Bath
PRODIGAL PROCESSION? 2023 SEASON PLAYOFFS
McCall: destiny?
By PG Tips
May 9 2023
This year’s Gallagher Premiership playoffs bring together three of “the usual suspects” from last season. Sale in place of Harlequins is the only change and one not unexpected since the first weeks of this campaign. Saracens though are league leaders as they have been for most of the season. Five points clear of their nearest rivals and fifteen above third placed Leicester, they must be firm favourites. Will it therefore be a procession for the prodigals from North London?
Three of the semi finalists – Saracens, Sale and Leicester -have built success on a similar style of game founded on “the basics”: strong defence, strong set piece and a pragmatic territorial kicking game. Northampton Saints, fourth in the table, have a more open approach and are the competitions leading try scorers.
Saints have won 11 of the 20 games that count for the table (results involving Wasps and Worcester have been expunged)- a disappointing return for their attacking intent. Their reward for making the top 4 is a trip to the StoneX to meet a Saracens outfit which has notched 15 victories, despite being heavily denuded during international periods and fielding second string squads for two recent ties. One of those was at Franklin’s Gardens where they lost, a result they will be determined to correct on Saturday. With Mako Vunipola, George, Itoje, Earl, Farrell, Goode and co restored to the starting team, I expect them to be too accurate, too ruthless and too strong all round for Saints. Ludlam, Lawes, Mitchell, Finn Smith and Freeman can all inspire Saints in attack but defence is their Achilles heel. Top try scorers (84) they may be, but they have let in 86, a number only exceeded by 11th placed Newcastle Falcons.
The other semi is tougher to call and could be a much closer contest. Again, one team, the hosts will have the defensive edge. Sale have conceded only 53 tries all season 13 superior to Tigers and even 11 better than table topping Saracens. This is the product of an aggressive, claustrophobic defence which they employ as an attacking weapon. The brutality of their blitz provides much of their possession on turnover, which is swiftly kicked for territory or used in stinging counter- attack. Leicester are capable of a similar style and their pack (Montoya, Cole, Chessum, Liebenberg, Wiese) could blunt Sale’s (Rudd, van der Merwe, L Du Preez, the Currys and Ross) so cancelling each other out. With a choice of internationals at scrum half, Kelly, Steward and Watson to spearhead their attack, they will travel in hope. They could face a Sale backline without Tuilagi who took a knock last week, but should themselves be missing Ashton, red carded on his last outing. Key man in this fixture could be George Ford, recently returned from injury to direct Sale’s tactics. If he stays fit, the home side should prevail.
So, who of the four will lift the trophy in Twickenham on 27 May? For all Northampton’s adventure and Leicester’s grit, it is hard to see beyond two home wins this weekend. That should set up a Saracens v Sale finale in TW17. Saracens, who have won every one of their home Premiership games, are undoubtedly the strongest club in England at present. That may not be a popular view, not just for their disgrace for financial irregularity a few seasons ago, but also for the grinding ruthlessness of their game style. That ruthlessness has been gilded and, in no small way aided, by cynicism and brutality that is borderline dangerous. In a physical, often gladiatorial game, half measures are simply not enough. Successful teams push boundaries to the limits. It is up to officials to keep them within bounds and, let’s be honest, Saracens are not the first champion club to have been indulged by referees. Leicester and before them Wasps got away with skulduggery visible to spectators but seldom noticed by those with the whistle.
To their stifling, smothering defensive game Saracens have added a new dimension of multi-phase attack which at its best is a joy to watch. I expect them to progress efficiently to Twickenham where Mark McCall’s men will meet opponents seemingly moulded by Alex Sanderson in their own image. That could be a fascinating tussle, but I expect Saracens to fulfil their destiny in a proud prodigal return.
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
StumbleuponPRODIGAL PROCESSION? 2023 SEASON PLAYOFFS
Discussion started by Comeonmylovers.co.uk (IP Logged), 09/05/2023 08:12
09/05/2023 08:12
What do you think? You can have your say by posting below.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:06:02:08:23:33 by CoochieCoo.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:06:02:08:23:33 by CoochieCoo.
Excellent write up as always P G.
I expect it will be far from the procession one might think. I expect and fear that at least one Finals game will be significantly impacted by a card given the wrong way. The much wished for clarity never arrived in recent months and the ERCC showed teams being knocked out after incorrectly given cards and others going through with red cards missed. It's too big a factor not to take into consideration.
I don't think anyone SFs team will take anything for granted but must admit that last season I felt fairly confident that Sarries would beat the old version of Sarries gameplan that Tigers were playing ... well that was wrong and tbh the score flattered Sarries will watch from behind a sofa if I can drag one to the StoneX.
Interested in your other comment: "brutality that is borderline dangerous"
I can think of several teams I'd apply that too including ones in the current Premiership but I don't see Sarries being one of them. Would be interesting what sort of thing you're thinking about.
Agree about cynicism/street smarts but that's the way the game is played I guess.
Hopefully we'll get a couple of good SFs and a Final regardless of who gets there.
I expect it will be far from the procession one might think. I expect and fear that at least one Finals game will be significantly impacted by a card given the wrong way. The much wished for clarity never arrived in recent months and the ERCC showed teams being knocked out after incorrectly given cards and others going through with red cards missed. It's too big a factor not to take into consideration.
I don't think anyone SFs team will take anything for granted but must admit that last season I felt fairly confident that Sarries would beat the old version of Sarries gameplan that Tigers were playing ... well that was wrong and tbh the score flattered Sarries will watch from behind a sofa if I can drag one to the StoneX.
Interested in your other comment: "brutality that is borderline dangerous"
I can think of several teams I'd apply that too including ones in the current Premiership but I don't see Sarries being one of them. Would be interesting what sort of thing you're thinking about.
Agree about cynicism/street smarts but that's the way the game is played I guess.
Hopefully we'll get a couple of good SFs and a Final regardless of who gets there.
Quote:OldMarovian
Interested in your other comment: "brutality that is borderline dangerous"
I can think of several teams I'd apply that too including ones in the current Premiership but I don't see Sarries being one of them.
