RugbyRebels

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't understand what the process was for Tuculet's yellow. The ref seemed wrong both on the idea he wasn't in a position to challenge and on where the player came down. Broadly I think it was simply a fair contest that ended badly and thus isn't even a penalty. Whereas if it's a penalty then it's a red card, and that depends on whether once he hasn't won the ball can Tuculet pull down in such fashion, i.e. where does he end on the ladder of destiny?

(I also wish I was making up the ladder of destiny phrase, but sadly it's very much in the ref briefing docs)

I think the yellow was spot on. He challenged with little chance of doing anything except knock the ball on - only one hand really. Then, he showed insufficient duty of care without quite being reckless enough to deserve a red.

You're maybe at odds with the instructions to the refs, which is where I'm coming from in saying I don't understand the process. I say you're only maybe at odds as the official instructions do seem to have some gaps and to be open to interpretation

If you're correct that it's not a fair challenge and there is some pulling down then once the player comes down in dangerous fashion it's a red card is my reading of what's supposed to happen, it'd only be a yellow for a player landing on their feet/side/back, at best Brown comes down on his shoulder and I suspect many would cite head. However in the description of a red card Rolland notes (at least I assume this was Rolland) "It’s not a fair challenge with no contest, whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action and the player lands in a dangerous position = RED CARD"

I happen to think it is a fair challenge, but once Brown wins the ball I don't know if in pulling down on Brown we then have Tuculet committing an act of foul play. My guess is it is foul/reckless play, as to compare to the lineout if you're pulling down a player who's won the ball ahead of your effort you'd get pinged, but it might be all Tuculet was doing was contesting the ball in which case he comes under "Both players are in a realistic position to compete for the ball
= PLAY ON"

I've read a lot about us needing more carriers with no explanation of how they would improve things. I saw few if any instances of Youngs or Ford popping short balls to a runner coming on to a shoulder at pace, for example. I saw few instances of either having real alternatives that might confuse the opposition. I saw few instances of any one timing a run back against the grain. It's all very well dreaming of wrecking ball carriers but the coaches need to get the players in the right place to carry. For me, there was confusion about alignment and a general lack of cohesion. Unless the players forgot their gameplan immediately the starting whistle blew, that performance was the fault of two factors: preparation and rustiness.

I'm no fan of Farrell but his value in that game just might have been on-field organisation. I don't credit him with super on-the-hoof rugby intelligence but he does have self-belief and presence, something sadly missing in Youngs and Ford at times. Ford is a gifted natural talent but he doesn't affect the shape of the game enough alongside Youngs. They are both reasonably effective when things are going well and their individual contributions are adequate when things are not. Unfortunately, to change the momentum of a game the pairing need to be more influential in terms of inspiring/cajoling others.

I agree that it’s not a card but if the ref feels it is it must be a red. I said so at the time earlier in the thread and I can’t really see it being up for debate - Brown clearly lands on his head.

However, if there really is the phrase ‘ladder of destiny’ in some world rugby literature somewhere then I’m quite happy with Dors completely ignoring said literature and just arbitrarily deciding whatever he likes.

Oakboy wrote:I've read a lot about us needing more carriers with no explanation of how they would improve things. I saw few if any instances of Youngs or Ford popping short balls to a runner coming on to a shoulder at pace, for example. I saw few instances of either having real alternatives that might confuse the opposition. I saw few instances of any one timing a run back against the grain. It's all very well dreaming of wrecking ball carriers but the coaches need to get the players in the right place to carry. For me, there was confusion about alignment and a general lack of cohesion. Unless the players forgot their gameplan immediately the starting whistle blew, that performance was the fault of two factors: preparation and rustiness.

I'm no fan of Farrell but his value in that game just might have been on-field organisation. I don't credit him with super on-the-hoof rugby intelligence but he does have self-belief and presence, something sadly missing in Youngs and Ford at times. Ford is a gifted natural talent but he doesn't affect the shape of the game enough alongside Youngs. They are both reasonably effective when things are going well and their individual contributions are adequate when things are not. Unfortunately, to change the momentum of a game the pairing need to be more influential in terms of inspiring/cajoling others.

I’d agree that our back play was very lateral. I was bemoaning the SA back play against Ireland yesterday and then had the realisation that it wasn’t dissimilar to what we served up. The way we sliced up Scotland shows that you can make inroads without a big ball carrier but I can’t remember use trying more than two, possible three, set moves that had multiple runner options.
I think you need to let this thing go with Ford. Everything you read about him states that on the field he is loud, demanding and controlling.

Mellsblue wrote:I agree that it’s not a card but if the ref feels it is it must be a red. I said so at the time earlier in the thread and I can’t really see it being up for debate - Brown clearly lands on his head.

