RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Based just on today, I'd have Mercer way ahead of Underhill.

I'm with you; I thought Mercer was much more impressive. Looking at the stats, both made 22 tackles, but Mercer only missed 1 to Underhill's 4, and carried the ball 42m, 1 defender beaten and 2 offloads, to Underhill's 8, 0, and 0.

Obviously stats aren't the be-all and end-all, but that does reaffirm my impression that Underhill is currently operating like a poor man's Joe Worsley - tackling everything, but sod all else.

Puja

Two sets of stats for two different players. You are not making valid comparisons when it comes to carrying. Even where it is valid, i.e. tackles, Underhill's tackles were stopping Wasps in their tracks or knocking them back, stopping attacks in their tracks. He was far more effective in this area than Mercer, regardless of those missed.
Both are quality players but with different attributes and carrying out very different roles.

I'll agree that his tackling was more destructive, but I would like my 7 to do more than just tackle, no matter how good that tackling is. Hence, poor man's Joe Worsley.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
I'm with you; I thought Mercer was much more impressive. Looking at the stats, both made 22 tackles, but Mercer only missed 1 to Underhill's 4, and carried the ball 42m, 1 defender beaten and 2 offloads, to Underhill's 8, 0, and 0.

Obviously stats aren't the be-all and end-all, but that does reaffirm my impression that Underhill is currently operating like a poor man's Joe Worsley - tackling everything, but sod all else.

Puja

Two sets of stats for two different players. You are not making valid comparisons when it comes to carrying. Even where it is valid, i.e. tackles, Underhill's tackles were stopping Wasps in their tracks or knocking them back, stopping attacks in their tracks. He was far more effective in this area than Mercer, regardless of those missed.
Both are quality players but with different attributes and carrying out very different roles.

I'll agree that his tackling was more destructive, but I would like my 7 to do more than just tackle, no matter how good that tackling is. Hence, poor man's Joe Worsley.

Puja

Couldn't agree more, and Underhill was doing more than just tackling.

Hmm ... both played well, but I do tend to agree with Puja on this.

I've seen a fair bit written about Underhill's linking/carrying game, but I'm yet to see any real evidence of it with my own eyes (and I watched him in a decent amount of Ospreys games too).

Don't get me wrong, I think he's got a lot to offer, but I think he needs to show more than physicality to live up to the hype.

Scrumhead wrote:Hmm ... both played well, but I do tend to agree with Puja on this.

I've seen a fair bit written about Underhill's linking/carrying game, but I'm yet to see any real evidence of it with my own eyes (and I watched him in a decent amount of Ospreys games too).

Don't get me wrong, I think he's got a lot to offer, but I think he needs to show more than physicality to live up to the hype.

Agreed with that, and I’d add that I would like to see him get over the ball a bit more. Physically he looks made for a good jackel, but not seen an awful lot of it as yet.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
Based just on today, I'd have Mercer way ahead of Underhill.

I'm with you; I thought Mercer was much more impressive. Looking at the stats, both made 22 tackles, but Mercer only missed 1 to Underhill's 4, and carried the ball 42m, 1 defender beaten and 2 offloads, to Underhill's 8, 0, and 0.

Obviously stats aren't the be-all and end-all, but that does reaffirm my impression that Underhill is currently operating like a poor man's Joe Worsley - tackling everything, but sod all else.

Puja

Two sets of stats for two different players. You are not making valid comparisons when it comes to carrying. Even where it is valid, i.e. tackles, Underhill's tackles were stopping Wasps in their tracks or knocking them back, stopping attacks in their tracks. He was far more effective in this area than Mercer, regardless of those missed.
Both are quality players but with different attributes and carrying out very different roles.

If they both did exactly the same it wouldn't help the balance. Different roles, best two players on the pitch for me but in different ways.

Is Mercer a line out option? If he is, and he continues the work rate, I wouldn't mind seeing the two of them either side of Hughes or Billy either in the AI's or against Italy.

Mercer seemed to be the main go-to lineout option for the u20’s. Definitely has the basic athletic credentials to be a very good lineout jumper.