I fear you may be in a minority of one, OM.
... IMHO, of course.
Now in Honolulu
TBF OM, mostly I am thinking of (quite recent) past players. Jacques Burger, Schalk Burger, Calum Clark and Brad Barritt all favoured a high swinging-arm tackle technique which was often above the shoulder. Farrell still occasionally does.
I would accept an argument that this is a much rarer feature of Sarries game now, but quite a lot of cynical play survives.
PG
I would accept an argument that this is a much rarer feature of Sarries game now, but quite a lot of cynical play survives.
PG
OM, how do you feel about Nick Tompkins? I suspect he's one of those that you love being on your own team but goodness me, he personifies what some opposition fans don't like about Sarries.
For my part, I think he's pretty impressive in the way he punches above his weight but put it this way - I've no concern whatsoever in him being available for Wales rather than England.
For my part, I think he's pretty impressive in the way he punches above his weight but put it this way - I've no concern whatsoever in him being available for Wales rather than England.
Quote:JK7
OM, how do you feel about Nick Tompkins? I suspect he's one of those that you love being on your own team but goodness me, he personifies what some opposition fans don't like about Sarries.
For my part, I think he's pretty impressive in the way he punches above his weight but put it this way - I've no concern whatsoever in him being available for Wales rather than England.
On that topic Liam WILLIAMS isn't innocent either!
Quote:P G Tips
I would accept an argument that this is a much rarer feature of Sarries game now, but quite a lot of cynical play survives.
PG
Fair enough. I don't think "brutality" is a current thing. For me when Rhodes left (getting red-carded in his last game which even one of his team mates remarked was fairly appropriate) the last of Sarries "enforcer/occasional cheap shot" players went and that was no bad thing.
Many of those you name above had tackle techniques that would get them carded now but it was different then. For all their hard-hitting I wouldn't accept that either J Burger or Barritt where close to being dirty players and both have been gone for a while.
Liam Williams was niggle on a different level.
As for cynical, see above.
JK7 Tompkins is a niggly blighter. As you say I possibly wouldn't like him if he played for another team. I don't think he's a dirty player though or a dangerous one.
Obviously it's all subjective and as a club supporter I'd agree I'm not. I also have no interest in derailing one of your interesting threads into one about how awful Sarries are, we've got most of the rest of SN for that!!
(edit) oh and there's a very interesting piece in the DT about the issues with the salary cap. Well worth a read for a better understanding of how they fail teams doing what the RFU claims it wants in developing EQP International talent.
(edit2)
Congrats on the no1 for % capacity sold with an average of 13,839 and 95.4% full!
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:09:22:39:36 by OldMarovian.
"Many of those you name above had tackle techniques that would get them carded now but it was different then."
Only in the way refs policed (or failed to) those tackles. A blow against the head was always against the laws and likely to lead to a sending off, which is why I wrote "It is up to officials to keep them within bounds".
IMO the HTP in itself is tacit omission that refs failed in that duty for a decade or more. The laws have always been clear - why require a protocol to shame refs into action?
PG
Only in the way refs policed (or failed to) those tackles. A blow against the head was always against the laws and likely to lead to a sending off, which is why I wrote "It is up to officials to keep them within bounds".
IMO the HTP in itself is tacit omission that refs failed in that duty for a decade or more. The laws have always been clear - why require a protocol to shame refs into action?
PG
Well I spent a fun evening looking at some compilations of J Burger and Barritt and honestly given how many big tackles both made even by todays standards I think they hit very hard but fair. My feeling is it's a perception thing maybe rather than a reality thing (with those two players)
Now S Burger, L Williams and ofc Farrell ... eep!
I understand and agree with the basic point about the way the Law has been refereed has been failing the players.
If you want some brutality then prime era Tuilagi, Alessana and Manu and Lawes in is Exocet days before he fixed his tackle technique would be decent places to start. Or Brian Lima in the wide rugby pool!
Now S Burger, L Williams and ofc Farrell ... eep!
I understand and agree with the basic point about the way the Law has been refereed has been failing the players.
If you want some brutality then prime era Tuilagi, Alessana and Manu and Lawes in is Exocet days before he fixed his tackle technique would be decent places to start. Or Brian Lima in the wide rugby pool!
Quote:OldMarovian
Well I spent a fun evening looking at some compilations of J Burger and Barritt and honestly given how many big tackles both made even by todays standards I think they hit very hard but fair. My feeling is it's a perception thing maybe rather than a reality thing (with those two players)
Now S Burger, L Williams and ofc Farrell ... eep!
I understand and agree with the basic point about the way the Law has been refereed has been failing the players.
If you want some brutality then prime era Tuilagi, Alessana and Manu and Lawes in is Exocet days before he fixed his tackle technique would be decent places to start. Or Brian Lima in the wide rugby pool!
I don't think it's the basic brutality that's the problem, OM, its the cheap shots that the Salaries players always seemed to get away with. Prime example - the Farrell swinging arm on Anthony Watson in the 2015 Prem final that put Watson out of the game. Sanction came here none. It would be a straight red card now and should have been then. But Farrell's status and the general Salaries on-pitch attitude meant that Barnes bottled it. That's the kind of thing people think of.
... IMHO, of course.
Now in Honolulu
Barritt and Burger were as likely to injure their own faces as damage the opposition.
I would never bet against Tiggers. Even with their raided coaching squad I reckon they will make the final
Saints are just not in the class of the top two. Great attack but so flaky in defence
Saints are just not in the class of the top two. Great attack but so flaky in defence
Quote:OldMarovian
[
I also have no interest in derailing one of your interesting threads into one about how awful Sarries are, we've got most of the rest of SN for that!!
(
I did not intend a Sarries bashing exercise either- just a reflection of attitudes at present. You are right OM that the Sarries game since rejoining the Prem is very different. But perceptions and fan attitudes persist from previous years.
