2024 Six Nations

[switchskier]

Finally been able to watch the game and wtf was that all about? A few thoughts:

- it was a try. I can understand how it want given but it was the wrong decision. I'm actually ok with the TMO to pass responsibility at a distance when the pressure is that great, and the call Berry made on the field allows him to do that, which only makes it all the more frustrating.

- Irish officials and Scotland. Somewhere Ally Hogg is reaching out to Sam Skinner.

- a slightly calmer team goes wide at the end though. There was only one French player beyond 15 meters there. But that happens at the end of big games.

- Berry was a fussy pain in the ass all game. How many times did we want to increase the pace of the game and he stopped us? Some of the French boys were blowing at times - it cost us.

- Can anyone find a video of the yellow card? If it's a yellow card offense, in that position, shouldn't we be looking at penalty try?

- I'm actually ok with most of the kicking. We were winning the kicking game all day. Sometimes the rugby ball doesn't bounce your way.

- two great tries in that game. I know that it was early but the Scotland try was exceptional.

- Darge was a class above. Might be his best international game and he's looking at home now.

- Paterson looked home immediately. He does play with a bit of swagger and confidence, which I love. His positioning was very good.

- No idea why Lucu started ahead of Le Garrec. But neither is a patch on Dupont

[Cameo]

We had them on the ropes at that point, we’d taken a scrum and it had yielded a penalty. With such little time left before half time, it seemed obvious to pile on the pressure. Very few props see yellow cards for scrum infringements and keeping going with scrums wasn’t going to change anything. The only choices for me there were 3 points or quick tap

Scrums do suck forwards in though, and may give you an advantage to work from. I agree re the tap penalty though once they had forced the sub by taking the first scrum.

There is also the point that playing on rather than taking three extends the sin bin period.

BTW - Which Tyler - I havent looked back but agreed at first look about the VDM offside. Wasn't sure it was a high tackle though.

[Cameo]

Dont want to talk about it all week, but seen there are some pundits saying it was right call as not clear that ball down. The photos are crystal clear (and is not like they have emerged subsequently, we were all watching it). I also think it is on the TMO. The ref was ready to change his mind and was about to confirm. It is the TMO, who should have the even clearer view, who them steps back in. I agree Berry should have said "wait a minute, a minute ago you were saying it was down and that's what it looks like on TV, what's changed?" but it was the TMO who really blew it.

On the kick tennis, the rule needs to change, but we would have been foolish just to play into their hands and run it back when their defensive line hadn't had to move.

Oh, and defensive lineout was great, which was nice.

[canta_brian]

Anyone else sick of games being decided by a pixel here or there?

TMO is not making the game better recently.

The Etsabeth intentional knock down to kill a try in the World Cup 1/4 v France a perfect example of where the 4-5mm the ball travelled backwards when measured by tmo totally ignores that he made zero attempt to catch the ball. Those 4-5mm stopped a penalty try and yellow card

[Cameo]

Anyone else sick of games being decided by a pixel here or there?

TMO is not making the game better recently.

The Etsabeth intentional knock down to kill a try in the World Cup 1/4 v France a perfect example of where the 4-5mm the ball travelled backwards when measured by tmo totally ignores that he made zero attempt to catch the ball. Those 4-5mm stopped a penalty try and yellow card

I get your overall point but I don't understand that example. You don't need to try and catch the ball if you don't knock it forward (or out) so I'm fine with that call. There will be fine margins whether it's the ref or the TMO who picks up on them. My big gripe is the TMO seeing clear things and not getting them right, or being inconsistent about what he intervenes on (e.g. in the World Cup final)

[Which Tyler]

Trouble with the TMO isn't the occasions that they make the right decision

[Big D]

Nothing to do with yesterday but Berry isn't and never has been an international standard ref.

[canta_brian]

Anyone else sick of games being decided by a pixel here or there?

TMO is not making the game better recently.

