You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
And if no ruck, there’s no offside line!
AA – one way to tell who is right the ref or you. Lets see if he is cited? all I am doing is explaining to you why the ref thought it not a penalty.
Again your limited understanding of the game does not line up with your love of a good argument. He can only be cited if it was a potential red card, not forca pen and/or yellow. Its not a clear red imo and the citing bods are usually pretty loath to come out against refs in tight calls.
Anyway you should read this, theres even a video to make it easy for you to understand.
https://www.world.rugby/news/213339?lang=en
AA – have a read of those rules on when a ruck ends. The fact the England player goes off his feet doesn’t end it.
Correct, it starts it. What you are having trouble understanding is the law change following The Hasks being confused by Italy makes the NZ players feet the offside line fir England as the ruck is formed when an NZ (or English but not in this case) is engaged over the ball irrespective of an opposition actions.
All joking aside, did we agree that by the letter of the law, he was onside?
If they were playing by the letter of the law then there would have been a penalty awarded at the disputed ruck, and Lawes position would have been irrelevant.
AA - if it was foul play leading to contact with the head as you suggest then its a red card. In which case if you are right its a citing and a ban. Or if the ref ( not me - I am merely explaining what the ref saw / did) then no citing.
It was posted on the last page TJ, reckless contact with head is minimum yellow so no citing is needed. No citing will not prove your point.
Can you explain how it is not reckless head contact?
A player is deemed to have made reckless contact during a tackle or attempted tackle or during other phases of the game if in making contact, the player knew or should have known that there was a risk of making contact with the head of an opponent, but did so anyway. This sanction applies even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. This type of contact also applies to grabbing and rolling/ twisting around the head/ neck area even if the contact starts below the line of the shoulders.</p>
<p class=”penalty”><b>Minimum sanction:</b> Yellow card
Do they, I know Folau is a ****, but always thought SBW seemed like a good bloke.
Anyone who can p1ss off Dave Warner is alright in my book (what is it about AB's and toilet shenanigans?
AA - do you leave a link on the rules stating that? The world rugby site, including recent amendments is as I linked above.
I’ve just read the rule updates - it doesn’t change the definition of offside line for each team, just when a tackle is made.
’ve just read the rule updates – it doesn’t change the definition of offside line for each team
It must do because a ruck has an offside line for both teams that doesnt involve those on the floor. So if a ruck can be made up of 1 team over a tackled player of their team where the tackler rolled way where would the offside line be. It may not be written but its a matter of logic.
Lawes was clearly offside thats why the ref and the tmo pinged him having looked at the evidence.
https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=20&language=EN
Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the ruck participants’ hindmost foot. If that foot is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.
Doesnt matter which teams foot!
https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=15
I’ve just read the clarification on that rule. The new amendment was purely to address the “no offside line in an uncontested tackle” incident
https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarification_era=onward&clarlaw=15&clarification=1025
Once an opposing player arrives a ruck is formed, and the original rules of hindmost foot for each team” once again apply. The rules clearly state hindmost foot of your own team. It’s underneath Para 4 in your link above.
Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the ruck participants’ hindmost foot. If that foot is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.
Doesnt mention each teams hindmost foot. Say ruck participants hindmost foot, ie the NZ player who was in front of the offside Lawes.
Follow the link above, para4, then picture. Below the picture is clarification, and it says “Player on the same team” drawing 2 lines, 1 for each team.
England didn't lose because of Lawes being offside/not offside. They lost because, despite having a 15pt lead, favourable conditions and a full house behind them - they couldn't put the All Blacks away.
Can anyone explain why Hartley was subbed? He'd played well for the first 40. He's one of the best linout throwers in the game. Our lineout fell apart in the 2nd half. It's not all down to the thrower but a couple of lost ones definitely were.
This has happened before. Hartley throwing in perfectly and then the lineout failing apart after he's gone off.
Agreed re Hartley.....I'd go as far as saying he is the games best lineout thrower....and he was probably having his best game in 18 months. I said it at the time....we should have kicked the 3 points.
Hartley had a hand / thumb injury
Give Retalick ( sp) some credit - he red the throws well and got up high in front of the catcher
Namaste - I agree - as stated above , not questioning the result - it was merely a technically interesting discussion about the latest incarnations of the back foot law.