PG
Quote:gaz59
I would never bet against Tiggers. Even with their raided coaching squad I reckon they will make the final
Saints are just not in the class of the top two. Great attack but so flaky in defence
They should be a good bet gaz, especially after last year, but I just feel home advantage & George Ford will give Sale enough edge to win the semi.
PG
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:10:17:30:31 by P G Tips.
I got that P G it was rather me apologising for taking the thread in a tangent.
Agree with joe re the card that wasn't in game. Even now I'm not sure he'd get that mitigated down in game as Mako does little to alter Watsons height. That said it was 8 seasons ago ...
Anywho, I'm hoping for two good SF games.
Agree with joe re the card that wasn't in game. Even now I'm not sure he'd get that mitigated down in game as Mako does little to alter Watsons height. That said it was 8 seasons ago ...
Anywho, I'm hoping for two good SF games.
The red card for Chris Ashton has been rescinded. Career not finished yet it seems!
Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.
Quote:shipwrecked
The red card for Chris Ashton has been rescinded. Career not finished yet it seems!
Good news that his career wasn’t ended in a red card
Widcombe Garçon
Quote:Widcombe BoyQuote:shipwrecked
The red card for Chris Ashton has been rescinded. Career not finished yet it seems!
Good news that his career wasn’t ended in a red card
It might not be on his record now but unless Leicester qualify his career ended with a red card...
Dickson also totally ignored the shot clock for Fazlet's penalty early in the second half - way, way over the time allowed and picked up by commentary.
How on earth is he allowed near these games?
How on earth is he allowed near these games?
As a Society referee, if that is the level I am supposed to aspire to I frankly despair.
Get the basics right. Not a fair contest and contact to the head - ignore it. Ball carrier with both feet in touch passes the ball - nothing doing, defenders clearly entering a driving maul from the side 5 yards from the touch judge - didn't see it but hey let's get the TMO involved 'nothing wrong with the set up' - other than both lifters obstructing, deliberate knock on 5 yards out but there is 'cover' - scrum half scooting sideways on the try line vs back row forward at pace.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:13:20:33:37 by Trawling.
Get the basics right. Not a fair contest and contact to the head - ignore it. Ball carrier with both feet in touch passes the ball - nothing doing, defenders clearly entering a driving maul from the side 5 yards from the touch judge - didn't see it but hey let's get the TMO involved 'nothing wrong with the set up' - other than both lifters obstructing, deliberate knock on 5 yards out but there is 'cover' - scrum half scooting sideways on the try line vs back row forward at pace.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:13:20:33:37 by Trawling.
I don't think it would have changed the score line massively but, my word, Salaries do get a lot of help from the officials. BTW, what are TMOs actually for?
... IMHO, of course.
Now in Honolulu
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:14:01:30:52 by joethefanatic.
... IMHO, of course.
Now in Honolulu
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:14:01:30:52 by joethefanatic.
Didn't watch but the radio commentators could not understand how on earth the challenge by maitland didn't go for review (and they felt it would have been yellow minimum).
What were peoples thoughts who watched?
Grayson seemed to be implying the officials were keen not to make a massive call in minute one of a big game.
Fair play to sarries , sounded like they dominated as expected and prob could have kept saints at arms length even with one less man!
What were peoples thoughts who watched?
Grayson seemed to be implying the officials were keen not to make a massive call in minute one of a big game.
Fair play to sarries , sounded like they dominated as expected and prob could have kept saints at arms length even with one less man!
Just watched the incident and I don't think there would have been any grounds for complaint if that had been a red. Not in a position to catch the ball contact elbow to head (had he caught him on the ground in the head with his elbow it would have been red) and clearly injured the player.
I hope that prem rugbybare brave enough to cite and ban Maitland.
Anyone else get memories of a prem final a few years ago when a salaries player makes an illegal tackle and then scores the 1st try when the should have been sitting on their @#$%&.
I hope that prem rugbybare brave enough to cite and ban Maitland.
Anyone else get memories of a prem final a few years ago when a salaries player makes an illegal tackle and then scores the 1st try when the should have been sitting on their @#$%&.
I think today's semi final is a far more intriguing game.
I reckon sale should win and have some key players coming back/running into form.
Great chance over next few weeks for George to steer a team to a title and get some England brownie points.
Personally hope they go all the way- been a long time since they last won, good for Northern rugby and whilst I accept he isn't everyone's cup of tea I have quite a lot of time for sanderson- think he is a good laugh, a good man and someone you want in your camp
I reckon sale should win and have some key players coming back/running into form.
Great chance over next few weeks for George to steer a team to a title and get some England brownie points.
Personally hope they go all the way- been a long time since they last won, good for Northern rugby and whilst I accept he isn't everyone's cup of tea I have quite a lot of time for sanderson- think he is a good laugh, a good man and someone you want in your camp
Quote:joethefanatic
I don't think it would have changed the score line massively but, my word, Salaries do get a lot of help from the officials. BTW, what are TMOs actually for?
I'm not so sure, Maitland scored two tries and Sarries would have been a player down for 79 minutes!
I'm beginning to think that this is a further erosion of the Laws as per PG's thread. They are applicable from the start of the game are they not?
The thinking for Karl Dickson's decision would have been "not to ruin the game as its minute one" perhaps. Just very weak, not only of the ref but also the TMO subordinates who aren't strong enough to stand up for themselves.
I'm not sure but I'd suggest we have seem more red cards rescinded this season than previous ones. More evidence that sanctions don't match the offence perhaps?
Dickson said that Maitland got his timing wrong. Well you could use that excuse in a lot of illegal contacts !
Has anybody seen any press response to the Maitland incident?
Stephen Jones in Sunday Times gives it no mention.
PG
Stephen Jones in Sunday Times gives it no mention.
PG
Daily Mail Mentioned criticised.
Daily Telegraph Mentioned criticised
Guardian Mentioned incident only.
Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.
Daily Telegraph Mentioned criticised
Guardian Mentioned incident only.
Thanks sw.
DT not just critical but actually suggest Dickson contributed to Sarries success.
Strong stuff.
For me the key question is: what matters- player safety or entertainment?
PG
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:14:10:59:58 by P G Tips.
