England - the build-up and winning the World Cup at a canter

First topic message reminder :

Here we go again.....

TAFKA The Oracle wrote:Here we go. The “game’s gone soft” brigade are going to be out again.

Not really. There are elements of gamesmanship though, as there pretty much has always been.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:

Geordie wrote:Just in Billy Vs defence...that was his first game since April I think. Was never hoping to be a blockbuster one.

Hopefully Farrells out give Ford the reigns now and Smith his deputy.

I'd be tempted with Gus Warr if JVP is out

Just about to write same about Billy.

If JvP out get Mitchell in.

Ford starts at 10 Smith bench surely.

Will be interesting to see who gets the call up if vP is out. Mitchell has a great box kick these days but perhaps plays to off the cuff and quickly. Probably too risky that he'd isolate himself.

Does he though? He doesn't clear with much range, it doesn't hang for a contest. He's a skilful player so he certainly can but it's not a strength when you compare it to what's the standard at international level.

Mitchell's biggest strength is his ability to play quickly and make fast decisions. His biggest weakness is that it's often his default and when he gets it wrong he's as likely to cost a try as he is to score one. He's got to the obvious call up though as he and Randall were the other two on the training squad and he's miles ahead of Randall.

Perhaps your right. We don't need that type of player. Still surprised Cares there. Maybe Youngs can eek out a few 80 mins towards the business end of the comp. Just a bit worried about him getting an injury, he's probably our most important player, especially with the loss of Farrell the players will look to him to lead too.

I'm rather hoping we'll make Genge captain in Farrell's absence and look to Ford to lead in terms of on field general. There's no way Youngs should be playing 80 though he's probably the logical starter now, which is less than ideal.

Care or Mitchell to add impetus in the second half.

Unless Borthwick goes massively left field and calls up Gus Warr.

Farrell’s red has been a long time coming. I think it’s highly unlikely that he’ll be available for the Argentina game, because IIRC he’s already done tackle school so there’s no hope of a reduction there. The big question is whether he misses more than one pool game. You can probably take a chance on only having two fly halves for the first game of a tournament, because you can only have two in the matchday squad… but if it’s longer than that there’s a big risk if one of the others picks up a knock in the Argentina game.

I’ve said for a while now that Steward’s agility is a big issue. In his first season, teams kicked to him as they would to most fullbacks and his size and high ball skills gave him a big advantage. They’ve now worked out that he doesn’t have the acceleration or agility to cover the width of the pitch at the back, so they work on pulling him out of position and then kicking to where he isn’t. What we saw yesterday is likely to happen more often unless England can adapt their pendulum so that Steward doesn’t have to cover as much ground.

Other than that, Earl was much better at 7 than he has been coming on at 8, Marchant continued to play well and he and Lawrence could be a decent partnership given time, Ford, George and Lawes showed how much they’ve been missed. Daly looked much better back on the wing than at full back.

On the other hand, Stuart had trouble with the ref (who was admittedly picking on the wrong things at scrum time), Arundell wasn’t really given a chance (I’d like to see him given some time at fullback) and Billy looked ponderous. We can hope that he’s not fully match fit, but he didn’t have any sort of impact on the game.

The fight back, though, could be an important point in the development of this team. They still look more 2007 than 2003, but those last few minutes had something of the grit of the 2003 NZ-Eng game.

mountain man wrote:Can't say Martin impressed, as soon as Ribbans or Chessum fit they should be in. Itoje has to play, no-one else really.
Youngs, he is benefiting from others being worse but yes he was fine I'd say.

Scrum was a lottery it seems but I am not convinced about Eng scrum. Line out good, no issues there although hard to say as Wales were awful.

Daly was pretty good, another who cops a lot of grief but he was one of the better players yesterday. Steward going downhill a bit which is a concern. I'd like to see Malins tried at 15 for a bit, either start or sub. Also Arundell and then he'd see a lot more of ball. No point having an attacking player if he stands around twiddling thumbs.

As for Farrell, goodness knows. See what ban he gets but grim either way it goes.

The one error on the crossfield kick aside he was rock solid for us. He really should do better than that but at 22 you're going to get the occasional rookie mistake.

Malins had all of two starts at 15 last season. I think I'd prefer to give Arundell the Fiji game there.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mountain man wrote:

Geordie wrote:Just in Billy Vs defence...that was his first game since April I think. Was never hoping to be a blockbuster one.

Hopefully Farrells out give Ford the reigns now and Smith his deputy.

I'd be tempted with Gus Warr if JVP is out

Just about to write same about Billy.

If JvP out get Mitchell in.

Ford starts at 10 Smith bench surely.

Will be interesting to see who gets the call up if vP is out. Mitchell has a great box kick these days but perhaps plays to off the cuff and quickly. Probably too risky that he'd isolate himself.

Does he though? He doesn't clear with much range, it doesn't hang for a contest. He's a skilful player so he certainly can but it's not a strength when you compare it to what's the standard at international level.

