You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
England are tier 1 team who can’t/couldn’t adapt
I think this weekends play has highlighted that others have moved on, England haven't. The amount of skills / broken play on display yesterday was fascinating and would appear to be the en-vogue style. England want to play a set piece game again, they are just going to be torn apart in this 6N, if not for the next 18 months if they don't change.
I've got plenty of booze in to gain an edge on England dulling down this game. I don't want to to be the lowest point of this weekends ^n matches but I think it will be, unless Italy win with some glorious rugby.
C'mon Italy!
Scotland looked way less flashy against a much better opposition, however that just made them step it up. They played a level up from last week.
A much better game to watch, and Wales should take some comfort, despite the scoreline they looked good in so many areas.
I think this weekends play has highlighted that others have moved on, England haven’t.
Its like watching the Premiership every week. With the exception of London Irish, and the odd game where the overseas players light up the midfield, it's a formulaic approach week after week. The odd game in 3 will try to disprove that, IIRC Bath vs Gloucester, however, next week same as usual.
Willis, Chessum & Lawrence having a great game and England gain line defence is better. But it feels flat... they aren't lighting me up at all.
Hassell Collins for all his club fervour isn't dominant, but Lawrence is knocking players out on the pitch - we've need that in the centres for years.
Scotland looked way less flashy against a much better opposition, however that just made them step it up.
Jeez I'll have half a pint of that too!!
England world beaters again, which is nice!
England world beaters again, which is nice!
Yup aren't we amazing.
Ref doing England a few favours at the scrum which unsettled Italy a bit early on
But I think Italy always seem to struggle against England, even when England aren't in form. I think it is the physicality of England forwards overpowers
Jack Willis is quickly earning himself a permanent place on the team. Ludlum's a grafter but does Earl bring greater skills?
Dombrant isn't showing enough IMO, along with most of the backs.
Better from Italy
Earl is a fantastic player, I could never work out what Jones didn’t see in him.
Italy won second half on points, so hardly a big England performance
England forwards looking good, against a weaker pack , but backs look lost in attack.
Doesn't England have any young props they should be playing off the bench?
Yeah he had Capuozzos number a few times.
Bummer that Italy did not have a complete game, at times their attack was awesome, however England did leave some gaping holes in defence. Both Italian tries should have been stopped, poor show from England on that front. I cant see England threatening anyone else this year.
I think this really highlight my predictions, a close call either way with Wales is the best England are getting out of this 6N. Pleased to see Lawrence in the centre proving a point though.
I'm not sure dombrandt has secured his place. There a chance to have a very strong back row without him.
I cant see England threatening anyone else this year.
They’ll beat Wales and Chile 😀
They’ll beat Wales and Chile 😀
hold on now, is the Chile game at altitude?
They’ll beat Wales and Chile 😀
hold on now, is the Chile game at altitude?
ha ha.
Actually, though, is it?
I suspect it is WC, but would be impressive French scheduling shithousery. I mean, who knew there was a rugby pitch on Mont Blanc?
Over does it towards the end but it does raise a lot of valid points imo
One problem is the forensic analysis of everything.
Try would be a try but that trailing foot is questionable. There's no or very little drag. If his foot flexed then yes, no try but it didn't. Although we seem to be operating at if it touches a blade of grass that has an effect. So arguably foot touches grass but not ground what do the rules say?
The tackle on herring is awkward through the protocols. Upright, no wrap with right arm but initial contact is ball but definite head contact.
Turner on North was horrible to see but yellow was probably the correct outcome dropping and turning, turner was low and it's unfair to say a wrapping arm becomes a swinging arm. Although whoever allowed North to stay in then return needs their cards.
You know I love my stats. some of them grim reading for England. Italy beat 41 defenders and england missed 40 tackles. 81% tackle completion. thats not acceptable. Borthwick did say he had them concentrating on set piece and defense and the set piece was good but defense still poor and attacking game out wide poor
https://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/match?gameId=596210&league=180659
Try would be a try but that trailing foot is questionable. There’s no or very little drag.
It's clearly touching the ground imo. 100% so from rear angle.