Tom Moore wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
I'm with you; I thought Mercer was much more impressive. Looking at the stats, both made 22 tackles, but Mercer only missed 1 to Underhill's 4, and carried the ball 42m, 1 defender beaten and 2 offloads, to Underhill's 8, 0, and 0.

Obviously stats aren't the be-all and end-all, but that does reaffirm my impression that Underhill is currently operating like a poor man's Joe Worsley - tackling everything, but sod all else.

Puja

Two sets of stats for two different players. You are not making valid comparisons when it comes to carrying. Even where it is valid, i.e. tackles, Underhill's tackles were stopping Wasps in their tracks or knocking them back, stopping attacks in their tracks. He was far more effective in this area than Mercer, regardless of those missed.
Both are quality players but with different attributes and carrying out very different roles.

If they both did exactly the same it wouldn't help the balance. Different roles, best two players on the pitch for me but in different ways.

Is Mercer a line out option? If he is, and he continues the work rate, I wouldn't mind seeing the two of them either side of Hughes or Billy either in the AI's or against Italy.

You're not the first to declare they were the best two players on the pitch. I find that odd. Neither are (were) fit to lace Faletau's boots - yet! He was exceptional and the first name I'd put down in an AP select XV. I was impressed by the Bath back-row as a unit and nobody is more England-prejudiced than me. I really hope that Mercer and Underhill make pogress but let's be realistic.

Oakboy wrote:

Tom Moore wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Two sets of stats for two different players. You are not making valid comparisons when it comes to carrying. Even where it is valid, i.e. tackles, Underhill's tackles were stopping Wasps in their tracks or knocking them back, stopping attacks in their tracks. He was far more effective in this area than Mercer, regardless of those missed.
Both are quality players but with different attributes and carrying out very different roles.

If they both did exactly the same it wouldn't help the balance. Different roles, best two players on the pitch for me but in different ways.

Is Mercer a line out option? If he is, and he continues the work rate, I wouldn't mind seeing the two of them either side of Hughes or Billy either in the AI's or against Italy.

You're not the first to declare they were the best two players on the pitch. I find that odd. Neither are (were) fit to lace Faletau's boots - yet! He was exceptional and the first name I'd put down in an AP select XV. I was impressed by the Bath back-row as a unit and nobody is more England-prejudiced than me. I really hope that Mercer and Underhill make pogress but let's be realistic.

To be honest I don't really pay attention to anyone but English players, Faletau may well have made a huge contribution but other than noticing it at the time it will have passed me by.

Oakboy wrote:

Tom Moore wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Two sets of stats for two different players. You are not making valid comparisons when it comes to carrying. Even where it is valid, i.e. tackles, Underhill's tackles were stopping Wasps in their tracks or knocking them back, stopping attacks in their tracks. He was far more effective in this area than Mercer, regardless of those missed.
Both are quality players but with different attributes and carrying out very different roles.

If they both did exactly the same it wouldn't help the balance. Different roles, best two players on the pitch for me but in different ways.

Is Mercer a line out option? If he is, and he continues the work rate, I wouldn't mind seeing the two of them either side of Hughes or Billy either in the AI's or against Italy.

You're not the first to declare they were the best two players on the pitch. I find that odd. Neither are (were) fit to lace Faletau's boots - yet! He was exceptional and the first name I'd put down in an AP select XV. I was impressed by the Bath back-row as a unit and nobody is more England-prejudiced than me. I really hope that Mercer and Underhill make pogress but let's be realistic.

I totally agree Oakboy's. Faletau is an incredible player.

I was impressed by the Bath back row unit. As I said earlier in the thread, I thought they could potentially struggle against a much more experienced back row, but they absolutely proved me wrong.

The Wasps attack was the worst I've seen from them in years, but the Bath defence definitely played a part in negating what little threat they did offer.

That said, Bath play some very ugly rugby these days under Blackadder. I hadn't quite appreciated it until yesterday but they didn't even seem willing to try anything ball-in-hand. They absolutely deserved to win, but I think the try was pretty much the only time I saw JJ and Roko with an opportunity to link up.

Faletau is a world class player, would have a really good shot at a place on the spaceship to represent Earth in the Rugby Galactic Cup.

However, he was outplayed on Sunday by his two flankers (IMO)

It's not saying hat they're better players, but that they played better.

