Rugby Union

[Rivercider]

1 minute ago, rockershovel said:

I saw a few minutes of the Italy game... de mortuus, nil nisi  bonum, I think ....

Italian heads were down after conceding the first try, and the game was gone by half time (again).

 

Have Italy made a clean sweep of bonus point defeats yet? They could end up -200 points by the end.

 

cheers

 

[rockershovel]

23 minutes ago, Rivercider said:

Italian heads were down after conceding the first try, and the game was gone by half time (again).

 

Have Italy made a clean sweep of bonus point defeats yet? They could end up -200 points by the end.

 

cheers

 

 

Not sure... but Bergamasco is probably the only player to convert FROM a Six Nations team, TO Rugby League....

[rockershovel]

44 minutes ago, Rivercider said:

Italian heads were down after conceding the first try, and the game was gone by half time (again).

 

Have Italy made a clean sweep of bonus point defeats yet? They could end up -200 points by the end.

 

cheers

 

 

Hard to establish that, but I think they have a fairly complete set of just about every distinction a coach wouldn’t want on his CV....

 

On a serious note, it will be interesting to see what happens next. Their position is quite untenable by now, but there really aren’t any credible European challengers, if the RWC and Autumn Nations are any guide. Georgia certainly don’t impress, Romania .... no, Spain? Hardly. The tournament won’t revert to five members under any circumstances whatsoever, too many vested interests in play, especially from the media. The Saffers would like to join, but that would destabilise the Southern Hemisphere top table. 

 

Edited February 27, 2021 by rockershovel

[rockershovel]

England need to put an immediate stop to this kneeling business, no other side does it. I can’t think of a worse preparation for a highly physical sporting fixture, a better way of disrupting concentration and focus. 

[BoD]

1 hour ago, Rivercider said:

Have Italy made a clean sweep of bonus point defeats yet? They could end up -200 points by the end.

Don’t knock them. They are going to stop England ending up with the wooden spoon.

 

 

 I’m afraid I have very low expectation of England at the moment and so haven’t been disappointed. This is a case of the whole being much less than the sum of the parts and so the blame can only lie on on place.

 

[Hal Nail]

1 minute ago, BoD said:

so the blame can only lie on on place.

 

Our inability to perform under pressure?

 

[br2975]

Someone help me please, maths not being my strongpoint.

.

40 - 24 = 16

.

So, if the referee cost England a try, that is 5 points  (and if converted, another 2, making a total of 7 points)

.

Then

.

24 + 7 = 31

.

31 - 40 = 9

.

So, who cost England the other 9 points of a 16 point losing margin

Was it Welsh superiority ?

I doubt

.

Was it the referee

Apparently not

.

Was it English indiscipline ?

.

Cue at least one reply that contains either "World Cup" or "2003" or "Jonny Wilkinson"

[rockershovel]

Chronic indiscipline revolving around certain aspects of the ruck, is a long-established problem in the England squad.  It derives from the Premiership, where such things happen all the time and aren’t dealt with by referees. The solution, or part of it would be to select players who play in other leagues; but that brings us back to the long-standing fact that English players rarely appear in other leagues except to make a payday near the ends of their careers, and the Prem doesn’t attract the best overseas players - not least, because of the conflict with the central contracting systems found in some other countries, particularly NZ. 

 

The ref gifted Wales two tries, not one. The first was an obvious abuse of timekeeping, or at least a serious error. The second would probably not have been allowed by most refs - the Welsh clearly thought they had not scored. It might have been better if the BBC had spared us their half-time contribution, and instead got Nigel Owens’ views on a matter actually relevant to the match, and the manner in which it was refereed. 

 

Crossing and blocking is a well-known problem. It appears periodically, the Scots did it all the time at rucks at one time; it became quite blatant a few years ago. It just needs firm refereeing, and it goes away again. 