Mitchell's biggest strength is his ability to play quickly and make fast decisions. His biggest weakness is that it's often his default and when he gets it wrong he's as likely to cost a try as he is to score one. He's got to the obvious call up though as he and Randall were the other two on the training squad and he's miles ahead of Randall.

Perhaps your right. We don't need that type of player. Still surprised Cares there. Maybe Youngs can eek out a few 80 mins towards the business end of the comp. Just a bit worried about him getting an injury, he's probably our most important player, especially with the loss of Farrell the players will look to him to lead too.

I'm rather hoping we'll make Genge captain in Farrell's absence and look to Ford to lead in terms of on field general. There's no way Youngs should be playing 80 though he's probably the logical starter now, which is less than ideal.

Care or Mitchell to add impetus in the second half.

Unless Borthwick goes massively left field and calls up Gus Warr.

Surely we need to call in someone who is as muchnlike for like as possible. We don't want to be (or need to be) complicating things by going outside the game plan. It would have been suicide to lose vP so early and not have Youngs to come on.

But Steward who is usually excellent, arguably nearly always Englands best player wasn't as good as usual. I thought he made some good metres with ball in hand as a carrier but not much else.
He wasn't bad, just not his usual excellent self.
It going to happen.

Poorfour wrote:Farrell’s red has been a long time coming. I think it’s highly unlikely that he’ll be available for the Argentina game, because IIRC he’s already done tackle school so there’s no hope of a reduction there. The big question is whether he misses more than one pool game. You can probably take a chance on only having two fly halves for the first game of a tournament, because you can only have two in the matchday squad… but if it’s longer than that there’s a big risk if one of the others picks up a knock in the Argentina game.

Farrell was banned in the run up to the 6N and did tackle school then. Very similar incident. He really shouldn't be qualifying to do it again. The last incident (Vs Glaws on Clement) was a four week ban so I'd have thought something similar.

I'm telling you, Steward to 12
It solves so many of England's back line problems

carpet baboon wrote:I'm telling you, Steward to 12
It solves so many of England's back line problems

If you are going to move someone to 12 who has never played there, Tommy Freeman, bigger and quicker than Steward or more left field, Earl, good distribution, great defence and speed.

Oh, forgot we tried that, Burgess. that turned out alright didn't it.

Actually, I thought it did. Burgess did everything that was asked of him, moved the ball wide occasionally, trucked it up when necessary and most importantly stopped Wales attack dead in it's tracks. It was only after he was pulled off that things went bad.

Ludlam played 12 for a long time before he switched to backrow.

My thinking is this, Steward is a big solid guy, decent hands good boot and good in the air, but he is missing some top end pace.
If he plays 12 he will be solid in defence, can be used to truck the ball up in attack, and is a good kicking option when in your own 22.
But importantly it allows you to use the contestable kick down the middle of the pitch, similar to the way henshaw does for Ireland, the big SA 12 who's name I can't remember and Jordie Barret is now doing for NZ.

England love the box kick so put it down the middle for Steward to chase with your 7 and marchant either side to mop up the lose ball, or support him when he takes it.

But that's just what I would do as England seem to have a huge problem finding a 12.

And I also think Burgess was a lot better than people think.

The amount of hyperbole used by the commentators on premier sports to describe Stewart all game such as “peerless in the air” “unrivalled” etc. etc. If you ask me he is average enough, thought Elliot Daly was way way better, more talented in nearly every way. Dont get the hype.

Englands biggest problem is they are relying on dinosaurs like Marler, Cole, Farrell, Lawes, Vunapola, Youngs and the few guys that have brought through Stewart, VP, Smith etc. either look lost all the time or just arent good enough. Bit of a shame to see really. Eddie Jones left a total mess.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Yoda wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Ref getting a grilling online. I don’t think he was great and he’s very card-happy; we’ve suffered him in a previous test versus SA and dare I say it we might have won that particular test with a better ref!

Vunipola was noticeably a shadow of his former self. It seems England might have a problem at 8, unless you just put Earl or Willis there. Earl and Lawes were good today.

I thought he kept you init tbh. Some of the slow roll Wales employed wasn't dealt with until beard was carded. As for the scrums your replacement tighthead rotated at the hips every scrum. Liam Williams probably the best player on the pitch and was a rock in defence.

English say this about the ref every time they play Wales tbh. He probably bottled two red cards for England whilst all the other yellows (yes, including Beard and Genge) seemed random. I think he’s just a weak ref and don’t particularly think he benefited anyone today.

Second red card? You can't mean Steward. Despite Adams grabbing his head and playing the clown he clearly landed on his shoulder. Simple yellow. Have to say the three different Welsh players that came to demand a card whilst the ref was deliberating was very disappointing. It's under review, let the man do his job FFS.

