Lions Announcement - Round 2

First topic message reminder :

Forwards: Tadhg Beirne, Jack Conan, Luke Cowan Dickie, Tom Curry, Zander Fagerson, Taulupe Faletau, Tadhg Furlong, Jamie George, Iain Henderson, Jonny Hill, Maro Itoje, Alun Wyn Jones, Wyn Jones, Courtney Lawes, Ken Owens, Andrew Porter, Sam Simmonds, Rory Sutherland, Justin Tipuric, Mako Vunipola, Hamish Watson.

Backs: Josh Adams, Bundee Aki, Dan Biggar, Elliot Daly, Gareth Davies, Owen Farrell, Chris Harris, Robbie Henshaw, Stuart Hogg, Conor Murray, Ali Price, Louis Rees-Zammit, Finn Russell, Duhan van der Merwe, Anthony Watson, Liam Williams.

lostinwales wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

The Oracle wrote:40-24 is tight?!  Even ignoring for a minute the referee (because that's bound to be brought up) there were 16 unanswered and un-contentious points that took it from 24-24 to 40-24 in the 2nd half.  16 unanswered points is not tight!!!  Although admittedly we may have different definitions of 'tight'.

Yes, I think it was a relatively tight game. Wales deserved the win, despite the 2 ref blunders  but the scoreline flattered them somewhat. I thought this was widely accepted?

Either way, England were the best NH side in 2019 & 2020, that's without question. They've had a poor 6N with some mitigating factors. Do you wipe out the last 2 years because of a few poor games?

Tight for me is a game that goes to the wire.  England didn't do anything really in the 2nd half.  Hence Wales running away with it.  Didn't see it as tight.  But just personal opinion I suppose.

On your 2nd point.  Why were England 'without question' the best NH side in 2019?  Surely you'd have won the 6N that year if you were?  Would the grand slam winners not get at least some accolade in 2019 (although I'd never have the audacity to claim that Wales were undoubtedly the best NH team in 2019!).  Are you just referring to getting to the WC final?  If so, kudos.  But I don't think, you can claim the whole year as your own.  Did well in that tournament though.

There was another championship that year, at which the favorites were annihilated by England, who came 2nd overall

Yes I mentioned that. Yet a few months earlier England came 2nd to teams, apparently, beneath them. So you clearly weren’t the best NH team for the first 9 months of the year! Or is that just another thing to ‘discount’?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you? ok.

Sarcasm.  

Ah. Makes more sense. A normal loss and one where the offcials didn't know the laws/rules is quite different.

So you won that game, yes?  

No. As I said I just discount it as it was such a bizarre performance from the officials. It still sits there in the record books as does the bizarre 1999 game (which I also discount).

Dare I ask what issues you have with the 1999 game?

We didn't play Wales.

Can't tell if you're being funny or no.  But, yes you did.

Not being funny. We played a world select 15 that day.

Perhaps we’re talking about different things. I thought you meant the Wales v England game that year.

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you? ok.

Sarcasm.  

Ah. Makes more sense. A normal loss and one where the offcials didn't know the laws/rules is quite different.

So you won that game, yes?  

No. As I said I just discount it as it was such a bizarre performance from the officials. It still sits there in the record books as does the bizarre 1999 game (which I also discount).

Dare I ask what issues you have with the 1999 game?

We didn't play Wales.

Can't tell if you're being funny or no.  But, yes you did.

Not being funny. We played a world select 15 that day.

Perhaps we’re talking about different things. I thought you meant the Wales v England game that year.

Same game I believe? The Wembley one?

.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you? ok.

Sarcasm.  

Ah. Makes more sense. A normal loss and one where the offcials didn't know the laws/rules is quite different.

So you won that game, yes?  

No. As I said I just discount it as it was such a bizarre performance from the officials. It still sits there in the record books as does the bizarre 1999 game (which I also discount).

Dare I ask what issues you have with the 1999 game?

We didn't play Wales.

Can't tell if you're being funny or no.  But, yes you did.

