rile players and play to the edge. You saw NZ target Hooper through the game Savea most notably.

by TightHEAD Tue 13 Aug 2019, 2:44 pm

No one wants a game ruined by a red card.

Easy rule for weekend Refs is that if they see contact to the head then its Red, Head is Red thumbsup

Matches with video evidence then the TMO and ref should review on a case by case basis, if it is intentional act of aggression then send them off, if a player is going to ground and another player fails to react quickly enough but still makes contact to head then a lesser yellow card is more deserving, if they do a SBW thumbsdown

and line up a player then red is the sensible conclusion.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 13 Aug 2019, 2:55 pm

TightHEAD wrote:No one wants a game ruined by a red card.

Easy rule for weekend Refs is that if they see contact to the head then its Red, Head is Red

Except if the head is at hip height it is usually ridiculous to issue a red card. If the waist high tackle trial comes into law such contact would not be a red card anyway (the trial sets the tackle height at waist height when standing up).

by TightHEAD Tue 13 Aug 2019, 3:03 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
TightHEAD wrote:No one wants a game ruined by a red card.

Easy rule for weekend Refs is that if they see contact to the head then its Red, Head is Red

Except if the head is at hip height it is usually ridiculous to issue a red card. If the waist high tackle trial comes into law such contact would not be a red card anyway (the trial sets the tackle height at waist height when standing up).

Why is it ridiculous?

Players have to get smarter and use their judgement as to whether they can make the tackle or not, Its not life or death if they fail to make a tackle.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 13 Aug 2019, 3:22 pm

What if the head is at knee height? The players are not aiming for the head when they tackle that low, they are aiming well below and other events conspire to create the collision with head. Red cards should only be issued for reckless challenges and aiming at or below the waist is not reckless.

by Geordie Tue 13 Aug 2019, 3:53 pm

Is the game on Saturday or sunday this weekend? Its on Channel 4 aswell isnt it?

by robbo277 Tue 13 Aug 2019, 3:59 pm

LondonTiger wrote:What if the head is at knee height? The players are not aiming for the head when they tackle that low, they are aiming well below and other events conspire to create the collision with head. Red cards should only be issued for reckless challenges and aiming at or below the waist is not reckless.

The Barrett one wasn't a legitimate tackle attempt though in my book. There is a distinction to be made between tackles that make contact with the head, head high tackles and shoulder charges to the head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4utRNkzcSPo

If you attempt a tackle (arms wrapping) and a player's head dips then there should be some leniency. If you shoulder charge then it's a penalty minimum and unfortunately you fall into the "outcome-focused" world - i.e. if you shoulder charge you are being reckless and if that recklessness results in contact with the head then you're off. Same with a tackle in the air, you're being reckless and you leave yourself open to all possibilities.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 13 Aug 2019, 4:14 pm

Oh I am not defending Barrett. As I said above if his challenge had missed the head it was still a YC challenge as he never had any intention to use his arms, so I have no issue with his Red Card.

My issue is with the opinion that TH expressed that all contact with the head should be red. Thus if you are aiming at the waist and below with a legitimate challenge and the ball carrier drops you should, imo, not be penalised. If however you are aiming at the nipples or not using arms then you are opening up the possibility of seeing red.

by Taylorman Tue 13 Aug 2019, 4:14 pm

Using the Barrett instance as the threshold both Welsh tackles should have been red. Both were hits to the head with force. Jones is correct re the inconsistency and had the four teams been in the same pool or on the same side of the knockout NZ would be playing Wales a player down where two Welsh players get to play. Refs not only need to be consistent across a match but across a tournament as well.

Though I suspect he’s showing premature consideration for Farrell who’s a habitual head magnet.

by Taylorman Tue 13 Aug 2019, 4:19 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Nothing in the region of a red card though. If jones said barrett's wasn't hes wrong though.

There were two. Both red. Both hits to the head directly using force.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 13 Aug 2019, 4:21 pm

Nope. Neither welsh were reds. Cant recall any farrell shots to the head but I think you've been asked for examples before Taylor?

by Soul Requiem Tue 13 Aug 2019, 4:22 pm

I don't think the two in the Wales game were comparable to Barretts in the slightest.

by Collapse2005 Tue 13 Aug 2019, 4:23 pm

Taylorman wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Nothing in the region of a red card though. If jones said barrett's wasn't hes wrong though.

There were two. Both red. Both hits to the head directly using force.

Any links or clips?

by TightHEAD Tue 13 Aug 2019, 4:38 pm

LondonTiger wrote:Oh I am not defending Barrett. As I said above if his challenge had missed the head it was still a YC challenge as he never had any intention to use his arms, so I have no issue with his Red Card.

