The Rugby Union Thread

sev112

For a bit of fun, my Lions team to play the Springboks (with a tiny bit of license) based on the past couple of years 

Barritt to captain from centre (hence why he is playing and not because I couldn’t find any more project players in that position )

1 WP Nel

2 Rob herring

3 Oli Kebble

4 Jean Kleyn

5 Quinn Roux

6 David Denton

7 J de Flier

8 C J stander 

9 Nic Groom

10 Jaco Van der Walt

11 Byron McGuigan

12 Brad Barritt

13 Kyle Steyn

14 Durham van der Merwe

15 Scott van Breda,

NickL

fretmeister said:

Farrell didn’t have a plan B in the RWC final either. He never does. Just keeps trying the same thing until the final whistle.

Should have picked pretty much any prem players who have actually played in the last 2 months.
Or maybe some from Ealing as they keep beating Sarries in the championship.

Hastily arranged pre-season friendly tournament - the Championship isn't due to start until next month - though getting beaten twice by Ealing already doesn't look good.

Odd that the lack of Premiership game time didn't seem to have affected Sean Maitland.

fretmeister

NickL said:

fretmeister said:

Farrell didn’t have a plan B in the RWC final either. He never does. Just keeps trying the same thing until the final whistle.

Should have picked pretty much any prem players who have actually played in the last 2 months.
Or maybe some from Ealing as they keep beating Sarries in the championship.

Hastily arranged pre-season friendly tournament - the Championship isn't due to start until next month - though getting beaten twice by Ealing already doesn't look good.

Odd that the lack of Premiership game time didn't seem to have affected Sean Maitland.

Ah, fair enough. I've just spotted their Twitter posts about the scores.

fields5069

What a marvellous weekend.

koneguitarist

Thought the reffing seemed to be a lot better without the fans. 

Don’t think any ref had a particularly bad game. Mind you don’t think Poite was reffing anywhere so that’s one good thing. Looking back on Wales game, there is this issue don’t kick it off pitch. This used to be because of how fit we were but now I believe it’s just because we have no chance of winning a line out. How successive coaches for Wales do not deal with this I don’t know. 

I don’t care who they need to get in, but they need a specialist line out coach, not just for Wales but all the regions as well. 

George North seems to be settling in at 13, which I think is his best position. Biggar is not the way forward for this team though. 

Really think Wales have a lot to do before next RWC let alone next weekend, that’s if we have enough fit players.

Jalapeno

Well done Scotland, very well played.  England totally outplayed and out thought.

I really liked how Wayne Barnes caught the Welsh scrum-half dummying to throw at the start of the game and told him to pack it in or it would be a free kick against. Glad that's not creeping back into the game.

sev112

I was confused by Vunipola’s yellow card.
I always thought (and maybe this is as good time as any to actually try and find the actual law / rule but world rugby’s rule book is bloomin hard to find this) that the Yellow Card was for persistent offending that prevented a score.  The penalties leading up to BV’s YC were in Scotland’s half and 22 , and the one he was pinged for was just on the half way line.  None of those penalties prevented a score and in each case Scotland got the penalty, the gain and the possession.  

Secondly, the High tackle wasn’t a YC offence, as clearly could be seen in the other games at the weekend where similar (arm over the shoulder) tackles were given as penalties but no hint of a YC.  So he was YCed because it was another penalty, and I think that’s what the ref says at the time.

so - by the rules themselves - can someone point me to the actual rule / law on persistent offending.  I’m interested in the actual law.   

Clearly if you are preventing scoring chance after scoring chance, then persistent offending can/ should merit YC, but I don’t see, and I can’t ever recall seeing one given for persistent offending in the opponents half,

Not discounting Scotland’s fab win.  Just interested in the actual law, and can’t find the formal rule

anyone know?

crunchman

Billy V didn't have a great game.  As someone said above he's not the most mobile at the best of times, but with his current lack of match sharpness he really looked off the pace.

Agree with the comments on the props as well.  I don't think you realise how good Sinckler is until he's not there.

ewal

I think Vunipola's card was for the high-tackle. Googling it - it appears head/neck contact is a Yellow. See:

http://rugbyandthelaw.com/2020/11/08/world-rugby-high-tackle-framework-update-2020-red-card-player-welfare-referee-sent-off/

sev112

ewal said:

I think Vunipola's card was for the high-tackle. Googling it - it appears head/neck contact is a Yellow. See:

http://rugbyandthelaw.com/2020/11/08/world-rugby-high-tackle-framework-update-2020-red-card-player-welfare-referee-sent-off/

Inconsistent isn’t it - there were several highs in yesterday’s game that were head contact that ere “just a a penalty” as Barnes shouted.
not even including O’Mahiny’s taking out of Francis (who responded really well) that Barnes called at the time “ clearing out play on” or something similar.  And it had to take the TMO to take him back to it.

Methinks he’s losing it a bit 

koneguitarist

@sev112 i don’t think you can blame Barnes for missing the POM incident as ghe was on wrong side, plus POM didn’t go off his feet like normal. Once TMO said about it he looked and had no option but Red Card. 