DT not just critical but actually suggest Dickson contributed to Sarries success.
Strong stuff.
For me the key question is: what matters- player safety or entertainment?
PG
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:14:10:59:58 by P G Tips.
I think it's bigger than that PG.
For example WWE stands for World Wrestling Entertainment it used to be a Federation.
Do they win in that sport on merit or are they guided? If TMO's are there away from the turmoil on field then they should function. What is a former touch judge called now an assistant referee? Clearly in name only.
For all officials to ignore that incident is wrong. Maitland can't be cited with can he?
Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.
For example WWE stands for World Wrestling Entertainment it used to be a Federation.
Do they win in that sport on merit or are they guided? If TMO's are there away from the turmoil on field then they should function. What is a former touch judge called now an assistant referee? Clearly in name only.
For all officials to ignore that incident is wrong. Maitland can't be cited with can he?
It wasn't ignored, a penalty was awarded.
Imo, and I appreciate that as a Sarries fan it may not be the most unbiased point of view, for me it was at worst a yellow. Maitland is looking at the ball until after he jumps, he then braces for the impact. He does make contact with the head but it's the secondary impact, first impact is knee to chest. With the way the wind was blowing, Sarries kicking into the wind in that first half, it almost seems that Maitland over-ran/the ball got held up in the wind and didn't go as far as expected, which I suspect is why Dickson deemed it a timing issue.
Now that's not me making excuses for Maitland or Dickson, but I can understand why he gave it as penalty only, but I could equally have understood had he gone yellow, don't think it was anything more though.
He could be cited if the citing officer decides it meets the criteria for a red card offence.
Imo, and I appreciate that as a Sarries fan it may not be the most unbiased point of view, for me it was at worst a yellow. Maitland is looking at the ball until after he jumps, he then braces for the impact. He does make contact with the head but it's the secondary impact, first impact is knee to chest. With the way the wind was blowing, Sarries kicking into the wind in that first half, it almost seems that Maitland over-ran/the ball got held up in the wind and didn't go as far as expected, which I suspect is why Dickson deemed it a timing issue.
Now that's not me making excuses for Maitland or Dickson, but I can understand why he gave it as penalty only, but I could equally have understood had he gone yellow, don't think it was anything more though.
He could be cited if the citing officer decides it meets the criteria for a red card offence.
Sarriebone
If, as you say, he does make contact with the head then the HTP requires the contact to be reviewed- which it was not- to determine degree of danger, secondary or initial contact & the sanction.
That did not happen - in a game supposedly concerned about & trying to reduce head injuries.
Hardly a good impression in such a high profile match!
PG
If, as you say, he does make contact with the head then the HTP requires the contact to be reviewed- which it was not- to determine degree of danger, secondary or initial contact & the sanction.
That did not happen - in a game supposedly concerned about & trying to reduce head injuries.
Hardly a good impression in such a high profile match!
PG
Quote:Sarriebone
It wasn't ignored, a penalty was awarded.
Imo, and I appreciate that as a Sarries fan it may not be the most unbiased point of view.
Appreciate the honesty, I'll rephrase then wasn't "referred". Would you not have been aggrieved if Maitland was hit like that? For that offence it is unusual for the penalty to not be accompanied by a card.
Quote:P G Tips
Sarriebone
If, as you say, he does make contact with the head then the HTP requires the contact to be reviewed- which it was not- to determine degree of danger, secondary or initial contact & the sanction.
That did not happen - in a game supposedly concerned about & trying to reduce head injuries.
Hardly a good impression in such a high profile match!
PG
Honestly I think it's a tricky one. The sport is trying to be hot on head contact, which is admirable and fair enough. However the nature of the game leads me to think that accidental clashes are going to happen. If we stop the game to review every time there was head contact games would last 7hrs as there is head contact at virtually every pick and go forward carry.
If we look at the incident yesterday if both players go up as they did with everything else the same (same contact between the players) but the ball comes down between them and Maitland gathers it (at point of contact he is higher with arms in position to catch the ball) then it would be play on, fair contest for the ball would it not?
Maitland hasn't gone in to that with the intention of clattering into Furbank in the air, if anything Maitland jumps first so Furbank jumps into him
(kidding of course) . He Jumps to catch the ball, but he got his timing wrong.
Quote:shipwrecked
Would you not have been aggrieved if Maitland was hit like that? For that offence it is unusual for the penalty to not be accompanied by a card.
Honestly I'd like to think I would see it the same the other way as well. As I posted in my first message I wouldn't have felt hard done by had it been a yellow either.
Edit: For what it's worth I have questioned in the past whether it is time to ban jumping for the ball, we see it time and time again, players flying forward leaping to catch the ball clattering into a player equally going for the ball but who hasn't jumped and the player of the floor being penalised or even carde for it if the jumper has come down nastily. Dupont being red carded vs the Boks last autumn for example. Rugby treads a very tight line when it comes to many circumstances in the game, play in the air is one of the most dangerous for me.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:14:12:34:17 by Sarriebone.
Quote:shipwrecked
I think it's bigger than that PG.
For example WWE stands for World Wrestling Entertainment it used to be a Federation.
Do they win in that sport on merit or are they guided? If TMO's are there away from the turmoil on field then they should function. What is a former touch judge called now an assistant referee? Clearly in name only.
For all officials to ignore that incident is wrong. Maitland can't be cited with can he?
WWE changed their name because of a copyright claim from the World Wildlife Fund, I don't think there's much meaning beyond that from them.
Does the World Wildlife Fund fix extinctions then ?
Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.
I don't know that it's possible to fix extinctions, but they certainly try and prevent them.
Talking about extinct creatures, I see Ben Youngs and Jimmy Gopperth are starting half backs for Tigers
Talking about extinct creatures, I see Ben Youngs and Jimmy Gopperth are starting half backs for Tigers
Rough rough timing for you guys. A solid start, but feels like Sale getting on top now.
Couple of missed kicks from a chance, you cannot miss opportunities like those, not too bad a season taking everything into account, another big coaching change next season so who knows what will happen.