The entire approach to tmo decisions needs looking at imo. If we take a different type of call we can see how stupid it's. Say a questionable try from a forward pass (like the Irish one🤪) ref sees ball grounded so says on field try, so now we need a different weight of evidence to overturn it but the questionable part and the choice is not about grounding. If we go back to the Lowe try surely the on field by very definition if we go straight to the tmo is 'havent a ****ing clue'. On field try should only be used if ref thinks it is a try and the tmo can check in the background. No way should, in the Lowe example, the on field decision is try, it is questionable if he put it down on touchline, it's questionable if his foot was in touch the ref guessing influences the outcome.
It’s clearly touching the ground imo. 100% so from rear angle.
I would say it clearly touches some blades of grass. Whether it touches the ground or not is questionable and not clear, imo.
Do blades of grass count as ground? Genuine question.
Do blades of grass float above the ground? Of course they are the ground. If we took your view then the ball is 'grounded' on the line, no try
Look at this, clearly a forward pass don't think blind pew the video ref even looked at it. The angle at 52s is best I think. Hands clearly go forward as does the ball.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8h5I9yiQ4sE
Do blades of grass float above the ground? Of course they are the ground. If we took your view then the ball is ‘grounded’ on the line, no try
I don't think the semantics are that obvious. If a ball was stuck in a tree then no one would say it was on the ground despite the tree not floating.
What do the laws say about it?
Edit: I know the laws for a try are 'downward pressure'. That foot doesn't clearly have downward pressure if all it's doing is moving grass sideways.
I don’t think the semantics are that obvious.
So you are saying the ball was touching the grass but not on the ground or the grass is not part of the pitch. Not sure how talking about trees on the pitch is useful!
So you are saying the ball was touching the grass but not on the ground or the grass is not part of the pitch.
I tend to give the advantage to the attacking team when the rules don't explicitly state things (for example, the rules don't explicitly state whether the grass is ground or not as far as I know).
So, if the question was, 'Do you count grass as ground for the purposes of ball grounding?' then my answer would be yes. However, if the question was , 'Do you count grass as ground for the purposes of being in touch in the act of scoring a try?' then my answer would be no.
If it's genuinely that important to you then I would write to World Rugby and get them to clarify whether grass is ground or not. Personally, if it's so close that we're having philosophical discussions such as this then I would just go with the attacking team*.
I reserve the right to completely change my mind if Scotland is the defending team.
So, if the question was, ‘Do you count grass as ground for the purposes of ball grounding?’ then my answer would be yes. However, if the question was , ‘Do you count grass as ground for the purposes of being in touch in the act of scoring a try?’ then my answer would be no.
Well that's cleared that up then!
Well that’s cleared that up then!
If it's so close we're discussing the definition of 'ground' just award the try and get on with the game.
Does the grass count as 'anything'?
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/home
Touch: The area alongside the field of play that includes the touchlines and
beyond.
Touch-in-goal: The area alongside the in-goal area that includes the touch-in-goal
lines and beyond.
The ball is in touch or touch-in-goal when :
a. The ball or ball-carrier touches the touchline, touch-in-goal line or
anything beyond.
b. A player, who is already touching the touchline, touch-in-goal line or
anything beyond, catches or holds the ball.
If it’s so close we’re discussing the definition of ‘ground’ just award the try and get on with the game.
I agree.
If it’s so close we’re discussing the definition of ‘ground’ just award the try and get on with the game.
To be clear I wasn't really discussing more laughing at the circles you are going round in to justify an obvious incorrect call.
touching a blade of grass is enough
It should have been ruled out but for some reason the TMO did not see they one angle that showed it
rugby is a complex game. Mistakes happen
Does the grass count as ‘anything’?
Could be.
But then I'd say it was pretty clear that Lowe touched the grass from the first angle so maybe Wayne Barnes doesn't agree with you.
Take it up with him. It was to close for me to get too upset at the injustice.
It should have been ruled out but for some reason the TMO did not see they one angle that showed it
Let's be honest the front on angle is clear too.
maybe Wayne Barnes doesn’t agree with you.
That's not me, it's the laws as published here
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/home
That’s not me, it’s the laws as published here
Well then, you are a better rugby referee than Wayne Barnes.