Give Retalick ( sp) some credit – he read the throws well and got up high in front of the catcher
Indeed. Probably the world's best player. Not dissing the AB's lineout, They obviously figured out England's lineout and capitalised but George definitely contributed too.
George’s throwing was irrelevant, the Times has a whole feature on how New Zealand jumpers cheated and the penalties England should have been given. And that is just in the second half. Biggest robbery since that nasty Welsh scrum cheated their way to a grand slam...Honestly; where does this come from?
Follow the link above, para4, then picture. Below the picture is clarification, and it says “Player on the same team” drawing 2 lines, 1 for each team.
But a ruck was changed so it could be 1 team only as per the text which I quoted. Lawes was offside
<h2 class="">Law 16: Amended Ruck Law</h2>
<p class="">A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler). At this point the offside line is created. A player on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives no hands can be used.</p>
If the tacker rolls away a team can be over their own player on the floor and its a ruck does this mean the defending team has no offside line?
The link you are using must be out of date as it describes a ruck as
A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
Which is not correct anymore, the laws are clearly, not clear or not uptodate on their own site.
No, actually that wording was clarified and amended following an application from ARU to clarify the interpretation - pasted below.
As you can see, it states the ruck law is now rule 15, not 16, so your link above is out of date.
<h1>Clarification 2 2018</h1>
<div class="clarification_title">Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee</div>
<div class="clarification_name">Clarification</div>
<div class="clarification_data">2-2018</div>
<div></div>
<div class="clarification_name">Union / HP Ref Manager</div>
<div class="clarification_data">ARU</div>
<div></div>
<div class="clarification_name">Law Reference</div>
<div class="clarification_data">15</div>
<div></div>
<div class="clarification_name">Date</div>
<div class="clarification_data">17 April 2018</div>
<div></div>
<div class="clarification_request_title">Request</div>
<div class="clarification_request">
I refer to your recent correspondence with Rugby AU General Counsel Mr. Patrick Eyers regarding Rugby AU’s request for clarification of World Rugby’s Law Variation Trial with respect to Law 16, Amended Ruck Law (Law 15 as of 1 January 2018):
<i>“A ruck commences when at least one player is on their feet andover the ball which is on the ground (tackled player, tackler). At this point the offside line is created. A player on their feet may use their hands to pick up the ball as long as this is immediate. As soon as an opposition player arrives no hands can be used.”</i>
Specifically, Rugby AU is seeking clarity on its understanding that the Law creating offside lines when the first arriving player gets over the ball was intended solely to address the “no offside lines at a tackle” issue, and that it wasnot intended to modify the way the ball was contested at the breakdown. That is:
- the first arriving player from the defending team can always go directlyfor the ball with hands if there is a window to do so; and
- if the player has to drive an attacking player away first in order toaccess the ball, then no hands can be used.
Rugby Australia is seeking a formal World Rugby Law clarification on the above to help aid a broader understanding of this trial law and its application across the game.
</div>
<div class="clarification_clarification_title">Clarification of the designated members of the Rugby Committee</div>
<div class="clarification_clarification">
Your assumptions in all three questions are correct ie:
- The Law creating offside lines when the first arriving player gets over the ball wasintended solely to address the “no offside lines at a tackle” issue, and that it wasnot intended to modify the way the ball was contested at the breakdown
- The first arriving player from the defending team can always go directly for theball with hands if there is a window to do so
- If the player has to drive an attacking player away first in order to access the ball,then no hands can be used.
<h4>Addendum</h4>
The Fifteens Law Review Group met on Monday 16 April and agreed to bring the Ruck law trial into full law. They also agreed on the following simplified and more logical wording of the law:
Offside lines are created when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
It is hoped that this revised wording will help resolve the questions that you raise.
</div>
So basically, 2 phases :
1. offside lines now created in the tackle, regardless of opposition involvement.
2. Ruck formed when players from both teams are in contact, then standard ruck rules apply, back feet of each team.
the Times has a whole feature on how New Zealand jumpers cheated
Could you enlighten the non Times readers amongst us?
By Ben Kay.
Eng lost 3 lineouts.
First one Brad Shields has his arm taken out in the air - should have been a pen.
George called for Dummying. It wasn’t a dummy as his arm never came forward.
