The Rugby Union Thread

Gassage

Neill said:

Re this knock on business I had a vague recollection which has just come back to me.

In 1999 when Wales famously beat England 32-31 with a late Scott Gibbs try I was convinced the ball was knocked forward by Scott Quinnell before he delivered the telling pass to Gibbs.  If you watch it on Youtube Quinnell clearly fumbles the pass from Howley and the ball goes forwards.  I was told by others at the time that because the ball didn't hit the floor it wasn't a knock on - have the laws changed since then or was this a mistake that no-one picked up?

The 'ball hitting the floor' is not referenced in laws.

koneguitarist

@Gassage in the laws its not mentioned but it is mentioned in a definition of the law term knock on. 

sev112

crunchman said:

As for the Welsh whinging about other decisions that went England's way, there were other decisions that didn't as well as the two big ones.  There was one penalty Jonathan Davies said was harsh in commentary. 

  I recall JD saying at the time, that something like 4 of the first 5 (or 5 out of 6) penalties against England on Saturday were harsh or wrong.  That was before “try-gate” started.

i would still be please for someone to show me that Law that says a ref can ping someone for a team’s persistent offending, where it is not preventing a score.  It is double jeopardy, if they (infringe) and clearly several of those first few were not really , certainly not deliberate, infringements, then give a penalty.  If it is preventing a score, then ping.  Otherwise if it is just to do with keeping the game entertaining, you might as well ping a team if they kick the ball 3 times in a row, because that’s bloody boring too

p90fool

digitalscream said:

Coldfingers said:

digitalscream said:

That's not really accurate, though. One of those tries was quite literally engineered by the ref - tell the captain to have a word with his players, wait until they're in a huddle with acres of space both sides, then call "time on" and...try.

That's not 50/50, that's not the rub of the green. It's plain cheating.

Have a look at it from this angle (and pause it at 1 sec), strange that the defence on (England's) left were in place - there are other videos showing the wing (pretty sure it's Johnny May) running to get into position, but where's the right wing? Why is it Ford out left and why is he walking with his back turned to the ref/Biggar?

Left side are in position, so why not the right?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/rugby-union/56225742

That's pretty much irrelevant - the fact that a couple of players were covering because they didn't need to be in the huddle doesn't change what the ref did or the end result. If all the players were covering, there would've been no huddle and the ref could rightly have pinged Farrell for not following his instructions.

They had been in the huddle but they sprinted out when it was over, instead of ambling away with their backs to the ball like the two amateurs on the other side. 

I'm not in any way defending the referee who definitely didn't give England enough time, but Elliot Daly did it again in the second half, allowing the Wales scrum half to score from a quick tap penalty, which is unforgivable even at the lowliest club level. 

Coldfingers

p90fool said:

digitalscream said:

Coldfingers said:

digitalscream said:

That's not really accurate, though. One of those tries was quite literally engineered by the ref - tell the captain to have a word with his players, wait until they're in a huddle with acres of space both sides, then call "time on" and...try.

That's not 50/50, that's not the rub of the green. It's plain cheating.

Have a look at it from this angle (and pause it at 1 sec), strange that the defence on (England's) left were in place - there are other videos showing the wing (pretty sure it's Johnny May) running to get into position, but where's the right wing? Why is it Ford out left and why is he walking with his back turned to the ref/Biggar?

Left side are in position, so why not the right?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/rugby-union/56225742

That's pretty much irrelevant - the fact that a couple of players were covering because they didn't need to be in the huddle doesn't change what the ref did or the end result. If all the players were covering, there would've been no huddle and the ref could rightly have pinged Farrell for not following his instructions.

They had been in the huddle but they sprinted out when it was over, instead of ambling away with their backs to the ball like the two amateurs on the other side. 

I'm not in any way defending the referee who definitely didn't give England enough time, but Elliot Daly did it again in the second half, allowing the Wales scrum half to score from a quick tap penalty, which is unforgivable even at the lowliest club level. 

What P90 said - they'd been in the huddle, left side defence were switched on and got into position, right side were ambling about.

Here from about 14:45

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/rugby-union/56161000

digitalscream

Coldfingers said:

p90fool said:

digitalscream said:

That's pretty much irrelevant - the fact that a couple of players were covering because they didn't need to be in the huddle doesn't change what the ref did or the end result. If all the players were covering, there would've been no huddle and the ref could rightly have pinged Farrell for not following his instructions.