However, if there really is the phrase ‘ladder of destiny’ in some world rugby literature somewhere then I’m quite happy with Dors completely ignoring said literature and just arbitrarily deciding whatever he likes.

Thanks, I side with the ref, the TMO and Kaplan in today's DT in being ignorant of the letters of the law/decrees. i'm sure you are far more likely than me to be technically correct. I stand by the way I saw it, though. The player himself and his nearby team-mates were expecting a card judging by their body language.

Oakboy wrote:I've read a lot about us needing more carriers with no explanation of how they would improve things.al in terms of inspiring/cajoling others.

The less you play with accuracy in moving the ball at pace the more you simply need to win contact and get over the gainline to avoid getting stuck going nowhere in possession, both more carriers and playing at high pace of course would be ideal, but one rarely reaches an ideal. England are a bit clunky and too easy to slow down, hence for many our balance is wrong and the easiest and perhaps best win for us is to add in more carriers.

Mellsblue wrote:
I think you need to let this thing go with Ford. Everything you read about him states that on the field he is loud, demanding and controlling.

I've read a lot of that too but I don't see him waving players into position on our own slow ball. I don't see him making significant adjustments to his distance from the SH. I don't see him moving others about in defence. I don't see him affecting the game in any way when he hasn't got the ball.

I accept that I comment only as a TV viewer not able to hear what he's saying and only able to see what the TV director shows me.

Bear in mind too that I prefer Ford to Farrell as a player. Unfortunately, though, I also believe that should T'eo get fit and find some real international form or should Tuilagi get his body fixed and some game time at 12, Eddie will pick Farrell at 10 ahead of Ford. IMO, if that happens, it will be Ford's fault for the reasons I have expressed.

Oakboy wrote: IMO, if that happens, it will be Ford's fault for the reasons I have expressed.

And that Eddie could simply think Farrell the better player, lots of people do

At what point in the match roughly is Underhill's really stupid penalty? I missed it first time round and am unwilling to rewatch the whole thing.

The video would suggest around the 64th minute.

It's actually a move of genius by Underhill to set up an easy penalty chance which he'd reasoned the Argies who were kicking like Hodgson would miss, thus eroding confidence in the Argies still more. Proper iceman play from Underhill who is now putting pressure on Owen for the captaincy

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote: IMO, if that happens, it will be Ford's fault for the reasons I have expressed.

And that Eddie could simply think Farrell the better player, lots of people do

True. Farrell is also geared to a boshing 12 for his club. Taking this to another stage, might we one day see Farrell, T'eo AND Tuilagi? I'd hate that but lots would love it, I suspect.

I'll be really sad if we never see Ford, Slade and JJ together again but I'd not be surprised.

Ugh. Yep.

Oakboy wrote:
True. Farrell is also geared to a boshing 12 for his club.

They can get some straight functional running out of Barritt, Taylor or Bosch, but I don't know any of them are boshers. So I don't know Farrell is geared to that, okay he wants people to straighten the play and people available on the pullback, but that's different. The problem at test level with those Farrell options is that defences are better and fitter, so are less likely to miss tackles and get out of position and thus one can't get the easier go forward at test level that one does find at club level, and once you don't go forward everything slows up (unless you've more recovery carrying options to start winning points of contact again)

Peat wrote:

Stom wrote:Oh, and one thing...I know he hits rucks, but Cole's stats make for grim reading again. I honestly don't know how he's an international prop in 2017. He just does nothing except scrummage and lift.

He's an international prop because there's a shortage of people trusted to do the former. All previous fast trackees have burnt out.


Banquo - They'd pick him, but that doesn't mean they think he's hard.

nor does it mean they think he isnt. But a fruitless exchange as the press aren't actually selectors,

Raggs wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Digby wrote:I don't understand what the process was for Tuculet's yellow. The ref seemed wrong both on the idea he wasn't in a position to challenge and on where the player came down. Broadly I think it was simply a fair contest that ended badly and thus isn't even a penalty. Whereas if it's a penalty then it's a red card, and that depends on whether once he hasn't won the ball can Tuculet pull down in such fashion, i.e. where does he end on the ladder of destiny?

(I also wish I was making up the ladder of destiny phrase, but sadly it's very much in the ref briefing docs)

I think the yellow was spot on. He challenged with little chance of doing anything except knock the ball on - only one hand really. Then, he showed insufficient duty of care without quite being reckless enough to deserve a red.

He got a hand to the ball when leaping to catch it. Brown's hips weren't over his shoulders, which is what we heard from a ref a while ago as being considered the sort of cut-off point. So it's no penalty for me. But Brown then lands on his head first, so if it's a penalty, it's a red.

yes

Owen carries forward that special tradition where not playing enhances your reputation.