The sin bins were all over the place. Before Farrell's red I actually thought the TMO was referring Liam Williams diving straight off his feet at a ruck into a prone player. The fact Genge got some binned for one offence but the Welsh scrum spent the entire first half going backwards or to floor without a warning was frustrating.

He is a card happy ref but he didn't really seem to ever have control of the game.

I just went back and looked at the cards the referee issued. I am somewhat surprised to find I think he got them mostly right. If England lost, I would certainly not have blamed the referee. And he did make good use of his assistant referees:
Arundell - I thought this was the right call, schoolboy error
Reffell - The call was technically right, and the ref indicated the card was due to multiple infractions before hand in the 1st half.
Genge - was not sure about this one, likely only a pen
Steward - no doubts about this as a yellow, though I was concerned he might make it a red. To be fair, he didn't ask the bunker ref to review in case of red
Farrell - plonker (just had to say), easy card though I could (barely) see it as a yellow
Beard - was carded due to multiple pens down on the England line. Seems consistent with his call on Reffell

Part of the problem for me was a number of times the tv commentator simply wouldn't pipe down so we could hear what the referee and his assistants were saying or would move on to the next action and would not try to translate what the referee had said. Most of that is on the commentator, but some is on the production team in the trailer.

Collapse2005 wrote:The amount of hyperbole used by the commentators on premier sports to describe Stewart all game such as “peerless in the air” “unrivalled” etc. etc. If you ask me he is average enough, thought Elliot Daly was way way better, more talented in nearly every way. Dont get the hype.

Not often I agree with you Collapse, but I'm with you 100% here. He makes a routine catch and they wet their pants.....he's been the sole reason imperious has come back into common language! (At least 5 times a game).

Outside his catching, which is obviously imperious......he's very average. I really think we suffer as an attacking unit with him in the team as he's so ponderous and only really a threat when 1m from the line.

We're going to upset Sam now by the way.....

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:The amount of hyperbole used by the commentators on premier sports to describe Stewart all game such as “peerless in the air” “unrivalled” etc. etc. If you ask me he is average enough, thought Elliot Daly was way way better, more talented in nearly every way. Dont get the hype.

Not often I agree with you Collapse, but I'm with you 100% here. He makes a routine catch and they wet their pants.....he's been the sole reason imperious has come back into common language! (At least 5 times a game).

Outside his catching, which is obviously imperious......he's very average. I really think we suffer as an attacking unit with him in the team as he's so ponderous and only really a threat when 1m from the line.

We're going to upset Sam now by the way.....

I think the more we see a player, any player, the more we see the warts along with the good. Flash back a year or so and England were the Jones Gang who couldn't shoot straight. Steward came in and was one of the few players who clearly knew what he was there to do and went and did it. And that was catch the damn ball. Which he does at a high level (imperious?). He has a lot in his toolbox and needs the coaching and experience to get it out of him. But right now I think he is very much a work in progress and is one of the lesser concerns I have about this England team. And if we want to see him more engaged in the attack, isn't it on the coaching staff to put in a few calls for him to take the ball as first or second receiver (for instance) and truck it up. Could be a very effective alternative in attack. But, as I said, not remotely the finished article, and I hope he continues to develop a more rounded game.

doctor_grey wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Yoda wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Ref getting a grilling online. I don’t think he was great and he’s very card-happy; we’ve suffered him in a previous test versus SA and dare I say it we might have won that particular test with a better ref!

Vunipola was noticeably a shadow of his former self. It seems England might have a problem at 8, unless you just put Earl or Willis there. Earl and Lawes were good today.

I thought he kept you init tbh. Some of the slow roll Wales employed wasn't dealt with until beard was carded. As for the scrums your replacement tighthead rotated at the hips every scrum. Liam Williams probably the best player on the pitch and was a rock in defence.

English say this about the ref every time they play Wales tbh. He probably bottled two red cards for England whilst all the other yellows (yes, including Beard and Genge) seemed random. I think he’s just a weak ref and don’t particularly think he benefited anyone today.

Second red card? You can't mean Steward. Despite Adams grabbing his head and playing the clown he clearly landed on his shoulder. Simple yellow. Have to say the three different Welsh players that came to demand a card whilst the ref was deliberating was very disappointing. It's under review, let the man do his job FFS.

The sin bins were all over the place. Before Farrell's red I actually thought the TMO was referring Liam Williams diving straight off his feet at a ruck into a prone player. The fact Genge got some binned for one offence but the Welsh scrum spent the entire first half going backwards or to floor without a warning was frustrating.

He is a card happy ref but he didn't really seem to ever have control of the game.