Not being funny. We played a world select 15 that day.

Perhaps we’re talking about different things. I thought you meant the Wales v England game that year.

Same game I believe? The Wembley one?

Why a ‘world select 15’? And why discount it? Why do you feel aggrieved?

Feel free to discount losses to other teams because you don’t like ‘foreign’ people in their squads. Your choice. That’s not in my nature, personally. Don’t think I could ever discount a loss to, say, England just because they’ve had saffers, New Zealanders, etc. in the team. Odd.

The Oracle wrote:Feel free to discount losses to other teams because you don’t like ‘foreign’ people in their squads. Your choice. That’s not in my nature, personally. Don’t think I could ever discount a loss to, say, England just because they’ve had saffers, New Zealanders, etc. in the team. Odd.

Lol. Like I said the Wales world select 15. Glad you're not bothered though.

The Oracle wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

The Oracle wrote:40-24 is tight?!  Even ignoring for a minute the referee (because that's bound to be brought up) there were 16 unanswered and un-contentious points that took it from 24-24 to 40-24 in the 2nd half.  16 unanswered points is not tight!!!  Although admittedly we may have different definitions of 'tight'.

Yes, I think it was a relatively tight game. Wales deserved the win, despite the 2 ref blunders  but the scoreline flattered them somewhat. I thought this was widely accepted?

Either way, England were the best NH side in 2019 & 2020, that's without question. They've had a poor 6N with some mitigating factors. Do you wipe out the last 2 years because of a few poor games?

Tight for me is a game that goes to the wire.  England didn't do anything really in the 2nd half.  Hence Wales running away with it.  Didn't see it as tight.  But just personal opinion I suppose.

On your 2nd point.  Why were England 'without question' the best NH side in 2019?  Surely you'd have won the 6N that year if you were?  Would the grand slam winners not get at least some accolade in 2019 (although I'd never have the audacity to claim that Wales were undoubtedly the best NH team in 2019!).  Are you just referring to getting to the WC final?  If so, kudos.  But I don't think, you can claim the whole year as your own.  Did well in that tournament though.

Yes, we did quite well lol.

The 6N of a world cup year is hard to gauge as sides have different objectives. We were clearly focusing on the WC....hence reaching the final. The 2 best sides usually reach the final, I think that's true in this case.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

The Oracle wrote:40-24 is tight?!  Even ignoring for a minute the referee (because that's bound to be brought up) there were 16 unanswered and un-contentious points that took it from 24-24 to 40-24 in the 2nd half.  16 unanswered points is not tight!!!  Although admittedly we may have different definitions of 'tight'.

Yes, I think it was a relatively tight game. Wales deserved the win, despite the 2 ref blunders  but the scoreline flattered them somewhat. I thought this was widely accepted?

Either way, England were the best NH side in 2019 & 2020, that's without question. They've had a poor 6N with some mitigating factors. Do you wipe out the last 2 years because of a few poor games?

What 2 blunders?
The ref made one questionable error, the LRZ incident, the Biggar crossfield was perfectly ok by the rule book. The ref should have told told the England captain it wasn't a water break and the players shouldn't have been walking back finishing off their water bottle or having a bit of a chat, however the ref should have yellow carded Farrell and definitely Itoje for consistent infringing.
The game was not widely accepted to have been a close game at all, if the ref had stopped the deliberate infringements the game would have been tucked away long before the 60th minute in Wales favour

2019 Wales were the better side (my opinion) they beat England twice, England had some fantastic wins battering France 44 - 8 was a joy to watch, the 57-15 demolition of Ireland was perfect and of course the win against the All Blacks was balanced with a them being dismantled in every facet of the game by SA in the WC final, a 38-38 home draw with us with Ford scoring in the 93rd min was a travesty of justice and in many peoples eyes if they had met France in the group stages then they would have played Wales in the WC semi-final and based on Wales performance against SA compared to England's effort I could only see one result

England in 2020 even more debatable, you beat us 6-13 due to a Hogg brain-fart, when we were well on top in atrocious conditions, you lost against France, you beat Wales by 3pts which again was a travesty, Wales having 65% Possession 65% Territory, England 10 pens in the game, 24 or 25 missed tackles, Tuilagi red, Genge infringed on the ruck for about the 3rd time and in everybody's eye except for the ref he should have had a red not a yellow.