Congratulations.
Anything does clear it up. Grass is grounding. It is, as I said, the problem with this forensic analysis and the nuances of the refs question.
Imagine the analysis if the foot over the grass in touch had been a ball over the grass for a try.
I agree let's go back to advantage to attacking team unless compelling video evidence otherwise and although all sense would say that the foot was in touch could it be proven?
It was to close for me to get too upset at the injustice.
Fair enough, shall we move on to discussing how Antonio wasn't sent off and/or how Ryan's high no arms hit wasn't a yellow or a red?
These things are always easy to sport in slow motion, with the benefit of hindsight and while you are only focused on one thing.
I'm not excusing Wayne Barnes for anything highlighted in that video, but he is working in a highly responsible and stressful situation trying to keep an eye on many things at once that are much easier to spot when you can pause / slow a video frame by frame.
It is, as I said, the problem with this forensic analysis and the nuances of the refs question.
It's not forensic analysis. It was as Melchet would say
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gGkKFick8E8
The front on was not " clear and obvious" which is what is needed to overturn on field decision
I agree let’s go back to advantage to attacking team unless compelling video evidence otherwise and although all sense would say that the foot was in touch could it be proven?
I'm envisaging one of those LBW replay things they have in cricket. Where a detailed model is made that includes every blade of grass on the pitch and a computer rendering is done that proves that the ball did exert 0.0000000000357 N of downward force on blade of grass number 1,650,293,503.
Of course, each TMO decision will need enough time for the FEA analysis to run so games will take between 4 and 167 hours.
TJ, it reall is
but he is working in a highly responsible and stressful situation trying to keep an eye on many things at once that are much easier to spot when you can pause / slow a video frame by frame.
The game is stopped, the video ref can literally stop the images and look frame by frame. The ref is not doing anything else other than look at images. They missed looking at one angle and didn't bother with rocking a rolling the images as you see often done. It was piss poor officiating.
To me the front view was pretty obvious which is why I thought maybe grass isn't ground.
Cause otherwise I don't see how you come to any other conclusion.
Clear and obvious? Nope. Thats not how it works. Probably touched a blade of grass is not "clear and obvious"
It was piss poor officiating.
To counter - Barnes checked with his linesman/asst ref who had the best view of anyone in the stadium, he gave the thumbs up but recommended checking. That then placed the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, as it should when it initially looks like a try. At that point it needs a clear and obvious reason not to give. The front angle gives doubt, but the side one looked clear from the ground. That isn't clear and obvious. Don't forget an image on screen is two dimensions, the assistant refs' eyes aren't.
The reffing crew did their job and are being second guessed by keyboard critics and knobs on youtube who dissect games after the fact
The reffing crew did their job and are being second guessed by keyboard critics and knobs on youtube who dissect games after the fact
These are of course people who have NEVER EVER made an error in judgement, or made in incorrect decision too.
Refs decision on the field is final, sometimes it's perfectly correct sometimes it isn't, that's part of the game though, some decisions benenfit you when they shouldn't, some go against you when they shouldn't.
I don't think Barnes made a mistake. I think he saw the same thing we all did which was a toe skimming the grass.
However, I suspect what he thought was, 'I'm not going to strike off the try because his toe touched a blade of grass. Because that would be a ****'s trick, no matter what the law book says.'
There's a lot in this game that comes down to the refs interpretation of the rules. Whether that's a good thing or not, I reckon this was just another example of that and allowing the try to stand was the right decision, imo.
I don’t think Barnes made a mistake. I think he saw the same thing we all did which was a toe skimming the grass
These two sentences contradict each other.
However, I suspect what he thought was, ‘I’m not going to strike off the try because his toe touched a blade of grass. Because that would be a ****’s trick, no matter what the law book says.’
If that's the case he would have never got to the position of being a highly respected international ref. He dropped a bollock here though.
To counter – Barnes checked with his linesman/asst ref who had the best view of anyone in the stadium, he gave the thumbs up but recommended checking. That then placed the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, as it should when it initially looks like a try.
I can agree with this although as I said on the last page should the call be on field try, because my first impression was, that's in touch. Just because you see a grounding doesn't mean it should always be infield try imo.