They had been in the huddle but they sprinted out when it was over, instead of ambling away with their backs to the ball like the two amateurs on the other side. 

I'm not in any way defending the referee who definitely didn't give England enough time, but Elliot Daly did it again in the second half, allowing the Wales scrum half to score from a quick tap penalty, which is unforgivable even at the lowliest club level. 

What P90 said - they'd been in the huddle, left side defence were switched on and got into position, right side were ambling about.

Here from about 14:45

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/rugby-union/56161000

The left side weren't much further out than the right - they certainly weren't even close to covering the wing, and the huddle was on the left post. There's absolutely no way that enough players could've got away from the huddle in time to properly cover it.

Yes, they could have got out there a little quicker, but it wouldn't have made a difference because there just wasn't enough time left by the ref, short of a dead sprint. If we're going to talk about wasting time, we could always take a look at how much time Wales deliberately wasted getting to every single line-out. Imagine the outrage if the ref decided to pull the same trick there

Fretwired

Are the Six Nations about to become the Five Nations for this year? It seems France is being investigated for Covid breaches. Scotland may be awarded a bonus-point win or France may be removed from the Championship.

Interesting!!

https://rugby365.com/countries/england/france-under-investigation-after-covid-blunder/

Gassage

digitalscream said:

Coldfingers said:

p90fool said:

digitalscream said:

That's pretty much irrelevant - the fact that a couple of players were covering because they didn't need to be in the huddle doesn't change what the ref did or the end result. If all the players were covering, there would've been no huddle and the ref could rightly have pinged Farrell for not following his instructions.

They had been in the huddle but they sprinted out when it was over, instead of ambling away with their backs to the ball like the two amateurs on the other side. 

I'm not in any way defending the referee who definitely didn't give England enough time, but Elliot Daly did it again in the second half, allowing the Wales scrum half to score from a quick tap penalty, which is unforgivable even at the lowliest club level. 

What P90 said - they'd been in the huddle, left side defence were switched on and got into position, right side were ambling about.

Here from about 14:45

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/rugby-union/56161000

The left side weren't much further out than the right - they certainly weren't even close to covering the wing, and the huddle was on the left post. There's absolutely no way that enough players could've got away from the huddle in time to properly cover it.

Yes, they could have got out there a little quicker, but it wouldn't have made a difference because there just wasn't enough time left by the ref, short of a dead sprint. If we're going to talk about wasting time, we could always take a look at how much time Wales deliberately wasted getting to every single line-out. Imagine the outrage if the ref decided to pull the same trick there

It makes no odds.

YOU CANNOT RESTART THE GAME* when water carriers and tech staff are on the pitch. There's 5 in total- 3 Eng, 2 Welsh.

This is a direct edict from WR.

(*well, Gauzere can.)

koneguitarist

Gassage said:

digitalscream said:

Coldfingers said:

p90fool said:

digitalscream said:

That's pretty much irrelevant - the fact that a couple of players were covering because they didn't need to be in the huddle doesn't change what the ref did or the end result. If all the players were covering, there would've been no huddle and the ref could rightly have pinged Farrell for not following his instructions.

They had been in the huddle but they sprinted out when it was over, instead of ambling away with their backs to the ball like the two amateurs on the other side. 

I'm not in any way defending the referee who definitely didn't give England enough time, but Elliot Daly did it again in the second half, allowing the Wales scrum half to score from a quick tap penalty, which is unforgivable even at the lowliest club level. 

What P90 said - they'd been in the huddle, left side defence were switched on and got into position, right side were ambling about.

Here from about 14:45

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/rugby-union/56161000

The left side weren't much further out than the right - they certainly weren't even close to covering the wing, and the huddle was on the left post. There's absolutely no way that enough players could've got away from the huddle in time to properly cover it.

Yes, they could have got out there a little quicker, but it wouldn't have made a difference because there just wasn't enough time left by the ref, short of a dead sprint. If we're going to talk about wasting time, we could always take a look at how much time Wales deliberately wasted getting to every single line-out. Imagine the outrage if the ref decided to pull the same trick there

It makes no odds.