It's widely accepted that there was massive cracks that the 2020 6Ns & ANC wins papered over

Oracle and 7.5.....can we move on? It's getting a bit OTT now

C'mon Fly.....England reached the WC Final! If any other NH side had reached that far, I'm pretty sure they'd have claimed the year.....the 6N is a complete byproduct in WC year.

The RWC final does mean something alright but not as much as form this year IMO, hope England players can channel their game v NZ form rather than their form v SA.

I do hope the guys that looked out of shape during the 6 nations turn it around by July. Mako in particular looked like he had been training in weatherspoons.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Oracle and 7.5.....can we move on? It's getting a bit OTT now

Such a spoil sport.

The Sarries lads looked miles off the pace....who'd have though eh, no games in 10 weeks and you're not on your game.

Shambolic management in hindsight.

Collapse2005 wrote:The RWC final does mean something alright but not as much as form this year IMO, hope England players can channel their game v NZ form rather than their form v SA.

I do hope the guys that looked out of shape during the 6 nations turn it around by July. Mako in particular looked like he had been training in weatherspoons.

The front row apparently was picked on the strength of their scrum....let that sink in for Mako.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:C'mon Fly.....England reached the WC Final! If any other NH side had reached that far, I'm pretty sure they'd have claimed the year.....the 6N is a complete byproduct in WC year.

Pooly
I was drooling over some of the England games over the last 2-3 years, the 6Ns Ireland & France matches and the WC v NZ were almost perfect storms but you have to be honest England at best probably shaded 2019 and yes even more debatable they shaded 2020. The World Cup 2019 will always be a "what if" tournament, what if everyone had played all the games, what if you had played France (who in many peoples were the dark horses), what if the Saracens announcement came out in September 2019 as it should have, not waiting the day after the World Cup Final. Anybody who was over there was just glad to be alive, we certainly thought that, so nobody really reflected at the time

I think England have the best volume of senior players and the best volume of young players, I don't think you have a great coach, I don't think you have an aware captain, I honestly think Eddie Jones will ruin the like of Marcus Smith, like he has done with Daly, Slade and in my opinion they way he is developing Curry (a heavier versatile player to cover the back row rather than a fast clever world class flanker which he no doubt would have been).

Anyway enough of that

Let's concentrate on supporting all our boys when they put our red shirts on

flyhalffactory wrote:...

What 2 blunders?
The ref made one questionable error, the LRZ incident, the Biggar crossfield was perfectly ok by the rule book. The ref should have told told the England captain it wasn't a water break and the players shouldn't have been walking back finishing off their water bottle or having a bit of a chat, however the ref should have yellow carded Farrell and definitely Itoje for consistent infringing.
The game was not widely accepted to have been a close game at all, if the ref had stopped the deliberate infringements the game would have been tucked away long before the 60th minute in Wales favour
...

You really are on the wind up. Biggar did nothing wrong by the letter of the law. But it wasn't a drinks break. The referee told Farrell to talk to his team, and then allowed Wales to take the penalty when England were still in the huddle. Wales didn't do anything technically wrong, but the referee f**ked England over good and proper.

England were not still in the huddle. The defense on the other side were set. they had plenty of time to set their defense. they didn't

Gauzere and his superiors have admitted mistakes were made though (which doesn’t happen very often). Whether you think the result would have been different if they had been reffed better is open to conjecture but mistakes were made.

TJ wrote:England were not still in the huddle.  The defense on the other side were set.  they had plenty of time to set their defense.  they didn't

Well I hope the same thing happens to your adopted team one day so the rest of us can have a good laugh.