The Etsabeth intentional knock down to kill a try in the World Cup 1/4 v France a perfect example of where the 4-5mm the ball travelled backwards when measured by tmo totally ignores that he made zero attempt to catch the ball. Those 4-5mm stopped a penalty try and yellow card

I get your overall point but I don't understand that example. You don't need to try and catch the ball if you don't knock it forward (or out) so I'm fine with that call. There will be fine margins whether it's the ref or the TMO who picks up on them. My big gripe is the TMO seeing clear things and not getting them right, or being inconsistent about what he intervenes on (e.g. in the World Cup final)

I didn’t explain that well.
Etsebeth hits ball to ground. Goes 5mm backwards play on

Goes 5mm forwards - intentional knock on, yellow card

It’s the same action. The slight margin of direction shouldn’t be enough to change the ruling so greatly

The comparison is better when you look at his action being legal in the quarter, and a player who almost makes an intercept but can’t quite catch the ball on the third attempt getting a yellow. The yellow card player has tried to score a try from intercept, Etsabeth just tried to kill the ball. In the old days a ref would have been able to call his action an intentional knock on/down and he would have seen yellow.

[Big D]

One basic thing that winds me up is the poor ball presentation. The amount of times the ball is slow because of really poor presentation is frustrating.

[Jocky]

Does anyone think the try is given if it's a different period of the match? I have a feeling it would.

[septic 9]

Nothing to do with yesterday but Berry isn't and never has been an international standard ref.

nor O'Keefe. And that is before we dismiss, as we should all AUs/NZ refs as reffing a completely different set of laws. If I never have to suffer another Antipodean ref it will still be too soon

[septic 9]

We had them on the ropes at that point, we’d taken a scrum and it had yielded a penalty. With such little time left before half time, it seemed obvious to pile on the pressure. Very few props see yellow cards for scrum infringements and keeping going with scrums wasn’t going to change anything. The only choices for me there were 3 points or quick tap

Scrums do suck forwards in though, and may give you an advantage to work from. I agree re the tap penalty though once they had forced the sub by taking the first scrum.

There is also the point that playing on rather than taking three extends the sin bin period.

BTW - Which Tyler - I havent looked back but agreed at first look about the VDM offside. Wasn't sure it was a high tackle though.

scrum was absolutely the right call.
* our scrum had been going ok.
* then 140kg of Antonio off and the poor scrummaging Aldegheri on.
France have the option of 8 in the set scrum, or a man short in the backs - really if we split our backs its should be a training pitch run in. If they only have 7 in the scrum we should really get a shove on and can launch a back row off a moving scrum

What went wrong was Baille hinging as he was retreating - why on earth would we collapse it when clearly on top?

And there's the rub. We had a total incompetent for a ref. What could go wrong

[Cameo]

Anyone else sick of games being decided by a pixel here or there?

TMO is not making the game better recently.

The Etsabeth intentional knock down to kill a try in the World Cup 1/4 v France a perfect example of where the 4-5mm the ball travelled backwards when measured by tmo totally ignores that he made zero attempt to catch the ball. Those 4-5mm stopped a penalty try and yellow card

I get your overall point but I don't understand that example. You don't need to try and catch the ball if you don't knock it forward (or out) so I'm fine with that call. There will be fine margins whether it's the ref or the TMO who picks up on them. My big gripe is the TMO seeing clear things and not getting them right, or being inconsistent about what he intervenes on (e.g. in the World Cup final)

I didn’t explain that well.
Etsebeth hits ball to ground. Goes 5mm backwards play on

Goes 5mm forwards - intentional knock on, yellow card

It’s the same action. The slight margin of direction shouldn’t be enough to change the ruling so greatly

The comparison is better when you look at his action being legal in the quarter, and a player who almost makes an intercept but can’t quite catch the ball on the third attempt getting a yellow. The yellow card player has tried to score a try from intercept, Etsabeth just tried to kill the ball. In the old days a ref would have been able to call his action an intentional knock on/down and he would have seen yellow.

That seems to be an issue with the rules not the TMO. If a ref sees the ball going backwards but calls an intentional knock on because he doesn't like it, I say his power has gone to his head.

[stevedog1980]

We had them on the ropes at that point, we’d taken a scrum and it had yielded a penalty. With such little time left before half time, it seemed obvious to pile on the pressure. Very few props see yellow cards for scrum infringements and keeping going with scrums wasn’t going to change anything. The only choices for me there were 3 points or quick tap

Scrums do suck forwards in though, and may give you an advantage to work from. I agree re the tap penalty though once they had forced the sub by taking the first scrum.