Retallick jumped across the line to steal landing on top of Sinckler - pen England.
He says Eng actually adapted well to a change in NZ Lineout defence but officials let them down.
So basically.....
Lawes was offside!
World rugby have said the Lawes decision was correct - both in the way it was arrived at and as to the actual decision.
Lawes being offside is irrelevant because we should have taken he three points on offer earlier in the game which would have cancelled out the previous AB score.
It does highlight that we need to work on our handling because when we were building pressure we got a bit excited and screwed things up.
Overall im not that disappointed because I had zero hopes! What we need to do is play like that for the next two matches.
I agree, the refs decision is final, you win rugby by creating and executing. We mucked some of that up and did not have enough margin to absorb the noise in the signal to noise ratio of refereeing accuracy.
I am also pleased, was an excellent game to watch and gives more hope then despondency.
Lots of peeps saying NZ team is not very good, there seems to be a correlation between NZ fielding a poor side and when ever they play England.
That being the case, which England players of Saturdays game would any of you lot rather have in your side than the corresponding All Black?
I will say that whilst Kieran Reid is a leviathan of the game, you would have him in your side always, I am convinced he developed a McCaw like leadership streak. Yet.
So which of the home nations is happiest so far from the AIs & where do we all sit for the 6N?
I am NOT convinced he HAS developed a McCaw like leadership streak.
I need a skills check...
So which of the home nations is happiest so far from the AIs & where do we all sit for the 6N?
I'm happy - as long as England continue to Elevate themselves in that manner and don't slump. Whilst as about there's clearly some learning to do about the on field decision making, England played well in the main and in all but the result took it to the AB's and outplayed them on the day.
I don't agree with the travel/weakend AB's. You are what you are on the day and we had a weakened team also. 3rd choice 8 and 6, 2nd&3rd choice props, a shaky full back and a ponderous out of sorts 12.
For once Jones got it right and hopefully he sees the in form positional play coming back into the team (Sinckler, Simmons) and adding value for the 6N. Watson will be back soon, so Watson, Nowell, May, Ashton, Daly quite a good selection at the back. Slade looked good on Saturday, add Manu as a finisher and I think our strike potential is growing. The Vunipola's back at the front and that area gets escalated. Laws played well, and Launchbury is back over Christmas also.
I think that has the makings of a strong England team, also with some good depth that can continue to get tested against the lesser teams such as Scotland and Italy. 😉
Dantsw
for Scotland the jury is still out
Against Wales we learnt that without the experienced 9 and 10 we struggle
Against Fiji we learnt we can put away tier 2 teams well.
Positives - a couple more players showing they are worth a place in the side thus giving us more options - Nice to see Stauss back as a bulldozering 8, Ritchie looks a good back up 7, Skinner looks a good addition at lock where we could do with more options. Centres still remains an issue as so many are broken
Until we have played a tier one team with our full team available we won't really know where we stand.
Wales have won two games, thats good, they havent created much, thats bad. Overall I think they are playing at about the level we want to be pleased. We still lack carriers in the pack and get round it but just tackling all day long.
Until we have played a tier one team with our full team available we won’t really know where we stand.
If the teams weakened due to injuries, that's just tough, it's the way it goes. All team always have injuries. You'll see Krytons list above, that's a fair number of players out for England, it just needs to be managed. I know the immediate response is 'England have more playing resources' but that's just how it is, I predict there will never be a day that Scotland actually have all 22 of their first choice players fully fit and available.
I’m awaiting the Ire v NZ game with interest. I don’t follow the pro14, so don’t see their domestic rugby week in week out, but their form in Europe looks ominous.
I listened to an interview with George North on 5 Live podcast this week - it was a damning inditement on the amount of rugby players in the English Prem are expected to play, which must play a big part in our long injury list.
AA didn’t see the match but I assume the roof was closed against Aus, so weather not a factor? What was the reason for the low score? Lack of ambition or just defences on top?
TJ - I think Scotland will always struggle for consistency with their new attacking style. When it clicks it’s great, but you are becoming the New France!
tinybits - yes injuries are a part of the game but for the wales game we were missing our first choice 9 and 10 as it was outside the international window thus they were not released to play and the lack of experience in both those positions told. I think we would have coped with losing one of the two but to lose both meant a lack of leadership and cutting edge which we saw in the game.