Proper game, that. Don’t need a tonne of tries for it to be compelling.
Got a bit ‘box kick-y’ but no surprise when the stakes were that high and the teams so evenly matched. Fascinating to watch Ford (and Quirke, who I thought had a big impact) slowly but surely take control with his skill and tactical nous.
Never know but wonder how different it might have been if Pollard had been able to play? Fair play to Leicester - amazing they got that far given this season upheaval. I thing Sale are strong, but I’d still bet next season’s season ticket on a solid Sarries win.
Got a bit ‘box kick-y’ but no surprise when the stakes were that high and the teams so evenly matched. Fascinating to watch Ford (and Quirke, who I thought had a big impact) slowly but surely take control with his skill and tactical nous.
Never know but wonder how different it might have been if Pollard had been able to play? Fair play to Leicester - amazing they got that far given this season upheaval. I thing Sale are strong, but I’d still bet next season’s season ticket on a solid Sarries win.
Great game of rugby, riveting viewing.
Hopefully the final will the same
Widcombe Garçon
Hopefully the final will the same
Widcombe Garçon
The better George Ford plays, the more I see Farrell occupying the 12 shirt for England, and the more I see an England team with a ceiling limit unnecessarily imposed.
I have to say enjoyed both games and I suppose you could argue the correct teams are in the final first and second in the league - not that often happens.
Going back to the first match and Maitlands challenge in the air - having watched it a couple of times now - I am gobsmacked that Dickson judged it only worthy of a penalty.
The major problem I believe is the pure confusion over the area - over the past 2 seasons many have been dismissed for the very same offence - Maitland was nowhere near the ball and indeed I think it was Dickson who stated "He was never in a position to catch the ball" - Maitland then turned his head away in a reactive instinct to protect himself which then led to him leading with his forearm which made significant contact with Furlong's head/face.
I just cannot understand why Dickson would not go to the TMO to look properly at the incident particularly in such a key game.
As Mark McCall stated he (Maitland) didn't need to make that challenge - for a DoR to make that some of comment tells you he believes it should have resulted in a card of some colour or is expecting a citing.
How are players supposed to understand and adapt to referees when they change their perception from week to week - Dickson is probably one of the worst for this - I think it is great that he learns from his mistakes totally get that - but he just goes onto to make howlers and confuses the players around him.
Finally - do I think the result would have been different if Maitland was sent off - No for me the right side won but that does not detract from the foul play - I am sure it would have been closer and maybe Saints might have sneaked it we will never know .
As stated somewhere I expect Sarries supporters would be jumping up and down had the act been reversed and Maitland was flattened. It kind of reminds me of the Farrell attack on Watson in the final all those years ago - again a key player taken out early in the contest - purely coincidental it happens to be the same team.
Going back to the first match and Maitlands challenge in the air - having watched it a couple of times now - I am gobsmacked that Dickson judged it only worthy of a penalty.
The major problem I believe is the pure confusion over the area - over the past 2 seasons many have been dismissed for the very same offence - Maitland was nowhere near the ball and indeed I think it was Dickson who stated "He was never in a position to catch the ball" - Maitland then turned his head away in a reactive instinct to protect himself which then led to him leading with his forearm which made significant contact with Furlong's head/face.
I just cannot understand why Dickson would not go to the TMO to look properly at the incident particularly in such a key game.
As Mark McCall stated he (Maitland) didn't need to make that challenge - for a DoR to make that some of comment tells you he believes it should have resulted in a card of some colour or is expecting a citing.
How are players supposed to understand and adapt to referees when they change their perception from week to week - Dickson is probably one of the worst for this - I think it is great that he learns from his mistakes totally get that - but he just goes onto to make howlers and confuses the players around him.
Finally - do I think the result would have been different if Maitland was sent off - No for me the right side won but that does not detract from the foul play - I am sure it would have been closer and maybe Saints might have sneaked it we will never know .
As stated somewhere I expect Sarries supporters would be jumping up and down had the act been reversed and Maitland was flattened. It kind of reminds me of the Farrell attack on Watson in the final all those years ago - again a key player taken out early in the contest - purely coincidental it happens to be the same team.
I do find this constant anti Dickson thread on here a bit tiresome. Obviously if you have a 'thing' about a particular player ref - you go out looking for examples to reinforce that bias. We all do that. The more you look for poor decisions by a ref the more you'll find. If you watch a 'good' ref you will not be looking for poor decisions. Dickson has been appointed to the World Cup panel of refs so some very knowledgeable people recognise him as a 'good' ref. Will this be just some people watching him or will it be based on feedback from players and coaches. If the latter then start blaming them not the Dickson. In every game there is something the ref does that supporters (and players and coaches) from one of the teams has an issue with. That's sport and fandom. However for a ref to succeed in the sport he/she is I believe, reviewed by teams, other refs etc and has to keep getting good scores.
On a more positive note regarding refereeing, Barnes was really excellent yesterday, especially with his pragmatic but firm diffusion of a couple of tastier moments in the first half. The Cole yellow and the Youngs non-yellow were great examples of the application of the 'framework' IMO.
So many decisions are subjective in rugby, but when a ref makes his decision, and clearly communicates his rationale, you can forgive what you think is a wrong decision. I know some don't love his style, but I usually enjoy games that he refs due to the fact that you know exactly WHY he's making his decisions.
I also thought his interaction with the TMO, Foley, on an ongoing but non-intrusive basis, was excellent and better than I'd seen in other matches, with Foley almost acting as another pair of eyes and as a backup for some decisions that Barnes wanted checking as the game moved on.
So many decisions are subjective in rugby, but when a ref makes his decision, and clearly communicates his rationale, you can forgive what you think is a wrong decision. I know some don't love his style, but I usually enjoy games that he refs due to the fact that you know exactly WHY he's making his decisions.
I also thought his interaction with the TMO, Foley, on an ongoing but non-intrusive basis, was excellent and better than I'd seen in other matches, with Foley almost acting as another pair of eyes and as a backup for some decisions that Barnes wanted checking as the game moved on.