Clear and obvious? Nope
Seriously, that doesn't obviously show foot on ground, you need an eye test mate (at least me and you get them half price!!)
Apols I agrees with bruce wee, but actually had no idea what was in the video.
I've watched in now.
FFS thats in touch all day long.
Plus he puts the ball down on the touch line at the same time as over the try line. Doesn't that count as in touch?
Anyway, thats rugby, decision made, move on. Nobody is perfect.
Changing the subject, I saw this on reddit. Amused me.
https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1120hk1/there_is_a_nonzero_chance_scotland_could_finish/
Plus he puts the ball down on the touch line at the same time as over the try line. Doesn’t that count as in touch?
Yes it does
If that’s the case he would have never got to the position of being a highly respected international ref.
Refs are rewarded for making the 'right' decision, not following the letter of the law.
If a ref ever took to the field and blew up for every infringement according to the letter of the law he would never be in charge of a big game again.
Personally I'd like to see the letter of the law followed more closely but whether that foot was in touch or not is not nearly as blatant as what you see at literally every ruck and every scrum put-in.
And before you say, 'but this was in the act of scoring a try', if you looked at every ruck a try was scored from I can almost guarantee you'd find something to penalise.
So Bruce what's the point of a video ref, we might as well not bother!
AA - Yes it does
So in that case, I call no try and I'm smarter than all of you added together so we better alert the authorities.
TJ - that is what I have been saying all month, England are crap. Lucky to beat Italy. I am the first to argue that a lot of match stats mean not much. EG Full backs that counter attack always look like they make a lot of meters but running from behind the 22 to the half way match 4 times a game can make you look awesome on paper, but it means naff all if you don't break the gain line (eg Steward, and Capuozzo to a degree).
So that tackle count thing may or may not be meaningful.
Eg what counts as a missed tackle. Look at VDM, he couldn't beat anything like the defenders vs Wales on Sat, he bounced off plenty but mostly did not make it past them, do they count as missed tackles? I am not sure because the way he bounces off them and goes back looking for a softer person to hit, even the best defenders can't complete those tackles.
However - both Italy's tries were due to easily pluggable holes in Englands defence. So the stats fit my confirmation bias. They suck.
Plus he puts the ball down on the touch line at the same time as over the try line. Doesn’t that count as in touch?
I agree that the toe of his boot has clearly touched blades of grass, if not the actual solid structure of the ground underneath. As I said at the time before seeing the third angle, clear and obvious would have been that his ankle rotates from pressure with the ground and it doesn't. But the third angle absolutely confirms his toe was in the nap of the grass, even if still above the soil.
So by the same token, on the grounding you have to be certain that the ball hasn't touched a single solitary blade of grass within the line before it touches one outside. Simple logic around the bulge of the ball to me means you can't say that with certainty, therefore you have to allow the grounding as being not a clear and obvious error.
Which is moot because it was a line out ages earlier, obvs.
So Bruce what’s the point of a video ref, we might as well not bother!
It's a good question.
Would you accept a video ref pointing out that a scrum put-in wasn't at exactly 90 degrees when asked to confirm a try scored directly from that put-in?
Refs are allowed a lot of leeway in rugby. If Barnes decides the grass doesn't count as ground it is definitely not the most egregious example of the letter of the law not being followed.
Like I said, I'd like to see the letter of the law followed but that particular try is not where I'd choose to start.
And by the way, there is no way the ball touched the whitewash before it was grounded. Not unless the ball was dumbbell shaped rather than rugby ball shaped.
England are crap. Lucky to beat Italy
Can we lay of this England are crap talk until after Wales have played them because Wales really are crap!
Would you accept a video ref pointing out that a scrum put-in wasn’t at exactly 90 degrees when asked to confirm a try scored directly from that put-in?
No, because squint put in are 'allowed' foot in touch tries are not.
Watching the games recently the 9's couldn't put the ball down the middle if they wanted to as the ref is stood in the way!
And by the way, there is no way the ball touched the whitewash before it was grounded.
I think that is a genuine tough call where bod should go to attacker, I wonder if looking at that took the attention away from the foot in touch element.