I just went back and looked at the cards the referee issued.  I am somewhat surprised to find I think he got them mostly right.  If England lost, I would certainly not have blamed the referee.  And he did make good use of his assistant referees:
Arundell - I thought this was the right call, schoolboy error
Reffell - The call was technically right, and the ref indicated the card was due to multiple infractions before hand in the 1st half.
Genge - was not sure about this one, likely only a pen
Steward - no doubts about this as a yellow, though I was concerned he might make it a red.  To be fair, he didn't ask the bunker ref to review in case of red
Farrell - plonker (just had to say), easy card though I could (barely) see it as a yellow
Beard - was carded due to multiple pens down on the England line.  Seems consistent with his call on Reffell

Part of the problem for me was a number of times the tv commentator simply wouldn't pipe down so we could hear what the referee and his assistants were saying or would move on to the next action and would not try to translate what the referee had said.  Most of that is on the commentator, but some is on the production team in the trailer.

Yep, and Biggar says in his column that he was surprised Farrell, and Freddie Steward for that matter, "weren’t sent off immediately." You lot carry on thinking the ref tried to give it to us though, when he has in fact taken two games from us now (SA and this one) .

mikey_dragon wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Yoda wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Ref getting a grilling online. I don’t think he was great and he’s very card-happy; we’ve suffered him in a previous test versus SA and dare I say it we might have won that particular test with a better ref!

Vunipola was noticeably a shadow of his former self. It seems England might have a problem at 8, unless you just put Earl or Willis there. Earl and Lawes were good today.

I thought he kept you init tbh. Some of the slow roll Wales employed wasn't dealt with until beard was carded. As for the scrums your replacement tighthead rotated at the hips every scrum. Liam Williams probably the best player on the pitch and was a rock in defence.

English say this about the ref every time they play Wales tbh. He probably bottled two red cards for England whilst all the other yellows (yes, including Beard and Genge) seemed random. I think he’s just a weak ref and don’t particularly think he benefited anyone today.

Second red card? You can't mean Steward. Despite Adams grabbing his head and playing the clown he clearly landed on his shoulder. Simple yellow. Have to say the three different Welsh players that came to demand a card whilst the ref was deliberating was very disappointing. It's under review, let the man do his job FFS.

The sin bins were all over the place. Before Farrell's red I actually thought the TMO was referring Liam Williams diving straight off his feet at a ruck into a prone player. The fact Genge got some binned for one offence but the Welsh scrum spent the entire first half going backwards or to floor without a warning was frustrating.

He is a card happy ref but he didn't really seem to ever have control of the game.

I just went back and looked at the cards the referee issued.  I am somewhat surprised to find I think he got them mostly right.  If England lost, I would certainly not have blamed the referee.  And he did make good use of his assistant referees:
Arundell - I thought this was the right call, schoolboy error
Reffell - The call was technically right, and the ref indicated the card was due to multiple infractions before hand in the 1st half.
Genge - was not sure about this one, likely only a pen
Steward - no doubts about this as a yellow, though I was concerned he might make it a red.  To be fair, he didn't ask the bunker ref to review in case of red
Farrell - plonker (just had to say), easy card though I could (barely) see it as a yellow
Beard - was carded due to multiple pens down on the England line.  Seems consistent with his call on Reffell

Part of the problem for me was a number of times the tv commentator simply wouldn't pipe down so we could hear what the referee and his assistants were saying or would move on to the next action and would not try to translate what the referee had said.  Most of that is on the commentator, but some is on the production team in the trailer.

Yep, and Biggar says in his column that he was surprised Farrell, and Freddie Steward for that matter, "weren’t sent off immediately." You lot carry on thinking the ref tried to give it to us though, when he has in fact taken two games from us now (SA and this one) .

Ah Dan biggar the paragon of virtue, never play acts and is always courteous and polite to referees . Ref did well in the dangerous play stakes and no one here is saying our cards weren't justified it was just his scrum interpretation and lack of urgency in clearing rucks that he needs to work on.

Anyway good luck against SA I think you lot will be fine with gats, I still rate him as I was a wasps fan and he hasn't changed a bit in how he sets up his team's. Very successful and resourceful coach.

mikey_dragon wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Yoda wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Ref getting a grilling online. I don’t think he was great and he’s very card-happy; we’ve suffered him in a previous test versus SA and dare I say it we might have won that particular test with a better ref!

Vunipola was noticeably a shadow of his former self. It seems England might have a problem at 8, unless you just put Earl or Willis there. Earl and Lawes were good today.

I thought he kept you init tbh. Some of the slow roll Wales employed wasn't dealt with until beard was carded. As for the scrums your replacement tighthead rotated at the hips every scrum. Liam Williams probably the best player on the pitch and was a rock in defence.

English say this about the ref every time they play Wales tbh. He probably bottled two red cards for England whilst all the other yellows (yes, including Beard and Genge) seemed random. I think he’s just a weak ref and don’t particularly think he benefited anyone today.

Second red card? You can't mean Steward. Despite Adams grabbing his head and playing the clown he clearly landed on his shoulder. Simple yellow. Have to say the three different Welsh players that came to demand a card whilst the ref was deliberating was very disappointing. It's under review, let the man do his job FFS.