A few of the other neck high tackles in normal situation where a Red card hasn’t been given I think would have or could have been yellow. 

The persistent offences generally a warning goes to captain to tell players then if another offence fairly soon, irrespective of where it is on pitch will lead to a yellow. Surprised more refs don’t enforce it. 

sev112

But I don’t see why persistent offences should be penalised,  there is a remedy and that is a penalty which gives distance and possession.   If persistent offences prevent a score, then YC is a valid remedy, but I don’t see why when they are the other end of the pitch and involve not rolling away when held in, a little bit of offside and a side entry.  Occurs to me the ref was getting power hungry.  

And I disagree that Barnes didn’t se it, he did and immediately shouted that it was legal.  

But anyway, I’ll shut up now.  

VimFuego

I *think* the yc for persistence team offences is to encourage open play and discourage actions that slow the play down, so it's more an entertainment thing rather than a pure rules thing. That said, big billy looked like he needed a breather, so perhaps that's why he did it.

Neill

sev112 said:

But I don’t see why persistent offences should be penalised,  there is a remedy and that is a penalty which gives distance and possession.   If persistent offences prevent a score, then YC is a valid remedy, but I don’t see why when they are the other end of the pitch and involve not rolling away when held in, a little bit of offside and a side entry.  Occurs to me the ref was getting power hungry.  

And I disagree that Barnes didn’t se it, he did and immediately shouted that it was legal.  

But anyone, I’ll shut up now.  

I agree with you, and IIRC when Billy V was carded the ref made some reference to England "having been warned" or something like that.  I've never seen this done for persistent offending except when it was near the try line.  I'm now wondering why the experts on ITV didn't pick up on it.

exocet

Neill said:

sev112 said:

But I don’t see why persistent offences should be penalised,  there is a remedy and that is a penalty which gives distance and possession.   If persistent offences prevent a score, then YC is a valid remedy, but I don’t see why when they are the other end of the pitch and involve not rolling away when held in, a little bit of offside and a side entry.  Occurs to me the ref was getting power hungry.  

And I disagree that Barnes didn’t se it, he did and immediately shouted that it was legal.  

But anyone, I’ll shut up now.  

I agree with you, and IIRC when Billy V was carded the ref made some reference to England "having been warned" or something like that.  I've never seen this done for persistent offending except when it was near the try line.  I'm now wondering why the experts on ITV didn't pick up on it.

I wasn't able to watch the match but was listening to commentary on 5 live. The ref mic was picking up the warning for repeat / frequent offences.

sev112

exocet said:

Neill said:

sev112 said:

But I don’t see why persistent offences should be penalised,  there is a remedy and that is a penalty which gives distance and possession.   If persistent offences prevent a score, then YC is a valid remedy, but I don’t see why when they are the other end of the pitch and involve not rolling away when held in, a little bit of offside and a side entry.  Occurs to me the ref was getting power hungry.  

And I disagree that Barnes didn’t se it, he did and immediately shouted that it was legal.  

But anyone, I’ll shut up now.  

I agree with you, and IIRC when Billy V was carded the ref made some reference to England "having been warned" or something like that.  I've never seen this done for persistent offending except when it was near the try line.  I'm now wondering why the experts on ITV didn't pick up on it.

I wasn't able to watch the match but was listening to commentary on 5 live. The ref mic was picking up the warning for repeat / frequent offences.

Yes, I agree @exocet , what I’m querying is what does the law actually say?  

If the purpose is to facilitate interesting rugby then he should be YCardig full backs for kicking the bloody ball all the time

koneguitarist

A lot of teams are quite happy to kill ball in midfield or even in opponents half, as it frustrates opposition. If I was playing Wales I would be quite happy to give away a penalty anywhere in their half to slow them down, kill a move, or whatever, as Wales would only kick for touch and any team would stand a good chance of regaining the ball at the line out. 

Persistent offending and getting away with it is a tactic of the All Blacks. Remember a game at Twickenham with Alan Rolland reffing. England were getting so pissed off with NZ tactics they started to take law into their own hands and were carded, about 4 yellows I think. Yet Macaw was offending in England 22 with impunity. 

If Refs clamped down on it more harshly it wouldn’t be a problem, but few refs follow through with warnings. 

scrumhalf

Today's papers full of EJ contrition. He may change things for the Italy but who would bet against more insipid hoofing for the other games. 

VimFuego

I don't think it was the tactics that were the main issue, it was poor implementation. Hoggy put in some great touch finders, as did Ford when he came on. It's knowing when to do them, and you only get that from a deep reading of the game, that you get from playing a lot. If you're not playing, your rugby brain isn't working working fast enough. Farrell is a great player no doubt, but how can he be picked on form when he's not playing?!? 

koneguitarist

I wonder what EJ will do next, he can hardly drop Farrell, as Farrell needs game time, only thing I think he will do is bolster front row and move Farrell out to 12 with Ford on at 10.