Can we go back and review this one using the same tmo? 🙂
No, because squint put in are ‘allowed’ foot in touch tries are not.
They're accepted, not allowed.
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/19
15. f. - Straight. The scrum-half may align their shoulder on the middle line of the scrum, thereby standing a shoulder-width closer to their side of the scrum.
Refs have collectively decided not to enforce that particular law and allow angled put-ins.
Wayne Barnes seems to have accepted toes skimming grass as being OK, even if it's not allowed.
I know the picture's another foot in touch example but look at the try line, it's not even flat.
If he touched the ball down in line with his right knee or cock there's grass sticking up like a cowfield. The ball could be well back and still brushing the whitewashed blades.
Halfway between there's a depression and he'd have to be that bit further forward to trigger the grassometer.
This variability is making the game a farce. The sooner it's transferred to pressure sensitive green baize the better.
Seriously, that doesn’t obviously show foot on ground, you need an eye test mate (at least me and you get them half price!!)
Certainly looks like it. Equally, I've seen clearly grounded "catches" in cricket, when shown front on. Take a side on view and you see the catch was clean.
5plus8 I think it hardly likely scotland will beat both France and ireland by 17 pts! would be nice tho
I think the other angle shows it clearly in touch. the front on one is not "clear and obvious" which is what is needed to change the on field decision
its a mistake tho
last season everyone was complaining about how long TMO referrals were taking so this year they have tried to speed it up - this is the result
Mistakes get made
This forum is great, a page of discussion if the grass is officially classified as the ground…..
First angle; foot in touch, second not, third unseen by Barnes at the time. Now can we move onto the suggestion the Lamb-lovers may go on strike instead of playing England?
I read that England would win 5 points by default. That would be very boring. We should run the u21s or the women instead.
Lamb-lovers may go on strike instead of playing England?
Seems a good idea.
Gwladrugby
Everybody out
Things are bad.
Things are really bad.
The year 2023 will, in all likelihood, prove to be a watershed year for the Welsh Rugby Union.
We have so far seen accusations of rampant sexism, racism and misogyny levelled at the Union. The Chief Executive, Steve Phillips, eventually bowed to the inevitable and resigned. The new acting CEO, Nigel Walker, and Ieuan Very Much So Evans – the cosmic void currently, for want of a better term, chairing the WRU – were hauled before a Senedd committee. Yesterday, homophobia was added to the list. And more misogyny, for good measure.
These many and varied abominations are the subject of a welcome external inquiry, to be led by Dame Anne Rafferty.
So, the WRU have probably had better years than 2023.
And it’s only February 14th, for pity’s sake.
That’s enough for one decade, surely?
Well, as a matter of fact, it isn’t. Not by a long shot.
Bubbling under the appalling tales of the mistreatment of WRU staff and others was the ongoing saga of the tortuous negotiations aimed at securing a new, six-year agreement on the financing of the elite game in Wales from 1 July 2023.
Rumbling on for a year and more, they were due to reach a conclusion in December 2022 (just after the sacking of the national men’s team coach after a series of poor results). Then they would definitely be resolved within days of being finalised (just after the BBC Wales Investigates programme which exposed much of the culture which had been rotting the WRU from the head down for decades).
They haven’t reached a conclusion, although Heads of Terms were signed which would allow the professional clubs to offer conditional contracts to some players.
Conditional. Dependent on the final agreement.
Meanwhile, it is estimated that comfortably over 70 players are out of contract in Wales this summer. That’s another four months of salary, of security, of certainty. And then…who knows.
Players are now starting to break cover.
If a report carried in today’s Daily (cough) Mail (yes, sorry about that, and no, I’m not going to link to it) is to be believed (yes, in the Daily Mail), the draft agreement is so appalling, so egregious, and so typical of the WRU’s “we own you…know your place” worldview, that it confirms the suspicion that there is a consistently nasty thread running through the WRU’s treatment of anybody who isn’t an old white man in a gravy-stained WRU blazer.