The sin bins were all over the place. Before Farrell's red I actually thought the TMO was referring Liam Williams diving straight off his feet at a ruck into a prone player. The fact Genge got some binned for one offence but the Welsh scrum spent the entire first half going backwards or to floor without a warning was frustrating.

He is a card happy ref but he didn't really seem to ever have control of the game.

I just went back and looked at the cards the referee issued.  I am somewhat surprised to find I think he got them mostly right.  If England lost, I would certainly not have blamed the referee.  And he did make good use of his assistant referees:
Arundell - I thought this was the right call, schoolboy error
Reffell - The call was technically right, and the ref indicated the card was due to multiple infractions before hand in the 1st half.
Genge - was not sure about this one, likely only a pen
Steward - no doubts about this as a yellow, though I was concerned he might make it a red.  To be fair, he didn't ask the bunker ref to review in case of red
Farrell - plonker (just had to say), easy card though I could (barely) see it as a yellow
Beard - was carded due to multiple pens down on the England line.  Seems consistent with his call on Reffell

Part of the problem for me was a number of times the tv commentator simply wouldn't pipe down so we could hear what the referee and his assistants were saying or would move on to the next action and would not try to translate what the referee had said.  Most of that is on the commentator, but some is on the production team in the trailer.

Yep, and Biggar says in his column that he was surprised Farrell, and Freddie Steward for that matter, "weren’t sent off immediately." You lot carry on thinking the ref tried to give it to us though, when he has in fact taken two games from us now (SA and this one) .

Does Bigger not know the rules (in regards to Steward) ?

mountain man wrote:I just tune out now when Borthwick speaks, inane PR speak in a droning monotone.

As for next game I actually think England will be a lot better. Playing #1 team in world away, two dreadful performances, ill discipline, capt will be banned etc.
Pressure is off, no-one expects anything other than a hammering. Maybe it will happen but I rather suspect Eng be a lot better although after last 2 matches there is only one way to go.

Ireland will win of course.

The good news is England have never lost v Ireland in a warm up game,
The bad news is its in Dublin where Ireland rarely lose,
The good news is England were one of the last sides to win there,
The bad news is that it was four years ago.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:

Yoda wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Ref getting a grilling online. I don’t think he was great and he’s very card-happy; we’ve suffered him in a previous test versus SA and dare I say it we might have won that particular test with a better ref!

Vunipola was noticeably a shadow of his former self. It seems England might have a problem at 8, unless you just put Earl or Willis there. Earl and Lawes were good today.

I thought he kept you init tbh. Some of the slow roll Wales employed wasn't dealt with until beard was carded. As for the scrums your replacement tighthead rotated at the hips every scrum. Liam Williams probably the best player on the pitch and was a rock in defence.

English say this about the ref every time they play Wales tbh. He probably bottled two red cards for England whilst all the other yellows (yes, including Beard and Genge) seemed random. I think he’s just a weak ref and don’t particularly think he benefited anyone today.

Second red card? You can't mean Steward. Despite Adams grabbing his head and playing the clown he clearly landed on his shoulder. Simple yellow. Have to say the three different Welsh players that came to demand a card whilst the ref was deliberating was very disappointing. It's under review, let the man do his job FFS.

The sin bins were all over the place. Before Farrell's red I actually thought the TMO was referring Liam Williams diving straight off his feet at a ruck into a prone player. The fact Genge got some binned for one offence but the Welsh scrum spent the entire first half going backwards or to floor without a warning was frustrating.

He is a card happy ref but he didn't really seem to ever have control of the game.

I just went back and looked at the cards the referee issued.  I am somewhat surprised to find I think he got them mostly right.  If England lost, I would certainly not have blamed the referee.  And he did make good use of his assistant referees:
Arundell - I thought this was the right call, schoolboy error
Reffell - The call was technically right, and the ref indicated the card was due to multiple infractions before hand in the 1st half.
Genge - was not sure about this one, likely only a pen
Steward - no doubts about this as a yellow, though I was concerned he might make it a red.  To be fair, he didn't ask the bunker ref to review in case of red
Farrell - plonker (just had to say), easy card though I could (barely) see it as a yellow
Beard - was carded due to multiple pens down on the England line.  Seems consistent with his call on Reffell

Part of the problem for me was a number of times the tv commentator simply wouldn't pipe down so we could hear what the referee and his assistants were saying or would move on to the next action and would not try to translate what the referee had said.  Most of that is on the commentator, but some is on the production team in the trailer.

Yep, and Biggar says in his column that he was surprised Farrell, and Freddie Steward for that matter, "weren’t sent off immediately." You lot carry on thinking the ref tried to give it to us though, when he has in fact taken two games from us now (SA and this one) .

Does Bigger not know the rules (in regards to Steward) ?

Dan Biggar is a one eyed whinger at the best of times.

The Farrell one was pretty much stone cold red, only possible mitigation may have been Jamie George's challenge causing Basham to dip before contact. I doubt we'll ever get a straight red in game now. Yellow and review is quicker and easier plus they can afford to really go into detail and make sure there's no error.