My issue is with the opinion that TH expressed that all contact with the head should be red.

For Refs who do not have any video evidence at hand in grassroots rugby then yes, head contact should be red.

Makes life easier for them and gets rid of the weekend warrior/coward whose main aim at the weekend is to hurt someone on the rugby field.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 13 Aug 2019, 4:40 pm

Taylorman wrote:Using the Barrett instance as the threshold both Welsh tackles should have been red.

Disagree, and at risk of repeating myself:

The two Welsh takers had the mitigation that the ball carrier was falling down AND they were otherwise trying to make a legal challenge. Contact with the head upgraded what would have been a lawful and low tackle to a penalty.

Barrett at no point was trying to wrap arms, he flew in with what would be an illegal challenge irrespective of where it hit. He hits the shoulder or body of Hooper like that and it is still a YC worthy offence. Contact with the head upgraded what would have otherwise still been an illegal challenge to a red card.

Some similarities but plenty of differences to justify the outcome by the refs.

by Taylorman Tue 13 Aug 2019, 4:43 pm

So falling down is part o the rule for a hit to the head is it?

by TightHEAD Tue 13 Aug 2019, 4:44 pm

Barretts I feel was more last ditch defence on the try line, probably didn't premeditate it but it didn't look good, red was right imho.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 13 Aug 2019, 4:51 pm

TightHEAD wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Oh I am not defending Barrett. As I said above if his challenge had missed the head it was still a YC challenge as he never had any intention to use his arms, so I have no issue with his Red Card.

My issue is with the opinion that TH expressed that all contact with the head should be red.

For Refs who do not have any video evidence at hand in grassroots rugby then yes, head contact should be red,

I disagree 100%. The ref still needs to make an assessment on whether the challenge was reckless. If the tackler is going in low it is not reckless just unlucky. Grassroots refs are capable of identifying this much easier than being certain whether there was actually contact with the head. Sometimes there are accidents. Some times teh ball carrier is actually to blame.

I would (and did as a ref) send guys off for challenges that may not have actually have hit the head but had a high probability of doing so. I also sent of a player who changed his running style as he came into a tackler and kneed him in the head. I once reffed a game where both the tackler and the ball carrier had to go to the hospital with concussion. Off the back of a scrum the number 8 picked up and charged for the line with his body low. Flanker made the tackle from the side while the stand off was preparing to make a head on tackle. The stand off was already very low, the number 8 had one arm on the ground, head less than a meter above the ground as he drove through the initial tackle. Stand off dropped lower, ball carrier dropped further. When contact was made - head on head - the stand off was sat on teh ground with his body almost bent double. To me it would be an idiotic opinion to state that should have been a red card.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 13 Aug 2019, 5:01 pm

Taylorman wrote:So falling down is part o the rule for a hit to the head is it?

When it comes to the sanction refs have been instructed to take into account how reckless the challenge is. If the player has fallen quite some way there is a level of mitigation. If the tackler is trying to use their arms there is more mitigation.

It is right from a duty of care standpoint (and what the rugby authorities are more scare about the chance of being sued) that we look to minimise contact with the head. Arguably the authorities right now are only looking at protecting the ball carrier and tbh there has been a lack of consistency since the crackdown was ordered last autumn. Even so there is (and has to be) an acceptance that sometimes the tackler has done everything possible to avoid contact with the head, yet it happens anyway.

by hugehandoff Tue 13 Aug 2019, 5:07 pm

We have never been able to get our optimum pack out, but if everyone is fit then the following will take some stopping in the forwards battle.

Mako V
Jamie G
Kyle S
George K
Maro I
Mark W
Billy V
Tom C

Bench
Joe M
Luke C-D
Dan C
Courtney L
Sam U

by Collapse2005 Tue 13 Aug 2019, 5:10 pm

Quite a lot of nobodies selected in the England squad. Has the win over Wales gone to Eddies head?

by BamBam Tue 13 Aug 2019, 5:17 pm

Who do you consider to be nobodies?

by Collapse2005 Tue 13 Aug 2019, 5:19 pm

It was tongue in cheek but there are plenty of fairly green internationals in the squad would you not agree?

by BamBam Tue 13 Aug 2019, 5:23 pm

I'd say Singleton, Ludlam, Heinz, Francis and McConnochie would be the greenest in terms of exposure to training squads etc

Only Heinz is even 2nd choice at his position, if only our 3rd choice hooker, 4th choice flanker, 4th choice centre and 4th choice wing are considered to be green/nobodies we're doing pretty well!

by Sponsored content