Hemington - It is not an Anti-Dickson thread and it is not confined to just our board - look across the other boards.
I am a great believer that if the referee/officials are anonymous then they have done an excellent job - the fact that commentators and media reporters continually keep identifying Dickson and a couple of others - Tempest comes in for stick as well tends to suggest we cannot all be wrong and certainly I am personally not "Dickson Bashing" and I honestly believe others are not they are just voicing their concerns and bewilderment at his officiating at times.
I agree Dickson is highly thought of in the circles that matter and I am sure no one in particular pays any attention to what we all write - but it is also important for the game in general that supporters and more importantly new supporters for the game to flourish and grow that they understand how the game is being officiated. Most important and the one players crave for is consistency and that is where Karl Dickson fall down IMHO.
Good example Dr B. Wayne Barnes has not always been popular - especially in New Zealand but he is respected, again across the boards you rarely see many negative comments in relation to his officiating.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:15:09:57:31 by Ali1969.
I am a great believer that if the referee/officials are anonymous then they have done an excellent job - the fact that commentators and media reporters continually keep identifying Dickson and a couple of others - Tempest comes in for stick as well tends to suggest we cannot all be wrong and certainly I am personally not "Dickson Bashing" and I honestly believe others are not they are just voicing their concerns and bewilderment at his officiating at times.
I agree Dickson is highly thought of in the circles that matter and I am sure no one in particular pays any attention to what we all write - but it is also important for the game in general that supporters and more importantly new supporters for the game to flourish and grow that they understand how the game is being officiated. Most important and the one players crave for is consistency and that is where Karl Dickson fall down IMHO.
Good example Dr B. Wayne Barnes has not always been popular - especially in New Zealand but he is respected, again across the boards you rarely see many negative comments in relation to his officiating.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:15:09:57:31 by Ali1969.
Quote:Optimist
The better George Ford plays, the more I see Farrell occupying the 12 shirt for England, and the more I see an England team with a ceiling limit unnecessarily imposed.
I agree Opti, but the problem looming is that Farrell actually had a very good game at the weekend as well, even making a line break, that he wasted unfortunately! I wonder if the final will be seen as an "interview" for the England job.
Quote:shipwrecked
but the problem looming is that Farrell actually had a very good game at the weekend as well
Farrell always has a very good game ..... when he is playing fly-half, because he's a very good fly-half. And England will get to the semi-finals of the WC whichever of Ford, Farrell or Smith plays 10. But they'll only have a chance of going further with Ford at 10 and Farrell not at 12.
I'm probably out of sync on ere as I thought the Sale v Tigers was not a particularly good game for the game. Purists may drool over the power and intensity and I'm not advocating barbarian style try-fest but the game was about two sides totally focused on forcing opposition error rather than any real creativity
Yes, there were some golden moments and Kelly's vision and pass was certainly in that bucket but there was far too much kicking and blasting down the middle of the pitch
A very tight and yep in some ways a compelling watch because of that with so much riding on it but not a great advert for the future of the game. But I'm sure many on ere will disagree
MoM for me was Barnes. He had an outstanding game that could really have kicked off
Yes, there were some golden moments and Kelly's vision and pass was certainly in that bucket but there was far too much kicking and blasting down the middle of the pitch
A very tight and yep in some ways a compelling watch because of that with so much riding on it but not a great advert for the future of the game. But I'm sure many on ere will disagree
MoM for me was Barnes. He had an outstanding game that could really have kicked off
I mean, if you wanted to do something simple and logical, something that plays people in the right positions and rewards form, the 9s and 10s on Saturday could be the England 9, 10, 21 and 22!
I know it sounds mad but bear with me...
You could also do something extraordinary and make the 12s from the semi-final England's 12. And hang on you could then pick the Prem player of the year (who has played 13 all year for his club as the 13!)!
9 JvP 10 Farrell 12 Tuilagi/Kelly 13 Lawrence
21 Quirke 22 Ford
Shurely shome mishtake....
I know it sounds mad but bear with me...
You could also do something extraordinary and make the 12s from the semi-final England's 12. And hang on you could then pick the Prem player of the year (who has played 13 all year for his club as the 13!)!
9 JvP 10 Farrell 12 Tuilagi/Kelly 13 Lawrence
21 Quirke 22 Ford
Shurely shome mishtake....
Barnes and Pearce are miles and miles ahead of all the other refs.
JvP didn't even start for Tigers. You could pick Mitchell though!
A midfield combo of Kelly/Slade and Lawrence/Manu would be excellent for England. And then Ford or Farrell at 10, don't really mind.
JvP didn't even start for Tigers. You could pick Mitchell though!
A midfield combo of Kelly/Slade and Lawrence/Manu would be excellent for England. And then Ford or Farrell at 10, don't really mind.
JvP played a very good half for Leicester. Thought he kicked excellently, and I'd rather him than Youngs (I think, just...). I also think Gus Warr is a good player and England could do far worse.
I guess my point is that Eng should play guys who are involved with the best teams at the sharp of the season and play them where they play for their clubs. Stop shoehorning a 10 into a 12 and/or a 13/into a 12 and a 15 into an 11 or whatever.
I guess my point is that Eng should play guys who are involved with the best teams at the sharp of the season and play them where they play for their clubs. Stop shoehorning a 10 into a 12 and/or a 13/into a 12 and a 15 into an 11 or whatever.
I really don't get why Slade is rated by some, frequently underperforms for me. All those suggesting Manu at 12 should realise he will only be available for 50 minutes. He looked tired second half yesterday and simply doesn't have the impact he once had. Can England afford a tactical change in the backs with perhaps a 6:2 split. I think Mitchell, Ford, Kelly, Lawrence is the way to go for the backs.
All playing their club position, all less prone to injury than the alternatives.
I suspect it will be JvP, Farrell, Manu though in the crunch game when it comes providing Manu isn't on the treatment table. Not at all confident!
Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.
All playing their club position, all less prone to injury than the alternatives.
I suspect it will be JvP, Farrell, Manu though in the crunch game when it comes providing Manu isn't on the treatment table. Not at all confident!