The Steward one is really quite simple. It's how Adams lands. Clearly lands on his side so it's yellow. To be red he'd need to land on his head. Always a penalty try as soon as it was deemed an offence.

I suspect Biggar is frustrated in how poorly he and Beard led Wales in the final quarter of that game. The win was served up on a plate and they were so hot headed they were key to Wales blowing it. Looks to me like Wales have younger and better options that those two.

Ah Dan Biggar...utter tool along with that other Toss pot his pal Liam Williams..

No issue with cards, all correct colour.

Biggar great player, less good referee.

Geordie wrote:Ah Dan Biggar...utter tool along with that other Toss pot his pal Liam Williams..

I like Liam Williams but biggar can do one. I wish we had someone like Liam Williams at the back for us.

formerly known as Sam wrote:The Steward one is really quite simple. It's how Adams lands. Clearly lands on his side so it's yellow. To be red he'd need to land on his head. Always a penalty try as soon as it was deemed an offence.

I have been wondering for quite a while about how the injured party lands impacting the colour of the card?  Does it actually say this in the law book?  Or is this World Rugby direction to the referees as to how they interpret the action.  Not remotely having a go at anyone, but I am wondering.  

I just don't get it.  If a player takes someone out in the air they get penalised.  If the player taken out lands on their shoulder it is only a yellow.  However, given the exact same action and the player in the air lands on the side of their head for instance it becomes a red.  The exact same action by the offending player.  

Taking a player out in the air is dangerous play, and one of the reasons laws around this kind of thing are being tightened (or at least the interpretation is being tightened) is to remove the behaviour from the game.  So if we want to remove the behaviour why should it matter how a player lands when frequently it is a matter of inches or balance or positioning by the player who was hit in the air?  To me the sanction should be the same.  Almost like rewarding the offending player for getting lucky the person who was hit in the air landed on his/her shoulder and not the head.  And the shoulder injury has the potential to be a career ender, too.  

This has nothing to do with Steward, but his card highlights something I think is foolish and wrong.  I am happy to be convinced otherwise but I can't see it at the moment.

doctor_grey wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:The Steward one is really quite simple. It's how Adams lands. Clearly lands on his side so it's yellow. To be red he'd need to land on his head. Always a penalty try as soon as it was deemed an offence.

I have been wondering for quite a while about how the injured party lands impacting the colour of the card?  Does it actually say this in the law book?  Or is this World Rugby direction to the referees as to how they interpret the action.  Not remotely having a go at anyone, but I am wondering.  

I just don't get it.  If a player takes someone out in the air they get penalised.  If the player taken out lands on their shoulder it is only a yellow.  However, given the exact same action and the player in the air lands on the side of their head for instance it becomes a red.  The exact same action by the offending player.  

Taking a player out in the air is dangerous play, and one of the reasons laws around this kind of thing are being tightened (or at least the interpretation is being tightened) is to remove the behaviour from the game.  So if we want to remove the behaviour why should it matter how a player lands when frequently it is a matter of inches or balance or positioning by the player who was hit in the air?  To me the sanction should be the same.  Almost like rewarding the offending player for getting lucky the person who was hit in the air landed on his/her shoulder and not the head.  And the shoulder injury has the potential to be a career ender, too.  

This has nothing to do with Steward, but his card highlights something I think is foolish and wrong.  I am happy to be convinced otherwise but I can't see it at the moment.

It's pretty much the same as the tip tackle rules. Presumably to guard against the completely reckless tipping of the player in the air as opposed to the clumsy mistimed tackle.

doctor_grey wrote:
...I just don't get it.  If a player takes someone out in the air they get penalised.  If the player taken out lands on their shoulder it is only a yellow.  However, given the exact same action and the player in the air lands on the side of their head for instance it becomes a red.  The exact same action by the offending player...

I understand what you are saying, but it is not the exact same action. With my engineers hat on, I'd point out that generally you have to hit someone harder to give them enough rotational momentum to go beyond the horizontal before they land and thus land on their head. I think that's good enough justification for the different punishments. Yes, it's not a precise science, and two similar hits might have different outcomes, but that's true of all penalties. Whatever lines you draw you are going to have close calls.

Steward is a red for me.

You think he fell on his head sarge?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Steward is a red for me.

But that's not how these incidents have been officiated - the player would need to land on head or neck to end up at red with current interpretations ...

I thought red at first, but watched it again and agree with the yellow because Adams got his arm down first.

I don't agree with Goode, Cueto and one or two on here who are knocking Adams for holding his head though. It does contact the ground and he must've been in pain with a heavy landing anyway.

Big wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
...I just don't get it.  If a player takes someone out in the air they get penalised.  If the player taken out lands on their shoulder it is only a yellow.  However, given the exact same action and the player in the air lands on the side of their head for instance it becomes a red.  The exact same action by the offending player...