 

The third Welsh try was a gift from England. Farrell clearly doesn’t lead the team in a technical or tactical sense. Turning your back on a penalty, and walking away to open a gap under the posts within the 22-metre area is a schoolboy mistake; it’s not as though the quick tap-and-run is any sort of tactical innovation.

 

A serious issue with England captaincy is that since Hartley’s retirement, there is no obvious pack leader. Since comparison is invited with the 2003 squad, three of the pack and the scrumhalf (Dallaglio, Johnson, Corry and Dawson) would be England captain at one time or another. Johnson remains the only England player to captain Lions before the national team, and the only man to captain Lions twice. Dallaglio and Dawson are the only players ever to win World Cups in both the 7-man and 15-man game. 

 

Youngs isn’t close to Dawson’s overall record of World Cup winners medals in 15-man and 7-man codes, England captaincy in Autumn Internationals and 6 Nations and two Lions tours. He is a durable player with a long record, but “greatest scrumhalf ever”? 

 

[robert17649]

I have the odd thought about this. i refereed for many years and was taught in my early days that the essence was fairness. The referee should have an influence but not an effect!. the debating points lie with the first Welsh try. Was it correct as in the Laws?  Was it fair? did the referee have an effect on the event by his actions? answeres please in a padded envelope.

 

2nd Welsh try, how on earth could the on field decision have been to award the try? In real time Rees Zammett knocked on.  but Again if the Laws are applied r it was not a knock on but that took several minutes of slow motion multi angle revision before a decision could be reache

 

Again I ask was this fair? did threferee have an effect on the game?

 

of course you cannot expect to win if you give away 19 penalties and thow three interceptions.

 

As a referee although we try hard not to react to players Owen Farrel clearly p,D pascal off and as a result even if incidentally 50-50 decisions will go against him subsequently.

[Joseph_Pestell]

11 minutes ago, robert17649 said:

I have the odd thought about this. i refereed for many years and was taught in my early days that the essence was fairness. The referee should have an influence but not an effect!. the debating points lie with the first Welsh try. Was it correct as in the Laws?  Was it fair? did the referee have an effect on the event by his actions? answeres please in a padded envelope.

 

2nd Welsh try, how on earth could the on field decision have been to award the try? In real time Rees Zammett knocked on.  but Again if the Laws are applied r it was not a knock on but that took several minutes of slow motion multi angle revision before a decision could be reache

 

Again I ask was this fair? did threferee have an effect on the game?

 

of course you cannot expect to win if you give away 19 penalties and thow three interceptions.

 

As a referee although we try hard not to react to players Owen Farrel clearly p,D pascal off and as a result even if incidentally 50-50 decisions will go against him subsequently.

 

Due to current restrictions, I did not get to see the match yesterday.

 

In general, I don't think that having the fourth (TV) official has been a success in rugby. It has led to the three on the pitch being less willing to take decisions and reduced their authority with the players.

[88D]

I don’t have much sympathy with England on that first try. I assume, possibly incorrectly, that most of the English team assumed Biggar would go for goal and fancied a drink of Lucozade, but the English left field had gone to their positions: the right side were too slow and were shown up as a result. The English players should recognise how slow/ unprofessional they were in this situation: I’m sure they will be miffed at such schoolboy amateurish play. Remember, the purpose of a penalty is to reward the team that has been offended. 
I have more sympathy with England on the second try, though I must admit it is difficult to ever feel sympathy for this team: there are quite a few k........s in there.

[rockershovel]

3 hours ago, robert17649 said:

I have the odd thought about this. i refereed for many years and was taught in my early days that the essence was fairness. The referee should have an influence but not an effect!. the debating points lie with the first Welsh try. Was it correct as in the Laws?  Was it fair? did the referee have an effect on the event by his actions? answeres please in a padded envelope.

 

2nd Welsh try, how on earth could the on field decision have been to award the try? In real time Rees Zammett knocked on.  but Again if the Laws are applied r it was not a knock on but that took several minutes of slow motion multi angle revision before a decision could be reache

 

Again I ask was this fair? did threferee have an effect on the game?