Quote:shipwrecked
perhaps a 6:2 split
You lost me at 6:2 split ....
But then you found me again at ...
Quote:shipwrecked
Mitchell, Ford, Kelly, Lawrence
... but I would also be taking Slade and Tuilagi to the WC. England only need Manu for 40-50 minutes x 2 (Argentina, Q-F vs Wales/Aus) and then Borthwick's job (get to the S-F minimum) is done.
Quote:OptimistQuote:shipwrecked
perhaps a 6:2 split
You lost me at 6:2 split ....
What I meant was if the subs split 6:2 can we afford to sub Manu at 50 minutes so that he can have his afternoon nap! Leaves just one backs sub.
No, we can't - but then 6:2 bench split is the most idiotic, ineffective tactic in rugby.
I'd happier Manu on the bench, I think he can make an impact that way. He's less deserving of a start than Lawrence on form.
I would have Slade for experience. Otherwise that's a very inexperienced (at international level) midfield. I'd prefer:
Mitchell
Ford (although honestly fine with Faz)
Lawrence
Slade
The other of Ford/Farrell plus Manu on the bench.
I would have Slade for experience. Otherwise that's a very inexperienced (at international level) midfield. I'd prefer:
Mitchell
Ford (although honestly fine with Faz)
Lawrence
Slade
The other of Ford/Farrell plus Manu on the bench.
England WC squad/midfield options are in pretty good shape, I think:
Starter/finisher types at 9 - tick
3 x really, really strong 10s - each with different attributes - tick
A centre 'stable' with complementary skills (kicking/passing/boshing/running all covered) - tick
Youthful excitement/bolter - tick
Player with all the tools peaking nicely - tick
Been there, done that - tick
Huge potential just waiting for a definitive tournament - tick
Settled combinations with great chemistry built up over a period of time ..... er, tock
Starter/finisher types at 9 - tick
3 x really, really strong 10s - each with different attributes - tick
A centre 'stable' with complementary skills (kicking/passing/boshing/running all covered) - tick
Youthful excitement/bolter - tick
Player with all the tools peaking nicely - tick
Been there, done that - tick
Huge potential just waiting for a definitive tournament - tick
Settled combinations with great chemistry built up over a period of time ..... er, tock
Just to briefly go back to Dickson, I did like the penalty he gave against Tizard for blatantly holding on to the tackler on the ground, trying to milk the penalty himself. We could do with more refs making that call.
Didn't like Mitchell being rewarded for throwing the pass at the lazy runner. I get that it's a legitimate pen but I've never liked 9's looking for it. A Lee Dickson special, that is. I remember Fotuali'i doing it for us and being disappointed in him.
I thought Manu was good yesterday, more effective than I've seen in a while. Still not at his best, but promising. Agree with others that I'd prefer Lawrence to start and hold Manu in reserve.
Didn't like Mitchell being rewarded for throwing the pass at the lazy runner. I get that it's a legitimate pen but I've never liked 9's looking for it. A Lee Dickson special, that is. I remember Fotuali'i doing it for us and being disappointed in him.
I thought Manu was good yesterday, more effective than I've seen in a while. Still not at his best, but promising. Agree with others that I'd prefer Lawrence to start and hold Manu in reserve.
Sarries scrum half De Haas did it against us 2 weeks ago firing the ball into Cloete. Hartley then took a quick tap and scored under the sticks.
I am with you JK7 - don't like it - but they need to change the rules.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:15:14:58:00 by Ali1969.
I am with you JK7 - don't like it - but they need to change the rules.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:15:14:58:00 by Ali1969.
Agree it is gamesmanship but is sometimes used by 9s who have got fed up waiting for ref to penalise lazy runners.
IIRC correctly when Khan did so Brits was at it for about the 5th/6th time.
PG
IIRC correctly when Khan did so Brits was at it for about the 5th/6th time.
PG
The standard was way down on those European games where Kelly and co looked a bit out of their depth.
I worry about the style of play England will adopt with their coaches and squad. We're not going to win 3 knock out games by doing it the Wigglesworth way.
It would rely upon giving away very few penalties, dominating the scrum and conceding fewer than 15 points a game. I cannot see us doing that against Ireland, France, South Africa or New Zealand.
I worry about the style of play England will adopt with their coaches and squad. We're not going to win 3 knock out games by doing it the Wigglesworth way.
It would rely upon giving away very few penalties, dominating the scrum and conceding fewer than 15 points a game. I cannot see us doing that against Ireland, France, South Africa or New Zealand.
Question is which of his options Borthwich believes is best for him:
1. get to the semi-final - definitely keep his job for 4 years, and have a proper crack at RWC27
2. shoot for the stars, but worry slightly about getting out of the group, and worry a lot about getting past a Wales/Aus Q-F , and worry about being SL23.
He and Wigglesworth can do 1. easily enough on a whole bunch of box-kicking allied to Owen Farrell 'setting the standards in training'.
2. could come to pass if we lose to Argentina in our first group game, and then the squad get paralysed by 2015 vibes and panics against Japan
It's a gimme group for England, but the one disadvantage is the sequencing of the games: Argentina, Japan, Chile, Samoa could really have done with being the other way round.
1. get to the semi-final - definitely keep his job for 4 years, and have a proper crack at RWC27
2. shoot for the stars, but worry slightly about getting out of the group, and worry a lot about getting past a Wales/Aus Q-F , and worry about being SL23.
He and Wigglesworth can do 1. easily enough on a whole bunch of box-kicking allied to Owen Farrell 'setting the standards in training'.
2. could come to pass if we lose to Argentina in our first group game, and then the squad get paralysed by 2015 vibes and panics against Japan
It's a gimme group for England, but the one disadvantage is the sequencing of the games: Argentina, Japan, Chile, Samoa could really have done with being the other way round.
Hmm if its 2 and he loses in QF to Australia would he lose his job, Id say no
Quote:JK7
Just to briefly go back to Dickson, I did like the penalty he gave against Tizard for blatantly holding on to the tackler on the ground, trying to milk the penalty himself. We could do with more refs making that call.