I understand what you are saying, but it is not the exact same action.  With my engineers hat on, I'd point out that generally you have to hit someone harder to give them enough rotational momentum to go beyond the horizontal before they land and thus land on their head.  I think that's good enough justification for the different punishments.  Yes, it's not a precise science, and two similar hits might have different outcomes, but that's true of all penalties.  Whatever lines you draw you are going to have close calls.

I get what you are saying, but looking at the Steward incident again, if the receiver had turned a fraction left or right when he went up, before contact, he could have landed very differently regardless of what Steward did.      

I know this is all about inches or fractions of inches.  My point is about the behaviour that puts a receiver in potential jeopardy, not whether the injury happens.  But that's just my pov for whatever it's worth, and there are obviously other (better) ways to look at it.  I am wondering what is in the laws and what is in any directive to the officials regarding interpretation?  

And, by the way, I have a bunch of engineers in the family woodpile.  From experience, any time one of them says they are putting their engineer's hat on, I assume they are playing dirty (which is exactly what I would do if I could).

So who do want to see V Ireland? We are we are. Not a situation other countries would swap with us willingly but we can only do our best going forward. Play our Argentina team against Ireland and maybe also Fiji to try and get some continuity. All 3 9s seem slow so maybe Mitchell can join as an injury replacement which won’t be a bad thing. We have cover for 10 and it also means no Faz at 12 which is a blessing. We are in desperation time so I would go for.

Marler
George
Stuart
Ribbans
Itoje
Lawes
Billy
Earl
Mitchell
Ford
Daly (11)
Manu
Lawrence
Watson
Malins

Bench
Genge
Walker
Sinckler
Chessum
Willis
Care
Smith
Arundell

What the Frak is wrong with Farrell? That was a blatant cheap shot, its only intent was to hit the opponent high and hurt them, the kind of stupid thing you get in a 3rd's game when that "guy who has wild eyes and did a bit of league" is playing.

Add to that he apparently put in another cheap shot earlier in the game, and croc rolled the welsh player who went off injured.

He really seemed out to injure people, not what you need from your captain.

yappysnap wrote:What the Frak is wrong with Farrell? That was a blatant cheap shot, its only intent was to hit the opponent high and hurt them, the kind of stupid thing you get in a 3rd's game when that "guy who has wild eyes and did a bit of league" is playing.

Add to that he apparently put in another cheap shot earlier in the game, and croc rolled the welsh player who went off injured.

He really seemed out to injure people, not what you need from your captain.

Willis did the croc roll.

The Willis sat on the bench?

Presumably it will be quite a similar team this weekend. 2 enforced changes at half back, possibly a returning to fitness lock ahead of Martin, maybe drop Arundell who isn't really showing he has what it takes to chase kicks consistently? Vunipola really needs all the time on the pitch that he can have.

Can't say Martin has impressed at all in the two games he's had so far. Not that many players have though but in first match Ribbans looked a lot more effective.
Arundell starts again and hopefully this time gets a pass or two, I'd like to see them try him at 15 or dare I say it Malins.

England got nothing to lose really(apart from match). Literally nobody expects them to win so might as well tinker with team, give RWC squad members a run out, try different options etc so should be needed in RWC game. Like a different 15. Pretty obvious Steward be starting 15 for Arg so give someone else some time should he get carded again or injured.

Odds on England getting their third red card in a row v Ireland?

Ireland should beat this England side fairly easily but I suspect it wont be easy, I imagine England will see it as an opportunity to lay down a marker. Hopefully a good match without any more injuries, red cards nor suspensions.

We're counting the red card that wasn't then?

Collapse2005 wrote:Odds on England getting their third red card in a row v Ireland?

Ireland should beat this England side fairly easily but I suspect it wont be easy, I imagine England will see it as an opportunity to lay down a marker. Hopefully a good match without any more injuries, red cards nor suspensions.

You are assuming Ireland will put out their first XV ?

From memory quite a few teams get reds cards against Ireland. I still take a bit of an exception to Ewels card - yes he was too high with arms out in front of him and there was head contact with Ewels face hitting the side/top of Ryan's head, so technically the correct decision. Pretty sure however most players don't use their face as the first point of contact. There is an interesting article on YouTube about how the law 9.11 states the both the defender and attacker have a duty of care to not act recklessly but it is pretty much always the defender that gets penalised despite attackers usually leading with their heads, shoulder, elbows, knees or hips. I don't necessarily agree but it is an interesting point.

Adams was clearly arriving at the ball first but chose to jump in the air side on and his hip hit Steward on the side of the head with a clean hit with massive momentum - it gives pause for thought.

Just read that Jack van Poortvliet is out of the WC. Injured by a collision with his own player. Absolutely gutting for him. Really feel for the guy.

That is bad news for JvP.

So does this mean Mitchell gets the call? Let's hope so.