No player is irreparable and yes you have to cope without injured players but missing the experienced spine of the team ( 8 as well ) weakened us considerably.
So when we play SA with both these guys available plus strauss or denton in the back row plus Hogg back from injury we should be better
Edit - my point being that we do not know yet how we will be against tier one opposition when we can select non scots based players. Will we be the team who capitulated to Wales last year or the team that spanked Aus
What was the reason for the low score? Lack of ambition or just defences on top?
Defences were on top, Aus tried to run it but Wales defended very well, wales were always leading really so didnt need to push it. The ref was quick to ping for holding on which never helps and he didnt expect the tackler to release before going for the ball. Wales played the welsh way, give the opposition the ball and then defend...
Wales played the welsh way, give the opposition the ball and then defend.
I think you stole that idea from England.
Well, was happily surprised on Saturday but also, sadly, was correct in some of my predictions 🙁
Positives first, for the first 35 England looked ferocious. I don't believe it was an under-strength/jet-lagged/whatever ABs (just look at the second half), they were simply outplayed and pressurised.
This was in no small part down to Youngs and Farrell. The forwards made the yards and big the hard work with Youngs being the best I've seem from him in a while. Really fast to/from rucks and lightning fast delivery to runners at pace. Gave Farrell time to make the right calls and passes. Great box kicking.
Ashton got a nice try for his first game back.
Underhill is the new Mad-Dog.
Moon impressed.
Pack were animals.
Negatives,
Youngs reverted to type after the first 35. Massively slow, let the pressure off the ABs, box kicks became a bit aimless, no runners at pace.
Subbing of Hartley really damaged the lineout (although due to injury). Not all Georges fault as the ABs piled on the pressure at lineout time but does make you wonder what might have been if the sub had been later...
Barely heard from Ashton and Teo after the first 10.
Daly, while doing not a lot wrong, is wasted at fullback.
Lineout calls not changed enough when it started to creak.
Second half ABs did school us, they looked dangerous as hell, when the pressure wasn't put on them like the first half.
All in all, a good shift and an impressive game from the men in white.
Men in black showed their class as the didn't crumble. Fantastic game if you happen to be a neutral!
Barely heard from Ashton and Teo after the first 10.
Teo messed up his man marking which, had he not done, may have prevented the McKensie try. He bought their play big time. I hope it is a mistake and not a permanent flaw as some of his carries and midfield defence were good.
Edit - I might be thinking of Slade actually, I am having a hard time trying to find decent footage.
edit 2 defo slade.. tackled Barrett when he should have been marking McKensie and I think Farrell was on to Barrett.Slade got in his way.
I think you stole that idea from England.
England like to keep the ball as they have lots of carriers for heavy traffic, Wales dont. Both teams are pretty dull though, much like Ireland.
Underhill is the new Mad-Dog.
You know, Moody was in the ground. I did wonder whether Jones has used him in training to work with Simmonds or had him in the changing room pre-match when I saw Simmons performance.
Simmons hard earned that shirt though, I can't wait to see Simmons V Hooper.
You know, Moody was in the ground. I did wonder whether Jones has used him in training to work with Simmonds or had him in the changing room pre-match when I saw Simmons performance.
Simmons hard earned that shirt though, I can’t wait to see Simmons V Hooper.
Simmons was not on the pitch. do you mean Underhill?
Just seen that Gary Graham has decided that he’s Scottish again having declared for England previously despite being ‘Scottish through and through’...
Mindmap, has he played a proper test match for England? seems a weird one that, especially as the one thing we have is plenty back row forwards.
for the first 35 England looked ferocious. I don’t believe it was an under-strength/jet-lagged/whatever ABs (just look at the second half), they were simply outplayed and pressurised.
If I had NZ$5 for every time Wales had started well against the All Blacks only for them to roll up their sleeves and show us who's boss in the second half, I'd have enough for a decent meal out.
show us who’s boss
That wasn't the case with England though.