Cyril wrote:Gauzere and his superiors have admitted mistakes were made though (which doesn’t happen very often). Whether you think the result would have been different if they had been reffed better is open to conjecture but mistakes were made.

Exactly, it's not even a debate. Gauzere and World Rugby have stated they were incorrect decisions, I don't know why this is getting brought up again, they were errors.

Yes Wales still played better, but it was tight game, especially with 14pt worth of mistakes from the officials. My point being, which stands....2 tight defeats doesn't make England a bad side. We were the best side in the NH 2019-20....this is why these guys have been selected.

Anyway.......this is a Lions thread.

TJ wrote:England were not still in the huddle.  The defense on the other side were set.  they had plenty of time to set their defense.  they didn't

A fair few players were still in the huddle, the referee should not have allowed a quick penalty until the defence was fully set.

Soul Requiem wrote:

TJ wrote:England were not still in the huddle.  The defense on the other side were set.  they had plenty of time to set their defense.  they didn't

A fair few players were still in the huddle, the referee should not have allowed a quick penalty until the defence was fully set.

It’s not a quick penalty then!

The Oracle wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

TJ wrote:England were not still in the huddle.  The defense on the other side were set.  they had plenty of time to set their defense.  they didn't

A fair few players were still in the huddle, the referee should not have allowed a quick penalty until the defence was fully set.

It’s not a quick penalty then!

Then you don't tell the captain to speak to his players. You can't have both.

Soul Requiem wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

TJ wrote:England were not still in the huddle.  The defense on the other side were set.  they had plenty of time to set their defense.  they didn't

A fair few players were still in the huddle, the referee should not have allowed a quick penalty until the defence was fully set.

It’s not a quick penalty then!

Then you don't tell the captain to speak to his players. You can't have both.

Yeah, not arguing that. Just saying that if you have to let the team set before taking a quick penalty then it’s not really a quick penalty. “Owen, we’re going to take a quick penalty so get yourselves in position and when you’re all ready let us know and we’ll start”!

I agree on the separate issue of sending players away to talk. But only some went to the huddle. Still not great though and wouldn’t have been happy if it had happened to my team.

lostinwales wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:...

What 2 blunders?
The ref made one questionable error, the LRZ incident, the Biggar crossfield was perfectly ok by the rule book. The ref should have told told the England captain it wasn't a water break and the players shouldn't have been walking back finishing off their water bottle or having a bit of a chat, however the ref should have yellow carded Farrell and definitely Itoje for consistent infringing.
The game was not widely accepted to have been a close game at all, if the ref had stopped the deliberate infringements the game would have been tucked away long before the 60th minute in Wales favour
...

You really are on the wind up. Biggar did nothing wrong by the letter of the law. But it wasn't a drinks break. The referee told Farrell to talk to his team, and then allowed Wales to take the penalty when England were still in the huddle. Wales didn't do anything technically wrong, but the referee f**ked England over good and proper.

No wind up at all, just saying it as it was, not as you want it to be

"Farrell was told last warning, have a quick word with your players", half of them didn't even get in the huddle but just went for the water, it only needed 5 secs, 10 max to make it plain. Biggar nodded after 10 secs, the ref didn't say yes, time went on......some players were already ready on the wing, some were still drinking, some were even bleeding chatting to each other.....Biggar bemused by it all, then asked the ref is it ok, "can you tell me when time is back on please?'. Only Ford and few players covered the wings......Some of England's players were in a huddle, anticipating Biggar to kick for goal, with the pitch still full of watercarriers. Gauzere blew his whistle, with England looking the other way, Biggar booted the ball to Josh Adams.