There is also the point that playing on rather than taking three extends the sin bin period.

BTW - Which Tyler - I havent looked back but agreed at first look about the VDM offside. Wasn't sure it was a high tackle though.

scrum was absolutely the right call.
* our scrum had been going ok.
* then 140kg of Antonio off and the poor scrummaging Aldegheri on.
France have the option of 8 in the set scrum, or a man short in the backs - really if we split our backs its should be a training pitch run in. If they only have 7 in the scrum we should really get a shove on and can launch a back row off a moving scrum

What went wrong was Baille hinging as he was retreating - why on earth would we collapse it when clearly on top?

And there's the rub. We had a total incompetent for a ref. What could go wrong

Generally I would agree with you, with a prop in the bin the scrum is a sensible option. Weighing it up against the clock though, I thought battering on the 5m line repeatedly would have been the better option, especially when Antonio was yellowed for something that didn’t relieve the general discipline pressure they were under

[septic 9]

Scrums do suck forwards in though, and may give you an advantage to work from. I agree re the tap penalty though once they had forced the sub by taking the first scrum.

There is also the point that playing on rather than taking three extends the sin bin period.

BTW - Which Tyler - I havent looked back but agreed at first look about the VDM offside. Wasn't sure it was a high tackle though.

scrum was absolutely the right call.
* our scrum had been going ok.
* then 140kg of Antonio off and the poor scrummaging Aldegheri on.
France have the option of 8 in the set scrum, or a man short in the backs - really if we split our backs its should be a training pitch run in. If they only have 7 in the scrum we should really get a shove on and can launch a back row off a moving scrum

What went wrong was Baille hinging as he was retreating - why on earth would we collapse it when clearly on top?

And there's the rub. We had a total incompetent for a ref. What could go wrong

Generally I would agree with you, with a prop in the bin the scrum is a sensible option. Weighing it up against the clock though, I thought battering on the 5m line repeatedly would have been the better option, especially when Antonio was yellowed for something that didn’t relieve the general discipline pressure they were under

we are not very good at battering on the line!

TBH I would have taken the 3 for the initial pen, but once we had Antonio off it was for me a no brainer to take a scrum

[Big D]

Before we return to club matches. My team for England game, I don't think we need many changes:
Schoeman
Turner
Fagerson
Cummings
GG
Christie - England have picked back rows that are built to tackle. I think we can potentially put pressure on at the ruck. Wouldn't surprise me to see Ritchie in.
Darge
Dempsey

White - Has stepped up his control over the last two games. Perhaps a benefit of playing in France?
Russell
Duhan
Huwopulotu
Rowe - Deserves to keep his spot, bar one defensive error he has been good. Might depend how Graham goes this weekend.
Kinghorn - I know there will be calls for Paterson to keep his spot but Kinghorn offers more with the boot and counter attacking.

Ashman
Hepburn
Nel if fit
Skinner
Fagerson
Horne
Healy
Redpath

He might use Kinghorn as the back up 10 and put Graham/Rowe on the bench or go 6/2 but that only works if there is another lock/back row available.

I suspect they'll put Steyn in somewhere but I think Rowe has shown enough to keep a jersey.

[Big D]

we are not very good at battering on the line!

Schoeman is the only one that seems to be successful at it. Although to be fair Skinner was successful on Saturday IMO.

[Mikey Brown]

I thought we looked a lot more effective going route 1 than we often do. Turner and Dempsey looked pretty fired up in their carrying.

I probably wouldn’t change much either, though would also like to see more of Christie.

Tuipulotu made a few key errors, but has plenty of credit in the bank I think.

Agreed on Kinghorn, assuming he’s 100% fit, another kicking option to mix things up if needed would helpful. Paterson was great, but no need to rush him in to being a regular international.

[BaldiePete]

I think if Kinghorn is fit he’ll start and we’ll go 6:2 on the bench with him covering 10 in case of an injury to Russell. Healy is wasting space on the bench since he’d only ever come on if Russell is injured. That leaves three players (Rowe, Steyn and Graham) fighting for one place in the starting 15.

