RugbyRebels

Oakboy wrote:I've got mixed feelings, starting with thinking (yet again) that if the jamboree was scrapped and we had toured NZ instead, our players would be way ahead of where any combined team could take them. That leads me to think the exercise with the Welsh is a pointless gimmick. Against that is SCW's 'sum of small gains' argument. If there was no harm in it I'd be happy enough but 2 or 3 injuries would totally scupper any progress.

My understanding was that it was just set piece work. I’m not suggesting injuries are impossible, but we’re not talking about a training ‘game’ so I think it would be relatively low risk.

Also, we don’t play Wales until the 6N so anything they do glean in terms of lineout calls etc will likely have moved on by then.

Those scrums will be brutal for the front rows given they will all be pumped up and at full energy.

kk67 wrote:The way he couches it in terms of number of scrums and lineouts is a feint. I don't think that's why he's set it up. The importance of the set-piece is dwindling while the tackle/breakdown is growing.
As Puja says

if you think there is nothing that the likes of Underhill, Curry and Mercer can learn from Warburton and Tipuric, then I'm going to have to disagree with you.

Setpieces are the best chance to make plays which isolate defenders with pre-planned moves, so getting them right with their being restricted in number makes each instance arguably more important

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote:The way he couches it in terms of number of scrums and lineouts is a feint. I don't think that's why he's set it up. The importance of the set-piece is dwindling while the tackle/breakdown is growing.
As Puja says

if you think there is nothing that the likes of Underhill, Curry and Mercer can learn from Warburton and Tipuric, then I'm going to have to disagree with you.

Setpieces are the best chance to make plays which isolate defenders with pre-planned moves, so getting them right with their being restricted in number makes each instance arguably more important

This

Tbh, and this may be boring, but I'm happy to take the point of view that if Eddie thinks they'll gain something, that's good enough for me. If he's wrong, its only one day anyway.

Roko called up

Well, he was the only choice really...

Fantastic. Good news for all.

Hey Denny why not go for a celebratory drink?

Good

Shame for Daly, but excited to see Roko involved.

Timbo wrote:Shame for Daly, but excited to see Roko involved.

Yup!

Mullan out for 3 months apparently, so presumably Marler will come back with a view to being available for the Oz game.

Daly out for 2-3 weeks.

http://www.englandrugby.com/news/ewels- ... 28748783=1


Maybe a blessing in disguise if armand gets the nod and shows what he can do?

By the "logic" of the disciplinary panels, he should be out for one week if he pleads guilty. However, it'll be interesting to see whether the AWC game this weekend will be included. It was for Hughes's ban, despite him blatantly not going to play, and thus Marler appealed that it should count for his ban as well, so there is precedent. However, Ewels is literally out of the country - he will definitely not be playing this weekend. But so is Hughes, so if this weekend counts as part of Hughes's ban, I don't see how it could not for Ewels.

Puja

Hughes hadn't been named in the squad (like Marler) at the time of the hearing, therefore he technically still could have played AWC, just like Marler (and why they told the citing panel to feck off with it not including the AWC week). Ewels has already been selected, so would not be playing it.

Strictly speaking there’s absolutely no reason why England couldn’t release Ewels, say, on Thursday to go and play for Bath at the weekend. Maybe they want him to get game time, maybe they have decided he’s not going to be involved against Argentina, maybe they just want him to rack up some air miles. The point is really that it’s not for the disciplinary panel to Pre judge team selection...ever.

Timbo wrote:Strictly speaking there’s absolutely no reason why England couldn’t release Ewels, say, on Thursday to go and play for Bath at the weekend. Maybe they want him to get game time, maybe they have decided he’s not going to be involved against Argentina, maybe they just want him to rack up some air miles. The point is really that it’s not for the disciplinary panel to Pre judge team selection...ever.

I don't know; I think there's a place for it. Certainly it will be a bit stupid to ban Ewels for one week and have him miss a game that he's literally not in the country to play.

I would've ruled that both Hughes and Marler's suspensions did not include the AWC myself, as suspensions should always be for meaningful weeks. If England wanted to release them to play, then great, they can play in the AWC, but their ban still runs over meaningful games. We're better than the kind of shenanigans that the ABs pulled over SBW.

However, the way the precedent is set, I can't see how Ewels can get any ban apart from missing a game he wasn't going to play.

Puja

Timbo wrote:Strictly speaking there’s absolutely no reason why England couldn’t release Ewels, say, on Thursday to go and play for Bath at the weekend. Maybe they want him to get game time, maybe they have decided he’s not going to be involved against Argentina, maybe they just want him to rack up some air miles. The point is really that it’s not for the disciplinary panel to Pre judge team selection...ever.

Agreed. X weeks of season time should be all they decide on. I don't think upcoming games should even form part of their discussion.

Otherwise, should they, for example, penalise Saracens' players an extra week because they (may) have the largest squad of quality players. Or, should they take account of clubs with injury problems etc. The punishment should fit the crime of the individual player and that's the end of it.

Puja wrote:

Timbo wrote:Strictly speaking there’s absolutely no reason why England couldn’t release Ewels, say, on Thursday to go and play for Bath at the weekend. Maybe they want him to get game time, maybe they have decided he’s not going to be involved against Argentina, maybe they just want him to rack up some air miles. The point is really that it’s not for the disciplinary panel to Pre judge team selection...ever.

I don't know; I think there's a place for it. Certainly it will be a bit stupid to ban Ewels for one week and have him miss a game that he's literally not in the country to play.

I would've ruled that both Hughes and Marler's suspensions did not include the AWC myself, as suspensions should always be for meaningful weeks. If England wanted to release them to play, then great, they can play in the AWC, but their ban still runs over meaningful games. We're better than the kind of shenanigans that the ABs pulled over SBW.

However, the way the precedent is set, I can't see how Ewels can get any ban apart from missing a game he wasn't going to play.

Puja

AWC is technically a fully fledged comp though. And neither Hughes nor Marler had any confirmed other commitments at the time of sentencing, whereas Ewels does. I do agree with you btw, but don't see how it could easily hold up as an argument.

Puja wrote:
However, the way the precedent is set, I can't see how Ewels can get any ban apart from missing a game he wasn't going to play.

Puja

I'm not sure the precedent has been set as such, the laws have been that way for a while and disciplinary panels trying to step beyond their authority can be told to settle down. If there's an issue there to address then it's not one that should be addressed by a panel convened for an individual hearing, it's for the IRB to address (or not)

Ewels citing dismissed.

Wow - 2 good disciplinary decisions in 8 days!

Timbo wrote:Ewels citing dismissed.

Sort of odd, considering it didn't look a million miles away from what Hughes did, if I recall both correctly.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Timbo wrote:Ewels citing dismissed.

Sort of odd, considering it didn't look a million miles away from what Hughes did, if I recall both correctly.

Puja

Inconsistency with the citings panels? Never!

I'd need to see it again, but I don't recall Ewells hitting Trinder in the head with a swinging arm