Ref admitted he should have shouted to Faz, but let's be honest, with 4 consecutive pens in the first 5 mins I'm amazed that Gauzere made a mockery of being lenient, Farrell shouldn't have even had the option, after continuous England infringements, Farrell didn't roll away and stopped a very clear try opportunity, it should have meant a straight yellow and then Gauzere should have said to the vice captain "sort the rest of your team out" and they did the same when it was 24-24.....fans seem to recollect the 3-4 infringements on the bounce at the latter stages but not in the first 5 mins

I wouldn't say so much but it was the same against us in the first game

The LRZ offside was a bad call and the Biggar incident was a bad call but with 14 pens and twice having 3-4 consecutive pens with no yellows.......to say the ref shafted you is a joke

None of that alters the fact the referee made two poor game changing errors.

flyhalffactory wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:...

What 2 blunders?
The ref made one questionable error, the LRZ incident, the Biggar crossfield was perfectly ok by the rule book. The ref should have told told the England captain it wasn't a water break and the players shouldn't have been walking back finishing off their water bottle or having a bit of a chat, however the ref should have yellow carded Farrell and definitely Itoje for consistent infringing.
The game was not widely accepted to have been a close game at all, if the ref had stopped the deliberate infringements the game would have been tucked away long before the 60th minute in Wales favour
...

You really are on the wind up. Biggar did nothing wrong by the letter of the law. But it wasn't a drinks break. The referee told Farrell to talk to his team, and then allowed Wales to take the penalty when England were still in the huddle. Wales didn't do anything technically wrong, but the referee f**ked England over good and proper.

No wind up at all, just saying it as it was, not as you want it to be

"Farrell was told last warning, have a quick word with your players", half of them didn't even get in the huddle but just went for the water, it only needed 5 secs, 10 max to make it plain. Biggar nodded after 10 secs, the ref didn't say yes, time went on......some players were already ready on the wing, some were still drinking, some were evening bleeding chatting to each other.....Biggar bemused by it all, then asked the ref is it ok, "can you tell me when time is back on please?'. Only Ford and few players covered the wings......Some of England's players were in a huddle, anticipating Biggar to kick for goal, with the pitch still full of watercarriers. Gauzere blew his whistle, with England looking the other way, Biggar booted the ball to Josh Adams.

Ref admitted he should have shouted to Faz, but let's be honest, with 4 consecutive pens in the first 5 mins I'm amazed that Gauzere made a mockery of being lenient, Farrell shouldn't have even had the option, after continuous England infringements, Farrell didn't roll away and stopped a very clear try opportunity, it should have meant a straight yellow and then Gauzere should have said to the vice captain "sort the rest of your team out" and they did the same when it was 24-24.....fans seem to recollect the 3-4 infringements on the bounce at the latter stages but not in the first 5 mins

I wouldn't say so much but it was the same against us in the first game

The LRZ offside was a bad call and the Biggar incident was a bad call but with 14 pens and twice having 3-4 consecutive pens with no yellows.......to say the ref shafted you is a joke

The ref did. In some ways he wasn't much better for Wales in that the number of penalties he called was high against both teams, which goes against some of your arguments. He was very whistle happy which also killed much of the game.

Soul Requiem wrote:None of that alters the fact the referee made two poor game changing errors.

The game was superb, England looking great on the front foot and Wales solid in defence and the counter-attack

You are correct, the ref made two "errors" but both were legit tries which changed the game however you are loath to comment on all the other errors

Gauzere completely ignoring three late hits on Dan Biggar in the first 10 mins (Farrell shoved him off the ball, Hill late hit and Curry shoved him off the ball) it wasn't a big surprise to see him going off injured so soon in the 2nd half, not sending an english player to the bench in the first 10 minutes for 3-4 consecutive pens, not sending an english player to bench from 60 minutes onwards and finally allowing Farrell 22 seconds to get his point across whilst water boys were strewn across the pitch

The ref didn't get a grip on the match from the start but if I was the Welsh I would be pretty cheesed off the way the match was officiated....certainly Pivac alluded to that in the post match commentary

Soul Requiem wrote:None of that alters the fact the referee made two poor game changing errors.

Apart from the fact that neither were errors. Both completely correct.

find any statement from WR or the ref saying the decisions were wrong

TJ, just Google ‘Wales England rugby ref admits errors’.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Cyril wrote:Gauzere and his superiors have admitted mistakes were made though (which doesn’t happen very often). Whether you think the result would have been different if they had been reffed better is open to conjecture but mistakes were made.

