Oakboy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2024 9:32 am
How did Ewels end up being on the pitch in place of Freeman in the first place? Was Freeman injured or was it some tactical master-plan?
I actually missed that was the case - had assumed he was on for a forward. Might've been a tactical choice to use a pressure-free environment to give Earl a chance to play centre, with an eye on potentially running a 6:2 bench in the future?
Puja
I thought Ewels had come on for Martin. Then the caption showed Ewels for Freeman and Martin was still on. Shortly afterwards, Slade was clearly on the left wing.
Earlier, Curry came on for Underhill but he returned with head bandaged to replace CSS.
The commentary covered none of it - really poor information presentation.
Epaminondas Pules wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2024 10:03 am
Enjoyed that game. Good test for the defence, and probably the attack most like the All Blacks.
Main thing that worried me was our scrum looked under pressure from Japan’s second shove. I know we won a good pen in the second half, but at most scrums we were holding on a bit. It helped that the ref wanted to play, otherwise that second shove from Japan could have caused much more problem.
I thought SB had the back selection right but the forwards might need adjustment. The 2nd row cannot be improved. CSS had a good game as did Earl and Underhill but the backrow somehow did not function that well as a unit. Maybe it was just tge pace of the game. I would be happy to see the same four (with Curry on the bench) for the next game to develop the unit.
As for the front row, I really do not like having to pick George as the safe option. I'd start Marler. Beyond that, all options are less than perfect.
twitchy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2024 10:49 am
I missed this, worth seeking out a replay?
Not hugely. Japan were average-to-poor, we were rusty, everyone was suffering in the heat, the ref was a touch pedantic/everyone made multiple tired offences, and we never really had to get out of third gear at any point - pretty much every time we put together half an attack in Japan's half, we scored. Watch the try-highlights and get pretty much the same amount of enjoyment as we did, possibly more.
On that note, the m-b-m will very much depend on how shitty RugbyPass's system is with my process.
Speaking of Sunday Times columnists, Stephen ‘The Voice of Rugby’ Jones has demanded Randall and F. Smith as starting halfbacks vs New Zealand. He’s also demanded the involvement of Sleighholme due to him being big, fast and having a buzz cut.
Adam_P wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 2:17 pm
I'd back booting Randall out of the 23 in favour of Spencer. His kicking was atrocious.
It was atrocious, but his passing was good, as was his speed of ruck ball, both of which I value far higher. Plus, I've yet to forgive Spencer for the Scotland game.
Adam_P wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2024 2:17 pm
I'd back booting Randall out of the 23 in favour of Spencer. His kicking was atrocious.
It was atrocious, but his passing was good, as was his speed of ruck ball, both of which I value far higher. Plus, I've yet to forgive Spencer for the Scotland game.
Puja
Depends whether we expect to be chasing the game or need game management when the replacement 9 takes the field.
Randall and M Smith at 9 and 10 was not a good combination for us previously though. I'd hope F Smith was introduced at the same time as Randall with Marcus either coming off or switching to 15.
Earl as an auxiliary centre is a great step forward for me. We have no 12s to get over the line other than Lawrence, endless 8s and it gives us great options to look at 6:2 bench splits.
Oakboy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2024 3:12 pm
I hope we never get the ref that's doing SA v Wales. He's awful.
Not being given much to work with by the teams or his ref team though.
Watching these clips, what bothers me most is the ref NOT taking control but 'obeying' the TMO. I thought the ref was supposed to be in charge. He was one of the worst I have ever seen.
I can't stand that channel. Arguing 'consistency' is the issue as if allowing that second forward pass would have been preferable is just idiotic. Whether you mean it or not, flinging your boot up and hitting a player in the face is dangerous. I stopped there.
I should have realised as soon as I heard the eerie Adam Curtis style music they use, as if these referees are committing crimes against humanity/SA which should be punishable by death.