Roman Ntamack has also been ruled out of the tournament with injury. Big blow for France.

Huge blow. Probably our best box kicker. Wonder if Borthwick will think to Spencer, or maybe get Wigglesworth to dust off the boots.

Recwatcher16 wrote:...There is an interesting article on YouTube about how the law 9.11 states the both the defender and attacker have a duty of care to not act recklessly but it is pretty much always the defender that gets penalised despite attackers usually leading with their heads, shoulder, elbows, knees or hips. I don't necessarily agree but it is an interesting point.

Adams was clearly arriving at the ball first but chose to jump in the air side on and his hip hit Steward on the side of the head with a clean hit with massive momentum - it gives pause for thought.

I assume you mean TAS Analytics - I do quite like their reaction to Farrell's card! Don't really agree with their take on Steward's yellow though. If Steward was there first and someone runs and jumps into him - then yep, it should be the jumper that's penalised for being reckless. It isn't what happens, but I completely agree with them that it should be. But, Steward ran in and took the guy out... I'd imagine it was a misjudged run rather than malicious, but I don't see how you put it on the other guy here.

Big wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:...There is an interesting article on YouTube about how the law 9.11 states the both the defender and attacker have a duty of care to not act recklessly but it is pretty much always the defender that gets penalised despite attackers usually leading with their heads, shoulder, elbows, knees or hips. I don't necessarily agree but it is an interesting point.

Adams was clearly arriving at the ball first but chose to jump in the air side on and his hip hit Steward on the side of the head with a clean hit with massive momentum - it gives pause for thought.

I assume you mean TAS Analytics - I do quite like their reaction to Farrell's card!  Don't really agree with their take on Steward's yellow though.  If Steward was there first and someone runs and jumps into him - then yep, it should be the jumper that's penalised for being reckless.  It isn't what happens, but I completely agree with them that it should be.  But, Steward ran in and took the guy out...  I'd imagine it was a misjudged run rather than malicious, but I don't see how you put it on the other guy here.

Steward needs to learn when to stop & let the other player hit him

Big wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:...There is an interesting article on YouTube about how the law 9.11 states the both the defender and attacker have a duty of care to not act recklessly but it is pretty much always the defender that gets penalised despite attackers usually leading with their heads, shoulder, elbows, knees or hips. I don't necessarily agree but it is an interesting point.

Adams was clearly arriving at the ball first but chose to jump in the air side on and his hip hit Steward on the side of the head with a clean hit with massive momentum - it gives pause for thought.

I assume you mean TAS Analytics - I do quite like their reaction to Farrell's card!  Don't really agree with their take on Steward's yellow though.  If Steward was there first and someone runs and jumps into him - then yep, it should be the jumper that's penalised for being reckless.  It isn't what happens, but I completely agree with them that it should be.  But, Steward ran in and took the guy out...  I'd imagine it was a misjudged run rather than malicious, but I don't see how you put it on the other guy here.

TAS analytics is so often wrong in their take on laws and have a very SA bias on things, to such an extent I wouldn't be surprised if Jaco Johan was behind the account. The laws logically will usually favour the person in possession or by extension to that someone jumping in the air who is completely ball focussed and about be in possession. Adams had caught the ball when Steward took him out, very very lucky not to get another red.

if he had got a red it would have been out of step with pretty much all the previous incidents like this - when you can hear the ref mike in these cases they always seem to ask if the player landed on their head or neck, and if not it's yellow - not saying that's necessarily right but just the way the officiating seems to be directed currently ...

Big wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:...There is an interesting article on YouTube about how the law 9.11 states the both the defender and attacker have a duty of care to not act recklessly but it is pretty much always the defender that gets penalised despite attackers usually leading with their heads, shoulder, elbows, knees or hips. I don't necessarily agree but it is an interesting point.

Adams was clearly arriving at the ball first but chose to jump in the air side on and his hip hit Steward on the side of the head with a clean hit with massive momentum - it gives pause for thought.

I assume you mean TAS Analytics - I do quite like their reaction to Farrell's card!  Don't really agree with their take on Steward's yellow though.  If Steward was there first and someone runs and jumps into him - then yep, it should be the jumper that's penalised for being reckless.  It isn't what happens, but I completely agree with them that it should be.  But, Steward ran in and took the guy out...  I'd imagine it was a misjudged run rather than malicious, but I don't see how you put it on the other guy here.

Yes I think you are right, but some refs look at outcome rather than intent or mis-timing. Perhaps if Steward had made a deal out of it then there might have been additional confusion, although ultimately the defender takes the rap.

Shame for JVP...but Mitchell deserves the shot.

9 Mitchell
10 Ford
12 Manu
13 Lawrence / Marchant

Geordie wrote:Shame for JVP...but Mitchell deserves the shot.

9 Mitchell
10 Ford
12 Manu
13 Lawrence / Marchant

Like it and Lawrence goes to 12 once Manu heads off injured.