Exactly, it's not even a debate. Gauzere and World Rugby have stated they were incorrect decisions, I don't know why this is getting brought up again, they were errors.

Yes Wales still played better, but it was tight game, especially with 14pt worth of mistakes from the officials. My point being, which stands....2 tight defeats doesn't make England a bad side. We were the best side in the NH 2019-20....this is why these guys have been selected.

Anyway.......this is a Lions thread.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Exactly, it's not even a debate. Gauzere and World Rugby have stated they were incorrect decisions.

Crikey have they officially stated that?

I can't find that anyway, can you send us the link

Cyril wrote:TJ, just Google ‘Wales England rugby ref admits errors’.

There's loads of press releases on hearsay

Where is the official statement......

There are quotes from Joel Jutge on the first article I googled from The Independent.

Anyway, flyhalffactory, I seem to get banned any time I disagree with you so let’s agree to disagree and i’ll Discuss this with others.

Wales online:

Wales v England referee Pascal Gauzere admits he got both tries wrong.

And Joel Jutge, World Rugby’s Head of Match Officials, says Gauzere has acknowledged to him that he got both contentious decisions wrong.  Speaking to French publication Midi Olympique, World Rugby's referees manager Joel Jutge said that the French referee was transparent about his own errors.


I don't think you can accuse this website of favouring England.  What isn't disputable is that having got back level in the second half, England were then well beaten by Wales scoring 16 unanswered points.  So no complaint that we were second best that day, regardless of the poor decisions.

nlpnlp, without labouring the point, you can wonder about the momentum gained and lost by two unfair tries being awarded. England ultimately lost after fighting back, but really shouldn’t have had to from such a deficit.

These things happen, though rarely to this extent. Two such blatant ones in one game is why there was such a statement from World Rugby.

Yet, the reality was England were tied with Wales with 20 minutes to go and proceeded to screw the pooch.  Wales performed in those moments and England did not.  OK, maybe it matters how they got there, but two teams were tied going into the 4th quarter of a match and one team performed and one did not.  No excuses. World Rugby did need to make a statement, but the match was there for the taking.

The final 20 minutes of the England vs Wales game was definitely the most frustrating of the tournament for me. So many dumb penalties in quick succession. Hill, Genge and Robson. Three talented fringe players that many of us wanted to see get more chances throwing away the good work done in clawing that game back.

Wales snapped up those gifts well though. Sheedy was excellent in the second half of that game.

Telegraph reports Gatland has lined up at least two players for each position on a standby list, which currently runs to 35 players. The paper says Kyle Sinckler, Marcus Smith, Danny Care & Ben Spencer are on it, though they might just be guessing, based on the 70 players who received emails asking about availability. Courtney Lawes said he didn't get an email, which made his late inclusion look like a complete last minute idea. As it turns out, he was supposed to get a message but it was sent to the wrong address.

Separately, Townsend mentioned Tuilagi could be in contention if he gets fit. It's unclear if he is formally on that standby list, or just down as "one to watch".

During one of his commentary stints, Austin Healey said a Test starting player might not even be in the tour party yet. I'm not sure how true it is any more that late call-ups can force their way into the Test side. Whenever this idea comes up, you tend to see Martin Corry (2001), Tom Croft (2009) and Alex Corbisiero (2013) mentioned.

2001 was twenty years ago, when tours were organized differently. In 2009, Croft was added to the squad when Quinlan got banned before the tour party set off, so had as much chance as anyone else to show his worth. Corbisiero was called up after Healy was injured in the second game on tour (the first in Australia). There always has to be prop cover on the bench, with replacements usually getting 20-30 minutes, so Corbs ended up playing a part in three out of the next four games before the First Test. If you are a lock, flanker, midfielder, or back three player, then you would not be guaranteed so much involvement.