YOU CANNOT RESTART THE GAME* when water carriers and tech staff are on the pitch. There's 5 in total- 3 Eng, 2 Welsh.

This is a direct edict from WR.

(*well, Gauzere can.)

Interesting video on Twitter showing Farrell doing a similar cross kick for Ashton to score with water guys on the pitch just after ref warns opposition captain about repeat offences. Quite a few of opposition are waiting for their captain  and not getting ready for a penalty. Farrell as any fly half is alert to a quick one and does so. 

Gassage

For those interested- my take on what England need to do..

Five headaches for Eddie Jones after latest defeat | Planet Rugby

koneguitarist

Read it earlier James, good piece and the bit about Tuilagi is why they are not a settled team.

Coldfingers

Squidge explaining why Wales play in red :-)

digitalscream

Gassage said:

At the moment, this is a squad that is harder to get out of than it is to get into

And therein lies the problem, and Eddie Jones will never be the one to figure it out or fix it. He simply can't admit that he's been wrong.

crunchman

Farrell is a bit of a conundrum as well.  He's not creative enough at 10, so if you don't have Tuilagi to break things open, they don't really go anywhere in attack.  Ford has his drawbacks, but is a better 10, but then you have to consider the place kicking.  Farrell is good at that.

Then there are the balance issues in midfield.  If you do play Ford and Slade, the other centre needs to be a bruiser, not Farrell.

Gassage is definitely right about Elliot Daly.  Even at the best of times he's not a natural fullback.  There has to be a better option.

koneguitarist

Forget the English Welsh rivalry for a moment, I’m worried for England. I feel they are our best chance of RWC winners for NH yet I feel Jones is squandering time and players. 

He is not building a squad. 

He is telling every Center, your only there til Tuilagi is fit.
 He is wasting the chance to see if fringe players can step up. 

And his rediculous policy of a 6-2 split on Bench is basically telling his subs, your really there for injuries only, and what happens if you do get injuries? Only a 9 and utility player left as he keeps two fly half’s  on pitch. Center is a specialist position so is full back. What happens if Young gets a serious injury, you have Robson as next in line who Jones doesn’t trust to start and ?  Recall for Danny Care? Who else has got experience. 

Yes I want Wales to beat England but as a NH rugby fan I want the best teams in North to be at their best to compete for RWC. England have the players available, but I think you don’t have the right coach. 

Gulliver

koneguitarist said:

What happens if Young gets a serious injury, you have Robson as next in line who Jones doesn’t trust to start and ?  Recall for Danny Care? Who else has got experience. 

Maybe Willi Heinz?  I mean, he selected Harry Randall from Bristol, presumably just to make up the numbers because there's no way he'll actually get any game time.  Which is a shame as a Bristol supporting mate of mine said he's actually pretty decent.

scrumhalf

Daly's been on a downward spiral since the last Lions tour. He had his head turned by $arries teammates and left us for filthy lucre. His last season for us was an exercise in disinterest. 

He's at his best in the 13 shirt. He can play on the wing but he's no full back. He still tries to beat one man too many rather than offload the ball and runs up too many blind alleys. His tackling isn't up to the standard required of an international 15.

If it weren't for his ability to kick the ball for miles he'd be on the bench as a utility back at best. 

Neill

scrumhalf said:

Daly's been on a downward spiral since the last Lions tour. He had his head turned by $arries teammates and left us for filthy lucre. His last season for us was an exercise in disinterest. 

He's at his best in the 13 shirt. He can play on the wing but he's no full back. He still tries to beat one man too many rather than offload the ball and runs up too many blind alleys. His tackling isn't up to the standard required of an international 15.

If it weren't for his ability to kick the ball for miles he'd be on the bench as a utility back at best. 

I said this earlier - it's blindingly obvious to me that Daly needs to be in the centre at 13 and Slade can play 12 - Will Greenwood who knows a thing or two about playing centre reckons 12 is actually Slade's best position so he's really playing out of position just so Farrell can get a game.  But the other factor is England have lots of options at full back - and wing - so Watson could move to 15 or bring in a specialist.

I'm at the stage now where I hope they get thrashed by France because it's the only way we're going to get the seismic shift that the squad needs.

koneguitarist

I think Watson is best fullback. And I think Slade is a classy player. What do you do with Farrell? 

crunchman

koneguitarist said:

I think Watson is best fullback. And I think Slade is a classy player. What do you do with Farrell? 