Some senior players – speaking anonymously – spoke of the effect of the endless prevarication over the new framework. One was taking anti-depressants. Another had been unable to secure a mortgage. Another, now based outside Wales but a regular Test player, said that he had no desire to come back to Wales to play. Another said that he had never known it to be this bad. Yet another had put his home up for sale and had moved back in with his parents as he couldn’t risk keeping a roof over his head in the current climate.
Astonishingly, amidst the chaos, the agreement also apparently has a clause which allows the WRU to fine a professional club “…if they let someone who is in Gatland’s 36-man player of national interest group move on”.
Which is just about the most amazing thing I’ve ever read. One business feels it is entitled to fine another business if an employee of that second business moves on?
This is insane.
The draft agreement as it is surely cannot stand.
The Union will either reform and survive, or it will die. And, with it, the game of rugby union as – if not quite the national sport of Wales, since football has always held that mantle – perhaps a sport which has a sometimes unique hold on the hearts of its people.
For now, the players – through the Welsh Rugby Players Association – are scheduled to meet, where all options, including a strike ahead of the England game, are to be considered.
There can be few genuine supporters of the game in Wales who would not have the greatest sympathy with the players. They are being expected to put their bodies on the line with the real possibility of being thrown on the scrapheap in four months.
The Welsh Rugby Blazer fears little. His spot at the trough is guaranteed, through thick and thin, as those who were in Edinburgh last weekend would attest. The one thing he – and yes, it is always a he – fears is the ridicule of a fellow blazer.
Having to cancel a shindig around the England game and missing out on a night at the trough might just be enough to sharpen a few minds.
One player, described as a Six Nations squad member, said: “I can’t believe I’m five months away from the end of my contract and eight months away from the World Cup and my future isn’t certain yet.
“I can’t apply for a mortgage and I’m on antidepressants. I’m also one big injury away from not having a job in July, yet I’m starting for Wales every week and the WRU is making tens of millions from international matches.”
But apart from that everything is fine?
They do seem to love a drama in Wales 🙂
if not quite the national sport of Wales, since football has always held that mantle
Not sure I agree with that...maybe it depends what part of Wales you come from
if not quite the national sport of Wales, since football has always held that mantle
Not sure I agree with that…maybe it depends what part of Wales you come from
I think as a National sport, hence considering the whole nation, football is the number one sport in Wales. ie the one most people are most passionate about.
However, imho international rugby brings Wales together as a nation, more than football . This is due to Wales’ success and the regularity of the 6Nations and its accessibility on terrestrial TV. With the shitshow the WRU is in, this may not go on for much longer.
They do seem to love a drama in Wales
I think the fact that the region's have not been told budgets, if a region is to be disbanded or which region it would be and they cannot sign players or renew contracts which expire in a few months is reason to be alarmed. Meanwhile players who sign for teams outside Wales cannot play for Wales unless they have 60 caps. If this isn't resolved and resolved fast the regions will be decimated and they are already shit. Kalamifoni has left Scarlets to go to Div 2 in France FFS, he's pretty much Scarlets best player. Rowlands is leaving Dragons, he's there best player. Cardiff are losing the very promising Max Llewellyn with Jarod Evans and Liam Williams looking like going. Meanwhile Ospreys are the region looking most likely to be folded and so who would even sign a contract with them even if they could, it looks like Nicky Smith is off
Is one of the issues not that the stumbling block is the salary cap? I think Wales online reported it as £270k? For all the clubs going bust you can top that easily in the Prem if you are an international. Add in the fact that you are at the peak of your earning potential when reaching your mid to late 20's while probably not quite at 60 caps. Wyn Jones; 31, Lion and established international; 46 caps. You then have a decision to make if a player in a short career. That seemed very one-eyed to me when it was introduced as it suggested a significant detachment from any understanding of market forces. One thing the SRU got right was recognising that we were wee paying fish in a big pool and being happy to pay the odd release fee. Plus, what improves you as a player? Premiership or playing Munster 2xv?
Is one of the issues not that the stumbling block is the salary cap? I think Wales online reported it as £270k
In the short term I think being completely unable to sign a contract at all is the bigger issue. The cap is tiered as far as I recall depending on international caps or whatever..not sure if details. The bottom.line is, if we can't retain our best players with competitive salaries we should then compound the issue by not being able to select them for Wales.