 

of course you cannot expect to win if you give away 19 penalties and thow three interceptions.

 

As a referee although we try hard not to react to players Owen Farrel clearly p,D pascal off and as a result even if incidentally 50-50 decisions will go against him subsequently.

 

Watch the replay. The referee clearly declares “time off”, admonishes Farrell and requests that Farrell speak to his players. Farrell calls the players together. The referee then calls “time on” while Farrell’s back is turned, within a few seconds. This is clearly unfair and bad practice, since the referee obviously affected the game materially by doing so. The referee is plainly wrong and should be formally admonished. 

 

This doesn't apply to the third try, in which England omitted to cover the possibility of a quick tap-and-run.

 

The second try was correct by the strict application of the letter of the laws of the game. However it took prolonged scrutiny of slow-motion replay to decide this, and in many games would have been ruled a knock-on (the Welsh players obviously regarded it as such). The laws of the game should be clarified so that this does not recur; possibly to the effect that a deliberately kicking the loose ball would constitute regaining control, but a fortuitous contact does not. 

 

I don't believe the precedent should be set that the referee can be over-ruled after the event, but referees must be encouraged to act as judges. Nigel Owens has remarked in the past that TMO tend to be disregarded by strong refs and over-used by weak refs (he probably made less use of them than any other top referee, and his reputation speaks for itself). 

 

 

[tigerburnie]

10 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

Youngs isn’t close to Dawson’s overall record of World Cup winners medals in 15-man and 7-man codes, England captaincy in Autumn Internationals and 6 Nations and two Lions tours. He is a durable player with a long record, but “greatest scrumhalf ever”? 

 

You took a while to take the bait lol............................................(Harry Ellis was a far better 9 than either of those mentioned)

Edited February 28, 2021 by tigerburnie

[rockershovel]

2 hours ago, tigerburnie said:

You took a while to take the bait lol............................................(Harry Ellis was a far better 9 than either of those mentioned)

 

Ellis is an interesting character. He burned very brightly at junior and U20 level, put in some impressive performances at senior club and Test level but didn’t establish himself against Dawson or Care. What he might have achieved had he stayed fit, can only be guessed at .... but he didn’t, as other players before and since. 

 

[bbishop]

As a Welshman and an ex-referee, can I make three comments:

 

The first try should never have been given.  The Welshman with the ball did a chat job on the ref.  Ref should never had said play, but once he did everything was pukka.

 

The second try was fine.  The law requires the ball to go forward off the hand.  I don't think it did.  Too many refs "knee-jerk", even when the ball goes from hand to chest and only then forward.  I called a few "play-ons" and got lambasted.

 

The first of the second half penalties.  Itoje was pinged for a line out offence, the ref played advantage until Itoje dived over the ball within 10 metres of his line.  The ref immediately blew for the first penalty.  If he had played the second advantage, he would have to yellow card Itoje.  

 

Bill

[rockershovel]

... that’s about the size of it. Once the ref says “play”, you play. 

 

The knock-on business needs clarifying. What is the nature of the infringement? If it is specifically a handling offence, there is nothing to discuss other than the amount of time lost in scrutinising TMO playbacks for arcane penalties (and IMHO, if the powers-that-be are seriously interested in increasing the wider appeal of the game, that is undesirable in itself). Nor do I believe that “traditional” followers of the game, regard TMO wrangling of this sort as a worthwhile innovation. 

 

If the offence is that control of the ball is lost, but the ball is thereby advanced to the advantage of the side fumbling the pass or catch, then it should be so clarified. 

 

When a ball is kicked towards touch, or towards the goal line, the law is clear; a fortuitous touch is still contact, and the defending player has the option to hold back from contact while the ball is moving under its existing momentum. A charge down is not a knock on, deliberate or otherwise, because the impetus of the ball means the player charging it down, has no realistic expectation of controlling it. The offence of “feeding” in the set scrum is now endemic, because the scrums can’t really work any other way. Knock ons should be subject to the same clarity. 