I see Hughes has been cited for the fend-off despite the referee and his assistant dealing with it after extensive reviews. As the citing is the equivalent of a yellow card that is a direct and incorrect criticism of the referee's judgement.

Being cited doesn't mean he is guilty. The panel may yet agree with the ref. It also gives the chance for more in depth analysis, hearing testimony etc that the ref wasn't able to. It's also a chance to eat more biscuits.
The facts are that the contact with the player was made by the forearm and with a clenched fist, regardless of whether there was intent. I'm not surprised he had been cited but then I thought he should've seen yellow at the time.
I wouldn't worry. If found guilty, I'm sure the ban will end just before the AI's.

I'd add to that that every citing is an implied criticism of the/a official. Either that they missed the incident or that they made the incorrect call. Unless, of course, the panel agrees there is no case to answer.

Isnt leading with an elbow striking an opponent. Its not a hand off, nor an attempt to drive in with the shoulder. You are effectively setting out to hit the tackler. Shouldnt it be a red card offence?

Mellsblue wrote:I'd add to that that every citing is an implied criticism of the/a official. Either that they missed the incident or that they made the incorrect call. Unless, of course, the panel agrees there is no case to answer.

Yes, I did not make myself clear with 'incorrect'. I don't care if the ref was right or not as a matter of opinion of the incident. If the ref saw it and reviewed it that should be the end of the matter, IMO. Who is more qualified to deal with it? The assistant referee saw it and brought it to the referee's attention. They watched it several times and decided it was not worthy of a yellow - that's the collective judgement of two of the on-field officials and the TMO. (And, that 's despite, having presumably seen it at the time, the referee not seeing it as a problem.)

I don't know the full intricacies of the system. Does the citing officer just cite based on his own judgement? Does he discuss it with the ref before the public announcement?

I've got no issues with the incident being the subject of being cited had the referee not reviewed it.

fivepointer wrote:Isnt leading with an elbow striking an opponent. Its not a hand off, nor an attempt to drive in with the shoulder. You are effectively setting out to hit the tackler. Shouldnt it be a red card offence?

I'm with you - it did happen quickly, but he had the reaction time to shift the ball to his other hand, so it was hardly an unconscious act. As it was, he raised his forearm and led with it into Faletau's face - I can't see how that's different from a high tackle red card or SBW's red in the Lions. It was initial contact with the head, it was with force - red card.

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I'd add to that that every citing is an implied criticism of the/a official. Either that they missed the incident or that they made the incorrect call. Unless, of course, the panel agrees there is no case to answer.

Yes, I did not make myself clear with 'incorrect'. I don't care if the ref was right or not as a matter of opinion of the incident. If the ref saw it and reviewed it that should be the end of the matter, IMO. Who is more qualified to deal with it? The assistant referee saw it and brought it to the referee's attention. They watched it several times and decided it was not worthy of a yellow - that's the collective judgement of two of the on-field officials and the TMO. (And, that 's despite, having presumably seen it at the time, the referee not seeing it as a problem.)

I don't know the full intricacies of the system. Does the citing officer just cite based on his own judgement? Does he discuss it with the ref before the public announcement?

I've got no issues with the incident being the subject of being cited had the referee not reviewed it.

My issue was that the referee was a distance away from the big screen and specifically said, "I believe the point of contact was with the chest," which was blatantly not correct and wasn't contradicted by the TMO. His decision was made on the wrong information.

The referee may need to be the ultimate arbiter, but they also need all the help that they can get and TMO's nowadays are just such milquetoasts that all you get from them is, "I'd like to show you that other angle again." FFS - you're more than a glorified remote control, you're an official! How hard is it to say, "No, the initial contact is definitely to the head with the forearm" when the ref's 40m from a screen and you're 40cm from on?!

Puja

Oakboy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I'd add to that that every citing is an implied criticism of the/a official. Either that they missed the incident or that they made the incorrect call. Unless, of course, the panel agrees there is no case to answer.