Bench, or 10 if you think his place kicking and defense make him a better option than Ford.  He shouldn't be in the side at 12.  If he plays it has to be at 10.

Edit:  Given his current form, I think they should drop Daly, but once he gets some sharpness back, playing him at 13 as suggested by @Neill makes selecting a bench easier.  It gives you the option of moving Daly to the wing or FB to cover an injury.

koneguitarist

@Crunchman good points. 

Gassage

crunchman said:

koneguitarist said:

I think Watson is best fullback. And I think Slade is a classy player. What do you do with Farrell? 

Bench, or 10 if you think his place kicking and defense make him a better option than Ford.  He shouldn't be in the side at 12.  If he plays it has to be at 10.

I could not disagree more with you.

England have never won a test with Farrell at 10 when they've not been leading by 5 or more points after 20 mins.

Ford has a 79% win rate when starting (not coming on) at ten, Farrell has 64% win rate starting at ten. 

Farrell is a centre than can play at 10, not the other way around.

sev112

I don’t see the anti Ford view on here and other fora.   He kicks goals very well. He tackles well against big guys - it is an easy Kop out  to say he is weak in either.  

I also think he is very creative, and apart from one goin* nowhere kick to the 22 on sat, he kicks from hand extremely well

crunchman

Gassage said:

crunchman said:

koneguitarist said:

I think Watson is best fullback. And I think Slade is a classy player. What do you do with Farrell? 

Bench, or 10 if you think his place kicking and defense make him a better option than Ford.  He shouldn't be in the side at 12.  If he plays it has to be at 10.

I could not disagree more with you.

England have never won a test with Farrell at 10 when they've not been leading by 5 or more points after 20 mins.

Ford has a 79% win rate when starting (not coming on) at ten, Farrell has 64% win rate starting at ten. 

Farrell is a centre than can play at 10, not the other way around.

I did say if he plays.  Personally I wouldn't start him.

He isn't our best 12, in the same way he isn't our best 10.

I do wonder if EJ always plays him because he doesn't trust Ford's goal kicking?  Having a reliable kicker is important, and you would be willing to sacrifice a little elsewhere to get that.  There is also the defensive aspect.  Forwards don't deliberately run at him like they do with Ford.

It's probably futile trying to figure out what goes on inside of EJ's head.  I said above that it would be better to have a captain who is a forward.  Leave Farrell out, and play our best two centres outside of Ford.  If Ford doesn't kick goals reliably over the next few matches, then you need a rethink.  In that case, I think we would be better off using Farrell at 10 and picking our best centres.

scrumhalf

Farrell is bordering on a thug. He nearly decapitated Charlie Atkinson and has plenty of form for, shall we say, exuberant tackling. There's a difference between being a hard man and being a cheap shot merchant.

I don't want that sort of person to be captain of England. 

Gassage

scrumhalf said:

Farrell is bordering on a thug. He nearly decapitated Charlie Atkinson and has plenty of form for, shall we say, exuberant tackling. There's a difference between being a hard man and being a cheap shot merchant.

I don't want that sort of person to be captain of England. 

You clearly never played against John Orwin.....

Neill

crunchman said:

Gassage said:

crunchman said:

koneguitarist said:

I think Watson is best fullback. And I think Slade is a classy player. What do you do with Farrell? 

Bench, or 10 if you think his place kicking and defense make him a better option than Ford.  He shouldn't be in the side at 12.  If he plays it has to be at 10.

I could not disagree more with you.

England have never won a test with Farrell at 10 when they've not been leading by 5 or more points after 20 mins.

Ford has a 79% win rate when starting (not coming on) at ten, Farrell has 64% win rate starting at ten. 

Farrell is a centre than can play at 10, not the other way around.

I did say if he plays.  Personally I wouldn't start him.

He isn't our best 12, in the same way he isn't our best 10.

I do wonder if EJ always plays him because he doesn't trust Ford's goal kicking?  Having a reliable kicker is important, and you would be willing to sacrifice a little elsewhere to get that.  There is also the defensive aspect.  Forwards don't deliberately run at him like they do with Ford.