 

 

 

[rockershovel]

Nigel Owens on Saturday’s decisions https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/its-100-per-cent-knock-19932005

 

One thing which may yet appear, is that the ref effectively decided the Welsh bonus point (for four tries) and the England bonus point (for losing by less than seven points). I don’t believe the England bonus (or not) will have a material effect on the outcome, they cannot now win anything and Italy’s hapless performance so far, pretty much guarantees them the wooden spoon; but the Championship has been decided by bonus points before now. If Wales win, but don’t achieve a Grand Slam, it will always be “that Championship”. 

[The Johnster]

My overall view is that I will remember the game as one that England lost rather than one that Wales won.  England's collapse in the final quarter was total, and the indiscipline that gave Wales penalties and a try between the posts is unacceptable in professional international rugby.  Sadly, it has been marred by online abuse to English players and a commentator; this is inexcusable, and cowardly unless the perps identify themselves. 

 

Yeah, thought not.

[rockershovel]

5 hours ago, The Johnster said:

My overall view is that I will remember the game as one that England lost rather than one that Wales won.  England's collapse in the final quarter was total, and the indiscipline that gave Wales penalties and a try between the posts is unacceptable in professional international rugby.  Sadly, it has been marred by online abuse to English players and a commentator; this is inexcusable, and cowardly unless the perps identify themselves. 

 

Yeah, thought not.

 

Eddie Jones has made a statement to the effect that England will not be making an official complaint about the refereeing. I should think not; they were embarrassingly poor and seemed at times, quite unable to execute basics. 

 

There’s also the small matter of Johnny May, who was clearly outrun by Louis Rees-Zammit late in the game and somehow doesn’t quite seem to have that blazing speed at present. 

[88D]

On 01/03/2021 at 09:17, rockershovel said:

Nigel Owens on Saturday’s decisions https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/its-100-per-cent-knock-19932005

 

One thing which may yet appear, is that the ref effectively decided the Welsh bonus point (for four tries) and the England bonus point (for losing by less than seven points). I don’t believe the England bonus (or not) will have a material effect on the outcome, they cannot now win anything and Italy’s hapless performance so far, pretty much guarantees them the wooden spoon; but the Championship has been decided by bonus points before now. If Wales win, but don’t achieve a Grand Slam, it will always be “that Championship”. 

Wales had been awarded penalties in front of the posts which, if they decided to kick them, would have given us 6 points. So, we would have lost our bonus point, but you still would not have gained yours.

[caradoc]

As a matter of interest, had the referee belatedly decided that the first Wales try was invalid, would Wales have been allowed to retake the penalty (thus getting two bites at the cherry, and almost certainly 3 points) or would England have got the ball ?

 

[rockershovel]

17 minutes ago, caradoc said:

As a matter of interest, had the referee belatedly decided that the first Wales try was invalid, would Wales have been allowed to retake the penalty (thus getting two bites at the cherry, and almost certainly 3 points) or would England have got the ball ?

 

 

That’s quite a good question. The Wales try could only be disallowed on the basis of referee error, so presumably Wales would have taken the penalty again - and most likely, kicked three points, forfeiting the bonus point. 

 

The ref is now being reported as regarding both decisions as incorrect, which is (I think) the real point - that decisions of that sort should not occur. 

 

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-v-england-referee-pascal-19938253

[tigerburnie]

Great win on the road for the Tigers and finally the Saracens players are now fit enough to play a bit of rugby for England, too little too late, but a good game to watch.

[Penlan]

I know the adverts on TV tend to target the viewing audience,
but 'Erectile Dysfunction' during 6 Nations? 
 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Penlan

[tigerburnie]

Scotland just lacking in that ability to take the right decision at the right time, silly mistakes, good tries, but lineout a shambles.