Brad Barritt, Billy Twelvetrees and Christian Wade were called up only a week after Corbisiero. That week difference dramatically reduced their chances to impress. All three had just one match before the First Test, compared with those three for Corbisiero, and it was four days before that Test, which all but ruled them out of contention, no matter what they all did (not a lot, as it turned out).

The 2013 experience explains why Gatland called up the Geography Six in 2017. No late call-up made an impact on the 2017 because they simply didn't have time to do so. In 2013, Barritt, Wade, Twelvetrees and Shane Williams ended up just making up the numbers to protect the Test 23, and Gatland realized the same was true in 2017.

It's hard to know where the "date of no potential impact" will be on this tour, because all normal recent touring rules are out the window. Props can probably join deeper into a tour, as the position has more involvement, and high attrition. It probably also depends who you are. For instance, Gatland might well be prepared to drop Sexton straight into a Test team, even if the timing of his call-up meant he had no involvement in any other tour games.

One point which should be clarified beforehand, is whether there can be any tour replacements for players getting banned after a red card or citing. World Cup rules don't let you do that. If a similar policy is in place during the tour, then life could get tricky if a specialist gets banned. Perhaps there'll be more flexibility, given the touring party is a little smaller to start with.

Dont think there are any limits set by anyone other than the Lions so I presume should Aki, Russell or Fagerson pick up another ban they can be replaced.

British and Irish Lions 2021: Joe Marler calls for mental health support for players - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/57073192

Quite surprised that this sort of role isn't already integrated with the rest of the staff to be honest. You talk about small improvements giving teams an edge but this could help hugely from a sporting point of view and for the individuals health.

Test venues switched around now so that the first test is no longer at altitude. We really need to start quickly.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Test venues switched around now so that the first test is no longer at altitude. We really need to start quickly.

Must win game now.

lostinwales wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:...

What 2 blunders?
The ref made one questionable error, the LRZ incident, the Biggar crossfield was perfectly ok by the rule book. The ref should have told told the England captain it wasn't a water break and the players shouldn't have been walking back finishing off their water bottle or having a bit of a chat, however the ref should have yellow carded Farrell and definitely Itoje for consistent infringing.
The game was not widely accepted to have been a close game at all, if the ref had stopped the deliberate infringements the game would have been tucked away long before the 60th minute in Wales favour
...

You really are on the wind up. Biggar did nothing wrong by the letter of the law. But it wasn't a drinks break. The referee told Farrell to talk to his team, and then allowed Wales to take the penalty when England were still in the huddle. Wales didn't do anything technically wrong, but the referee f**ked England over good and proper.

They all seem to ignore the clear forward pass for England first try as well. Funny that isn't it ?

LordDowlais wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:...

What 2 blunders?
The ref made one questionable error, the LRZ incident, the Biggar crossfield was perfectly ok by the rule book. The ref should have told told the England captain it wasn't a water break and the players shouldn't have been walking back finishing off their water bottle or having a bit of a chat, however the ref should have yellow carded Farrell and definitely Itoje for consistent infringing.
The game was not widely accepted to have been a close game at all, if the ref had stopped the deliberate infringements the game would have been tucked away long before the 60th minute in Wales favour
...

You really are on the wind up. Biggar did nothing wrong by the letter of the law. But it wasn't a drinks break. The referee told Farrell to talk to his team, and then allowed Wales to take the penalty when England were still in the huddle. Wales didn't do anything technically wrong, but the referee f**ked England over good and proper.

They all seem to ignore the clear forward pass for England first try as well. Funny that isn't it ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdtcPXLhUso

Where? No forward pass there. But even if there was there's a world of difference to missing a pass and not knowing the laws/rules.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:...

What 2 blunders?
The ref made one questionable error, the LRZ incident, the Biggar crossfield was perfectly ok by the rule book. The ref should have told told the England captain it wasn't a water break and the players shouldn't have been walking back finishing off their water bottle or having a bit of a chat, however the ref should have yellow carded Farrell and definitely Itoje for consistent infringing.
The game was not widely accepted to have been a close game at all, if the ref had stopped the deliberate infringements the game would have been tucked away long before the 60th minute in Wales favour
...