It's probably futile trying to figure out what goes on inside of EJ's head.  I said above that it would be better to have a captain who is a forward.  Leave Farrell out, and play our best two centres outside of Ford.  If Ford doesn't kick goals reliably over the next few matches, then you need a rethink.  In that case, I think we would be better off using Farrell at 10 and picking our best centres.

I see Lawrence Dallaglio has stuck his head over the parapet regarding Farrell.  He's not gone as far as suggesting he should be dropped, but believes the captaincy should go to Itoje or Jamie George.  LD makes the valid point that every world cup winning side has been captained by a forward, and he raised what I think is a very apt issue with backs and Farrell especially, that if you captain from the backs, you invariably have to run forward to have words with the ref which sets up the potential for confrontation before the conversation begins.   

Of course, wise words from experienced ex players such as Dallaglio will just make EJ dig his heels in even more which is why I think things have to get worse before they get better.

 

Gassage

crunchman said:

Gassage said:

crunchman said:

koneguitarist said:

I think Watson is best fullback. And I think Slade is a classy player. What do you do with Farrell? 

Bench, or 10 if you think his place kicking and defense make him a better option than Ford.  He shouldn't be in the side at 12.  If he plays it has to be at 10.

I could not disagree more with you.

England have never won a test with Farrell at 10 when they've not been leading by 5 or more points after 20 mins.

Ford has a 79% win rate when starting (not coming on) at ten, Farrell has 64% win rate starting at ten. 

Farrell is a centre than can play at 10, not the other way around.

I did say if he plays.  Personally I wouldn't start him.

He isn't our best 12, in the same way he isn't our best 10.

I do wonder if EJ always plays him because he doesn't trust Ford's goal kicking?  Having a reliable kicker is important, and you would be willing to sacrifice a little elsewhere to get that.  There is also the defensive aspect.  Forwards don't deliberately run at him like they do with Ford.

It's probably futile trying to figure out what goes on inside of EJ's head.  I said above that it would be better to have a captain who is a forward.  Leave Farrell out, and play our best two centres outside of Ford.  If Ford doesn't kick goals reliably over the next few matches, then you need a rethink.  In that case, I think we would be better off using Farrell at 10 and picking our best centres.

OK, who is our best 12? (with Manu unavailable)?

Neill

Gassage said:

crunchman said:

Gassage said:

crunchman said:

koneguitarist said:

I think Watson is best fullback. And I think Slade is a classy player. What do you do with Farrell? 

Bench, or 10 if you think his place kicking and defense make him a better option than Ford.  He shouldn't be in the side at 12.  If he plays it has to be at 10.

I could not disagree more with you.

England have never won a test with Farrell at 10 when they've not been leading by 5 or more points after 20 mins.

Ford has a 79% win rate when starting (not coming on) at ten, Farrell has 64% win rate starting at ten. 

Farrell is a centre than can play at 10, not the other way around.

I did say if he plays.  Personally I wouldn't start him.

He isn't our best 12, in the same way he isn't our best 10.

I do wonder if EJ always plays him because he doesn't trust Ford's goal kicking?  Having a reliable kicker is important, and you would be willing to sacrifice a little elsewhere to get that.  There is also the defensive aspect.  Forwards don't deliberately run at him like they do with Ford.

It's probably futile trying to figure out what goes on inside of EJ's head.  I said above that it would be better to have a captain who is a forward.  Leave Farrell out, and play our best two centres outside of Ford.  If Ford doesn't kick goals reliably over the next few matches, then you need a rethink.  In that case, I think we would be better off using Farrell at 10 and picking our best centres.

OK, who is our best 12? (with Manu unavailable)?

Apart from Slade, who would be my choice, I never understood why Luther Burrell didn't get a longer run with England, and especially considering when he did play he was arguably out of position at 13.  Burrell considers himself a 12 but at the time there were others preferred in that position.  He's never going to get in the side at 13 now, but given England's dearth of obvious contenders at inside centre he must surely be in the reckoning.

crunchman

Gassage said:

OK, who is our best 12? (with Manu unavailable)?

Not sure.  We do need someone more physical in there though.  Whether that's at 12, or at 13 with Slade moving inside to  12 I'm not sure.

It would probably make sense to give Ollie Lawrence more of a chance - outside of Ford so he might have a chance of getting the ball in better situations.