I agree there are issues around the the power of the TMO. I think they're still undecided on how to best take the pressure off the on-field ref, as so many 'fans' are unable to watch the game and not follow up with online abuse and threats of violence towards the officials. This specific youtube channel seems to exist entirely to encourage that kind of behaviour.
Oakboy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2024 3:12 pm
I hope we never get the ref that's doing SA v Wales. He's awful.
Not being given much to work with by the teams or his ref team though.
Watching these clips, what bothers me most is the ref NOT taking control but 'obeying' the TMO. I thought the ref was supposed to be in charge. He was one of the worst I have ever seen.
Those two games were part of a limited trial by the IRB (and agreed with the teams), where the TMO could intervene for anything, live, to see whether it would work to have him chiming in for forward passes/knock-ons/offsides/etc just as a touch judge would.
I didn't watch either game - am I to take it from your post that it was not a successful trial? Shame if so, I kinda like the idea of treating the TMO like an overhead touch judge who just chirps in the ref's ear, rather than the big "I have something to show you Steve" production that we have now.
Not being given much to work with by the teams or his ref team though.
Watching these clips, what bothers me most is the ref NOT taking control but 'obeying' the TMO. I thought the ref was supposed to be in charge. He was one of the worst I have ever seen.
Those two games were part of a limited trial by the IRB (and agreed with the teams), where the TMO could intervene for anything, live, to see whether it would work to have him chiming in for forward passes/knock-ons/offsides/etc just as a touch judge would.
I didn't watch either game - am I to take it from your post that it was not a successful trial? Shame if so, I kinda like the idea of treating the TMO like an overhead touch judge who just chirps in the ref's ear, rather than the big "I have something to show you Steve" production that we have now.
Puja
Interesting, Puja. I had not heard anything about that. To my simple mind, anything that undermines (or publicly appears to) the referee's authority is a no-no. I like the status of the TMO being akin to the touch-judge. However, that was not how it panned out when I watched the game on live TV. Perhaps, this referee was not a good enough official to handle the responsibility of the experiment.
If the officials make obvious mistakes, such as not calling the forward pass in the try build-up, I have to ask whether scrapping the TMO system is the way to go. I'd feel comfortable with leaving things to the referee and two on-field assistants with reviews of citable offences carried out later.
Watching these clips, what bothers me most is the ref NOT taking control but 'obeying' the TMO. I thought the ref was supposed to be in charge. He was one of the worst I have ever seen.
Those two games were part of a limited trial by the IRB (and agreed with the teams), where the TMO could intervene for anything, live, to see whether it would work to have him chiming in for forward passes/knock-ons/offsides/etc just as a touch judge would.
I didn't watch either game - am I to take it from your post that it was not a successful trial? Shame if so, I kinda like the idea of treating the TMO like an overhead touch judge who just chirps in the ref's ear, rather than the big "I have something to show you Steve" production that we have now.
Puja
Interesting, Puja. I had not heard anything about that. To my simple mind, anything that undermines (or publicly appears to) the referee's authority is a no-no. I like the status of the TMO being akin to the touch-judge. However, that was not how it panned out when I watched the game on live TV. Perhaps, this referee was not a good enough official to handle the responsibility of the experiment.
If the officials make obvious mistakes, such as not calling the forward pass in the try build-up, I have to ask whether scrapping the TMO system is the way to go. I'd feel comfortable with leaving things to the referee and two on-field assistants with reviews of citable offences carried out later.
I have to say that I think scrapping the TMO would be a horrendous mistake and I say the same about VAR and DRS in cricket. Flawed though it and the people running it sometimes are (and that pass certainly did look egregiously forward), it's nothing compared to what the mk1 eyeball would fail to see in live play. And no-one, in this modern day age of 40 cameras and zoomed-in slow-motion replays, is going to take the old-school attitude of "We've chosen to live with a single arbiter of truth on the pitch and he'll miss the same amount for both sides." If we think the whining from the South African fans is bad now, I cannot imagine what it'd be like if we ditched the TMO.