Plus, I though Ford had a good game.

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I think the yellow was spot on. He challenged with little chance of doing anything except knock the ball on - only one hand really. Then, he showed insufficient duty of care without quite being reckless enough to deserve a red.

He got a hand to the ball when leaping to catch it. Brown's hips weren't over his shoulders, which is what we heard from a ref a while ago as being considered the sort of cut-off point. So it's no penalty for me. But Brown then lands on his head first, so if it's a penalty, it's a red.

yes

There was an update sent out by Rolland recently, which was a huge file (mostly as it contains video example clips for various actions which they're using as examples for play-on or no action, yellow card offences and red card offences) so not easy to insert here, but the text on the decision making process in the area of Challenges in the Air is:

Definition of Fair Challenge:

Both players are in a realistic position to compete for the ball
= PLAY ON

It’s not a fair challenge with a wrong timing (No pulling down) = PENALTY ONLY

It’s not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on back or side = YELLOW CARD

It’s not a fair challenge with no contest, whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action and the player lands in a dangerous position = RED CARD

And that feeds into the 'Ladder of Destiny' which is a lovely piece of work that should only be respected

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Raggs wrote:
He got a hand to the ball when leaping to catch it. Brown's hips weren't over his shoulders, which is what we heard from a ref a while ago as being considered the sort of cut-off point. So it's no penalty for me. But Brown then lands on his head first, so if it's a penalty, it's a red.

yes

There was an update sent out by Rolland recently, which was a huge file (mostly as it contains video example clips for various actions which they're using as examples for play-on or no action, yellow card offences and red card offences) so not easy to insert here, but the text on the decision making process in the area of Challenges in the Air is:

Definition of Fair Challenge:

Both players are in a realistic position to compete for the ball
= PLAY ON

It’s not a fair challenge with a wrong timing (No pulling down) = PENALTY ONLY

It’s not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on back or side = YELLOW CARD

It’s not a fair challenge with no contest, whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action and the player lands in a dangerous position = RED CARD

And that feeds into the 'Ladder of Destiny' which is a lovely piece of work that should only be respected

F F S

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
And that feeds into the 'Ladder of Destiny' which is a lovely piece of work that should only be respected

F F S

That's not coming straight off the bat as respectful. I suspect though I don't know that whoever the Ladder of Destiny was coined by, whether Rolland or A.Nother, did so as a naff piece of corporate jargon simply to amuse themself, at least I hope so

It's still down to the referee's interpretation on the day, though. It's not like he's senile, illiterate or stupid, presumably.

Oakboy wrote:It's still down to the referee's interpretation on the day, though. It's not like he's senile, illiterate or stupid, presumably.

Whether he's bottled it I don't know, but in this instance he's flat out ignored instructions which give him a choice of no card or red card, and somehow he's fudged it and ended up on a yellow. Also in this instance we've not only got the ref making a mistake but the TMO supporting the mistake.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: yes

There was an update sent out by Rolland recently, which was a huge file (mostly as it contains video example clips for various actions which they're using as examples for play-on or no action, yellow card offences and red card offences) so not easy to insert here, but the text on the decision making process in the area of Challenges in the Air is:

Definition of Fair Challenge:

Both players are in a realistic position to compete for the ball
= PLAY ON

It’s not a fair challenge with a wrong timing (No pulling down) = PENALTY ONLY

It’s not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on back or side = YELLOW CARD

It’s not a fair challenge with no contest, whilst being a reckless or deliberate foul play action and the player lands in a dangerous position = RED CARD

And that feeds into the 'Ladder of Destiny' which is a lovely piece of work that should only be respected

F F S

Blimey. It must’ve been one of those meetings where you are bored silly and everyone is talking bollocks about pointless things so you start giving flippant answers to silly questions. Next thing you know some idiot has sent out official literature with Ladder of Destiny plastered all over it. Diggers, is there some Superman-esque music to accompany the opening of the Ladder of Destiny pdf file?

No superman music I'm afraid. Though the video clips they're using come with commentary, so they're using TV footage which always surprises me a little

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote: Need Billy ....seriously, we lack carriers. Lawes may have improved, but not enough. I really hope we don't try and compensate by putting a lock at 6.

Back to serious- the pack lacked carriers, in fact the side did. Billy still remains way ahead of Hughes, despite a decent effort today.

.

Have to simply disagree with this, Hughes scored the type of try in the loose that is way beyond the scope of what Billy could ever do from a sheer athleticism and pace perspective- it’s a bit like comparing Deano with Dallagio - two specialist 8s one relying on sheer physical presence and keeping it tight and one with a more dynamic, looser approach. Both are great in their own terms but I’m increasingly less inclined to put Billy ahead of the two to the extent you do.