So which of the home nations is happiest so far from the AIs
I'm pleased with Wales' performance mentally, because so often they seem to lack the concentration and mental stamina to close a game out. The fans start getting panicky at 70 mins with a slim lead, and I think the players do too. Except that match was the first time I've seen them look like they could carry it through. As an armchair fan I thought the Welsh defence was outstanding - but then I fully accept that some other team might find a different attacking option and run straight through.
show us who’s boss
That wasn’t the case with England though.
Agreed in terms of score, and that was the surprise. Still lost tho 🙂
Youngs had a better game but even in that first 35 was hit or miss. Some great box kicks, some great delivery, great pass, but a lot of indifferent stuff. There's nothing scary about seeing Youngs in the lineup. He's neither a commander nor a live wire like he was when he first broke in to the team. Doesn't matter though when the pack are immense and Farrell kicks his penalties (when not going for the corner).
Te'o has always been a liability in defense. There was a great video showing his and Slade's instincts in defense and they aren't singing from the same hymn sheet.
The backs are always going to be pretty irrelevant to an English side so it is hard to criticise the others involvement. The free flowing rugby in Argentina seems like an age away when going back in the old direction
Pack was devastating at the start. You feel that any team needs to put about 30 points on the AB's when they have a surge on top and they would have easily done that against any other side. You can only applaud NZ for that. Underhill was an animal but will he receive an honourary 6.5 short like so many before him?
I’m pleased with Wales’ performance mentally, because so often they seem to lack the concentration and mental stamina to close a game out.
I think that aspect has been overrated compared to weak bench options compared to the teams we are trying to beat. Saturday we had a number of options off the bench who we arguably stronger than the starters.
@DanW - The Youngs of the first half, while not perfect, was a damn sight better than I've seem him for a while. And I've never been Te'o's biggest fan, but when he plays well puts big dents in the gain line, just doesn't seem to be happening at the moment, maybe due to not enough game time!
While glad Ashton got his score, I cant help but think Jones played him too soon. Having Nowell and May on from the start (1 <span style="font-size: 12.8px;">strength 1 </span><span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">speed) then bringing Ashton on when the legs started to get heavy would have been a better tactic IMO (although with hindsight he wouldn't have got the ball much due to momentum shift to the ABs)</span>
The Youngs of the first half
Had front foot ball, second half he didnt, simple really
Had front foot ball, second half he didnt, simple really
Does this mean the forwards were on the front foot so he had ball time whilst the AB's were reorganising their defensive line?
FYI my comment about England giving the ball away and then defended was meant to be ironic, I am sure they like to keep it, but against SA we had naff all possession, and I don't think that was the game plan.
Are you saying wales game plan is to give up possession and defend? Or were you being ironic too? I think Wales always look ****ing dangerous ball in hand.
I think Wales always look **** dangerous ball in hand
You've been to Specsavers in Cardiff high st, obviously.
Some teams like to kick away everything in their own half and defend, some like to holfd the ball. I thought ( from the bits I saw) england kicked far too much ball away. However its the ABs who actually do this most. ~Wales also play like that. You can guarantee if you kick deep from a kickoff to wales they will kick it back. safety first.
Scotland always look to attack first everytime they get the ball and only kick if the attack is not on. High risk high reward. sometimes it works and sometimes they get turned over near their own line.and look foolish.
Murray and Henshaw confirmed as out for the rest of the AI’s. Can’t help feeling that Ireland’s task has just got lot a harder on Saturday without Murray.
Are you saying wales game plan is to give up possession and defend?
Pretty much yes, they kick long avoiding touch and pressure the opposition. Often you see a fair bit of kick tennis in welsh games as the opposition kick it back trying to force an error, Wales usually just boot it back long again. In previous years Biggar would chase a high ball which he is excellent at, without him its just more long balls down the middle and trust the defence. Wales only try and play once they have possession inside the opponents 10m line.
Does this mean the forwards were on the front foot so he had ball time whilst the AB’s were reorganising their defensive line?
Pretty much, nines and tens always look better when the pack is getting over the gainline. This is why many people used to think Dawson was a better 9 than Howley as Dawson played in a better team with a brutal pack in front of him.
You’ve been to Specsavers in Cardiff high st, obviously.
Well they have stomped us plenty of times by playing scary attacking rugby.
I am just hoping for more scenes like this this season!
Edit
that was supposed to be the clip of laidlaw pished singing flower of scotland! shonky forum !
try again
What is Greenwood on? Explains why it was offside but thinks it was too marginal to be given???