Yes, I did not make myself clear with 'incorrect'. I don't care if the ref was right or not as a matter of opinion of the incident. If the ref saw it and reviewed it that should be the end of the matter, IMO. Who is more qualified to deal with it? The assistant referee saw it and brought it to the referee's attention. They watched it several times and decided it was not worthy of a yellow - that's the collective judgement of two of the on-field officials and the TMO. (And, that 's despite, having presumably seen it at the time, the referee not seeing it as a problem.)

I don't know the full intricacies of the system. Does the citing officer just cite based on his own judgement? Does he discuss it with the ref before the public announcement?

I've got no issues with the incident being the subject of being cited had the referee not reviewed it.

I'm sure Diggers will run you through the intricacies of the citing process.

As welcome as the TMO system is, now that the teething problems are over. It's not foolproof. Camera angles are limited, time is limited, the ref in miles away from the big screen, the ref is under pressure from the crowd, the clock, and the captains. I'd also suggest that with anything close to 50/50 the ref would be leaning towards keeping 15 v 15, rightly or wrongly.

The citing panel will have days to collect info, various camera angles, close-ups and various speeds of the footage; and, all without the external pressures that the ref would feel.

The more I look at this one the worse it looks to me - I've noticed things like a closed fist I hadn't seen before, and have taken emotion out of it.

When Alfie Fa'osaliva got his red card a couple of years ago, it didn't look as bad as this one (just a mistimed push-off) but that mistiming made a red technically correct (but overly harsh).
Im not convinced that Hughes mistimed anything here, though I'll allow that he misplaced. I think he was aiming a fist to the shoulder, but ended up with a forearm to the throat. Had Hughes been a tackler rather than a tacklee, then that would have been a straight red. As is, a case could made that a red card would have been technically correct (but harsh) whilst a yellow would have been the right decision.

I had in mind it had to (potentially) warrant a red card for a citing to occur? Immaterial to that you can have an incident cited even if the official saw what transpired if the official missed the foul play the citing seeks to address, as in this instance the ref did indeed miss the act of foul play given he thought contact was to the chest there is leeway to bring a citing.

I've got in mind in this instance Hughes had just made a successful hand off on Mercer (not a great moment for Mercer but he'll learn) and possibly had then transferred the ball to the other hand and attempted an immediate second handoff with the other arm into a player ducking into the tackle. I suspect he'll say he was attempting another clean handoff and the timing was out, he may even claim that was in part down to Faletau ducking into the contact. Doesn't look good though, he had raised his forearm and contact wasn't made with the hand.

I think claiming Faletau was ducking would be optimistic - IIRC correctly, Faletau was standing upright and attempting a bear hug.

Plus "attempting another hand off" might be hard to claim considering he actively raised his forearm, made no attempt to straighten his arm, and had a closed fist, none of which suggest trying to make a legal manouevre. Can't really see any of those defences flying for him.

I agree with Which - he probably didn't intend to hit Faletau in the face, but he was definitely trying to bump him off with his forearm.

Puja

Faletau is stood with legs apart and knees bent as he's bracing for contact. If you want to call it something other than ducking fine, but he's hardly stood tall. I don't know I'd accept it as mitigating, if Hughes isn't sure he shouldn't raise the arm and claiming it's instinctive isn't good enough. But Faletau is doing something akin to some variant on hunkering down, crouching, hunching or indeed ducking.

Hughes and Danny Care have just got retrospective yellows I believe. Basically just saying they should have been binned at the time but weren’t. Not sure how that effects future conduct?

Timbo wrote:Hughes and Danny Care have just got retrospective yellows I believe. Basically just saying they should have been binned at the time but weren’t. Not sure how that effects future conduct?

It counts towards bans for cumulative yellows and will be taken into account for future disciplinary proceedings. Other than that, it doesn't really.

Puja

Scrumhead wrote:Hmm ... both played well, but I do tend to agree with Puja on this.

I've seen a fair bit written about Underhill's linking/carrying game, but I'm yet to see any real evidence of it with my own eyes (and I watched him in a decent amount of Ospreys games too).

Don't get me wrong, I think he's got a lot to offer, but I think he needs to show more than physicality to live up to the hype.

Fairly sure that is down to the difference between the two leagues. By way of justifying that statement I'd suggest that Kahn Fortuali'i also took a season to find out where his game was of most use in the AP.