[Mikey Brown]

It's a shame for Healy, and I don't like the risk of having to play a non-specialist fly half, but yeah it feels like a waste of a spot.

Do we actually know how to effectively use a 6:2 though? It's always seemed bit strange the last few times we've done it. I would assume 6/20 Christie/Ritchie 8/21 Dempsey/Fagerson with Darge doing 80, as we don't really have 4 locks worthy/fit for a place in the 23.

[septic 9]

It's a shame for Healy, and I don't like the risk of having to play a non-specialist fly half, but yeah it feels like a waste of a spot.

its more than just a non specialist fly half though, bad enough though that is. It means either no reliable goal kicker unless we both select Horne (seems reasonable but it would be a forced choice) AND put him on at the same time as Kinghorn. Which might be fine if its last 20mins, not so if Russell injured and off early doors
If we stick to 5/3, the case for Steyn over Rowe/Graham/Paterson is stronger as he covers centre, which none of those or Kinghorn does

[francoisfou]

- No idea why Lucu started ahead of Le Garrec. But neither is a patch on Dupont

I’d’ve started Le Garrec too, as he’s undoubtedly got the talent to push Dupont. Lucu ‘s ok for Bordeaux /Bègles but is being seriously found out at Test level. Was it a try? I was convinced that Berry was going to say yes and part of me is disappointed that he didn’t as that could have forced Galthié to make one or two changes, but he’ll savour the victory and’ll probably make no changes other than any due to injury. I’m also questioning the fitness level of some of the French.

[Big D]

It's a shame for Healy, and I don't like the risk of having to play a non-specialist fly half, but yeah it feels like a waste of a spot.

Do we actually know how to effectively use a 6:2 though? It's always seemed bit strange the last few times we've done it. I would assume 6/20 Christie/Ritchie 8/21 Dempsey/Fagerson with Darge doing 80, as we don't really have 4 locks worthy/fit for a place in the 23.

Yeah we don't have the fit lock depth to go 6/2.

I also wouldn't be wanting Steyn covering 13 from the 23 shirt. I know he's a good defender at club level but in the last 6N* and this one he has missed a lot of tackles and was caught in two minds at times from Wales about when to crash in or hold width. 13 is a key defensive position and I'd have concerns if Jones went down early.

*made 26 and missed 16 in 6N over the last two editions. Only game he's not missed a few was a 7/0 game v Italy.

7/4 v England
3/3 v Wales
2/2 v France
2/2 v Ireland
7/0 v Italy
4/5 v Wales.
Total = 26/16 (62%)

Duhan and Jones were criticised and Duhan still does get criticism over their defence but Steyn seems to get a free pass and although I have no issues with him being selected on the wing, I wouldnt want him defending at 13 in this system.

[stevedog1980]

Quick question but why is the checking of a try and different to the checking of foul play? In the same game, the referee led us through a review process and determined that Antonio was worth of a yellow card. Why isn't the same process applied for the try? Referee calls for video assistance but drives the review process and delivers their own outcome with agreement from others?

[septic 9]

Quick question but why is the checking of a try and different to the checking of foul play? In the same game, the referee led us through a review process and determined that Antonio was worth of a yellow card. Why isn't the same process applied for the try? Referee calls for video assistance but drives the review process and delivers their own outcome with agreement from others?

in theory the try process is simpler. Basically can you see the ball on the ground?
It varies depending on what the ref calls as his on filed decision (which he should be sure of else ask try/no try). If he says try, TMO has to find something conclusive that shows it isn't. If on filed call is no try (as in this case) TMO has to find something conclusive to say it is a try.

In foul play, more than one angle will be looked at first eg to to see if there is eg head contact; then whether there is mitigation (eg a slip by either player, change of direction or dip). |could be many angles to ensure get it right.

But for the try, only need one clear angle. TMO called ball down on ground from one angle, then decided to see if he could confirm that from 99 angles, which was both unnecessary and grossly incompetent. And Berry allowed him to mutter and meander instead of saying stop right there

- and in both cases the TMOs job is to provide evidence, the ref IS supposed to lead the discussion and decide based on what he sees. Berry failed in that