What is Greenwood on?
the payroll of Skyspurts, say no more.
TJ to the forum please!!!!!
Hogg confirmed as off south to Exeter. Big signing for them and hoped he’ll fit in well with their backs.
Kruis is broken and out of the AI’s. Will Jone s start with Itoje and Lawes? Or will he look to add some grunt via the likes of Atwood I wonder?
The press are really dining out on Lawes’ offside. Let it go, the ref said no try, end of. ThTs not why we lost the match; we lost because we didn’t take the point of offer and build the score and pressure.
Eddie Jones in the paper today saying England do a public service to the other home nations by providing them with players....then he went off to coach Brad Shields.
Just listened to Matt Dawson & Shane Horgan on the 5Live podcast. I really like Horgan as a pundit - talks a lot of sense.
Eddie Jones in the paper today saying England do a public service to the other home nations by providing them with players….
(Not 'shopped!)
The news feed on my phone seems to be full of Trump antics, drunk people ranting on planes and Eddie Jones quotes... and I'm struggling to tell the difference between them to be honest
Eddie Jones is, and always has been, a tit.
us englanders are unpopular enough without that penarse adding to it!
Scotland team for SA
15. Stuart Hogg VICE CAPTAIN (Glasgow Warriors) – 63 caps
14. Tommy Seymour (Glasgow Warriors) – 45 caps
13. Huw Jones (Glasgow Warriors) – 17 caps
12. Pete Horne (Glasgow Warriors) – 37 caps
11. Sean Maitland (Saracens) – 35 caps
10. Finn Russell (Racing 92) – 38 caps
9. Greig Laidlaw CAPTAIN (Clermont Auvergne) – 64 caps
1. Gordon Reid (London Irish) – 32 caps
2. Stuart McInally VICE CAPTAIN (Edinburgh) – 20 caps
3. Willem Nel (Edinburgh) – 24 caps
4. Ben Toolis (Edinburgh) – 13 caps
5. Jonny Gray (Glasgow Warriors) – 45 caps
6. Sam Skinner (Exeter Chiefs) – 1 cap
7. Hamish Watson (Edinburgh) – 21 caps
8. Ryan Wilson (Glasgow Warriors) – 39 caps
Substitutes:
16. Fraser Brown (Glasgow Warriors) – 36 caps
17. Allan Dell (Edinburgh) – 15 caps
18. Simon Berghan (Edinburgh) – 12 caps
19. Josh Strauss (Sales Sharks) – 15 caps
20. Jamie Ritchie (Edinburgh) – 4 caps
21. Ali Price (Glasgow Warriors) – 18 caps
22. Adam Hastings (Glasgow Warriors) – 5 caps
23. Chris Harris (Newcastle Falcons) – 5 caps
Shrek ( Reid) gets a start - no one saw that coming! The toonbola turns again!
Will be an interesting game. SA are a big physical team which is often the Scottish undoing, but they are certainly beatable. Thedays of easy wins for SH teams in Nov seem gone. The gap has closed and the SH players look knackered.
Aye - and Toonie is clearly using these 4 games to try out combinations and to blood players so not playing his strongest team every game. Its all about building for the world cup. I think we will see Hastings at 12 at some point and Skinner will go to lock in place of toolis with Bluto ( strauss) coming on at 50 mins to run hard at the SA midfield
I do like the way you get in SA look knackered - just getting your excuses in first in case Scotland win? 😉 After all we know despite Scotlands decent record against SH sides they only beat knackered and weakened SH sides 😉 After all there must be some reason why Scotland can beat SA and Aus but Wales cannot
I suspect that scots midfield is too lightweight and so is the back row. speed V power again!
We have this fast and loose gameplan which suits the players and gets wins but against SA we decide to go toe to toe.
We should run them ragged for 60mins then apply the pressure.
I think that is the plan as its a light and pacy scots team. I suspect the game plan is pretty much that - Bluto to add the beef in the last 25 mins and a very powerful front row on the bench
But who knows given its townsend selecting. He seems to find it irresistible to throw in a few oddities here and there.
Jeepers - just realised its 8 years since we beat SA. Gawd I am getting old mutter mumble years fly by mutter mumble