You really are on the wind up. Biggar did nothing wrong by the letter of the law. But it wasn't a drinks break. The referee told Farrell to talk to his team, and then allowed Wales to take the penalty when England were still in the huddle. Wales didn't do anything technically wrong, but the referee f**ked England over good and proper.

They all seem to ignore the clear forward pass for England first try as well. Funny that isn't it ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdtcPXLhUso

Where? No forward pass there. But even if there was there's a world of difference to missing a pass and not knowing the laws/rules.

Every time I watch it, it just looks a forward pass, shoveled forwards.

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Test venues switched around now so that the first test is no longer at altitude. We really need to start quickly.

Must win game now.

Absolutely. Normally theres a little leeway to starting slowly and at altitude you perhaps would have a little more. Condition wise this is the easiest game for the Lions now, and I'm not simply talking aerobically. England really struggled with their kicking game when we last toured allowing SA back into both the first 2 tests. I'm not too sure how much experience the back 3 will have in those conditions.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:...

What 2 blunders?
The ref made one questionable error, the LRZ incident, the Biggar crossfield was perfectly ok by the rule book. The ref should have told told the England captain it wasn't a water break and the players shouldn't have been walking back finishing off their water bottle or having a bit of a chat, however the ref should have yellow carded Farrell and definitely Itoje for consistent infringing.
The game was not widely accepted to have been a close game at all, if the ref had stopped the deliberate infringements the game would have been tucked away long before the 60th minute in Wales favour
...

You really are on the wind up. Biggar did nothing wrong by the letter of the law. But it wasn't a drinks break. The referee told Farrell to talk to his team, and then allowed Wales to take the penalty when England were still in the huddle. Wales didn't do anything technically wrong, but the referee f**ked England over good and proper.

They all seem to ignore the clear forward pass for England first try as well. Funny that isn't it ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdtcPXLhUso

Where? No forward pass there. But even if there was there's a world of difference to missing a pass and not knowing the laws/rules.

Every time I watch it, it just looks a forward pass, shoveled forwards.

Hands go backwards from George, hence play on.

But again even if I agreed its a world away from not knowing the laws.

RE the emotional and wellbeing support for players Care has also come out to say how hard he took it and the impact at the weekend. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/57076900

Thats obviously the guys who were ignored initially but guys not picked for the test team are also going to suffer. Some will deal with it fine, some won't

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

flyhalffactory wrote:...

What 2 blunders?
The ref made one questionable error, the LRZ incident, the Biggar crossfield was perfectly ok by the rule book. The ref should have told told the England captain it wasn't a water break and the players shouldn't have been walking back finishing off their water bottle or having a bit of a chat, however the ref should have yellow carded Farrell and definitely Itoje for consistent infringing.
The game was not widely accepted to have been a close game at all, if the ref had stopped the deliberate infringements the game would have been tucked away long before the 60th minute in Wales favour
...

You really are on the wind up. Biggar did nothing wrong by the letter of the law. But it wasn't a drinks break. The referee told Farrell to talk to his team, and then allowed Wales to take the penalty when England were still in the huddle. Wales didn't do anything technically wrong, but the referee f**ked England over good and proper.

They all seem to ignore the clear forward pass for England first try as well. Funny that isn't it ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdtcPXLhUso

Where? No forward pass there. But even if there was there's a world of difference to missing a pass and not knowing the laws/rules.

Every time I watch it, it just looks a forward pass, shoveled forwards.

Hands go backwards from George, hence play on.

But again even if I agreed its a world away from not knowing the laws.

Nope, thats just your opinion, the same as your opinions on the following:-

1. England are the no.1 team in the world
2. Gatland has got the Lions wrong
3. You dismiss games where England lose specifically against Wales
4. AWJ is a rubbish player

To just point out a few. You really are hard work on here.