Agree 100%. Add to that players holding onto other players at the ruck. Do we really need that nonsense?
Quote:I thought he was fine but Fords use of him was pedestrian. No subtlety, simple crash ball option, easily read by the defence. He committed a defender or two and got a metre or so over the gainline on most carries but Sale failed to capitalise on that ball by keeping that momentum.JK7
I thought Manu was good yesterday, more effective than I've seen in a while. Still not at his best, but promising. Agree with others that I'd prefer Lawrence to start and hold Manu in reserve.
Kelly, one beautiful pass aside looked fine but nowhere close to being the solution that so many seem to expect him to be. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try though.
Tbh slightly disappointing that few players stood out. Could just be a consequence of being so evenly matched I guess?
Will Ford be the first player to play in a Prem final for three different teams?
No one else springs readily to mind. Question is will it be third time lucky?
Quote:OldMarovian
No one else springs readily to mind. Question is will it be third time lucky?
Wigglesworth? Sale, Sarries and Tigers.
Well he technically played and won last year, even if you definitely couldn't call it lucky.
Watson was again frustrating. He has the talent and does good things but he doesn't influence games. He doesn't hit lines like an Ashton and he often disappears in games.
I'm really pessimistic about our chances. Our style will get us out of the group but we'll lose to the first ambitious side we face in the KO stages.
I'm more optimistic for the future. Martin, Chessum, Pearson, Arrundell, Hartley, Mitchell, Mercer, and Smith are capable of playing a different way and we should be good in a year or so.
I'm really pessimistic about our chances. Our style will get us out of the group but we'll lose to the first ambitious side we face in the KO stages.
I'm more optimistic for the future. Martin, Chessum, Pearson, Arrundell, Hartley, Mitchell, Mercer, and Smith are capable of playing a different way and we should be good in a year or so.
Wiggle at Sale is such a long time ago I'd almost forgotten he'd been there Sarriebone.
Tigers were losing when he was on and he wasn't playing well. Odd that it's become the narrative that he was a significant part of that win. Getting there? absolutely vital.
Quote:hasta
Well he technically played and won last year, even if you definitely couldn't call it lucky.
Tigers were losing when he was on and he wasn't playing well. Odd that it's become the narrative that he was a significant part of that win. Getting there? absolutely vital.
Oh I didn't think he played a significant part. He was injured pretty early on though. But he definitely gets a winners medal!
Quote:cb2
I'm more optimistic for the future. Martin, Chessum, Pearson, Arrundell, Hartley, Mitchell, Mercer, and Smith are capable of playing a different way and we should be good in a year or so.
England have always had those players. But they are brought into the team and strictured by the usual kick and clap drivel, and then dropped 3 matches in when they don’t play like the wonder kid in the U14s. Just look at the narrative around Marcus Smith now.
The big issue at International level is how many games do you give a player to prove themselves Opti? What level of pass do they get if they're not in an optimum set up for their skills? Do they get one at all as surely it's on the player to adapt if the coach thinks they're good enough to play.
Lots of people on here would be blooding numerous players including young backs who have proved nothing in the Premiership let alone at (senior) International level. Their assumption seems to be either the step up will just happen because the player is so good or that it is worth taking the risk because they have so much talent.
Of the England players recently the only back who IMO looked immediately ready was JVP and he seems to have gone slowly backwards since then. Chessum is the first forward for a while who looked immediately up to speed and continued to do so until his injury. J Willis too maybe?
There's a certain narrative that is "we need game-changers" and ofc that's true but when those players don't deliver it never seems to be a case of, they just aren't good enough, rather it's the system or game plan that doesn't suit and whilst ofc there are elements of truth there it's also a massive cop to make it only about that.
Lots of people on here would be blooding numerous players including young backs who have proved nothing in the Premiership let alone at (senior) International level. Their assumption seems to be either the step up will just happen because the player is so good or that it is worth taking the risk because they have so much talent.
Of the England players recently the only back who IMO looked immediately ready was JVP and he seems to have gone slowly backwards since then. Chessum is the first forward for a while who looked immediately up to speed and continued to do so until his injury. J Willis too maybe?
There's a certain narrative that is "we need game-changers" and ofc that's true but when those players don't deliver it never seems to be a case of, they just aren't good enough, rather it's the system or game plan that doesn't suit and whilst ofc there are elements of truth there it's also a massive cop to make it only about that.
Quote:OldMarovian
whilst ofc there are elements of truth there it's also a massive cop to make it only about that.
Sure - there's examples on both sides of the argument ... but it's the half-hearted way England always go into 'all-court' rugby that always depresses me.
The standard required for Harlequins 'all-court' game is so much less than the same standard at international level.
Likewise, the Harlequin style of play has been successful once in a decade (?) - and in large part that seemed to be driven by emotion and momentum. Exciting as it is, it's not the gameplan you'd pick if you need to deliver success and not the gameplan you'd pick to maximise the strength of our 'key' players.
Likewise, the Harlequin style of play has been successful once in a decade (?) - and in large part that seemed to be driven by emotion and momentum. Exciting as it is, it's not the gameplan you'd pick if you need to deliver success and not the gameplan you'd pick to maximise the strength of our 'key' players.
Looking at the England team, I wonder if we have missed Elliot Daly far more than we realise. He does suffer a bit because he can be played in so many positions, but he does have the ability to change games and has very few weak spots in his game.
Quote:The Bear
it's not the gameplan you'd pick if you need to deliver success and not the gameplan you'd pick to maximise the strength of our 'key' players.
Fine .... but don't pick Smith in the first place. As I said - it's always so half-hearted from England. I don't expect them to play like Quins - the All Blacks at their best are always the template for me.
I think that's a fair point Opti. More so for Jones than Borthwick.
Pick Simmonds at 8 but stick him with the same flankers as you'd used with Billy.
Pick Smith but give him Youngs at 9 and (initially) Farrell at 12 with Simmonds at 8 ...
I still think "benching" Ford was probably the right call. He was a known quality and it was worth seeing if Smith could transfer some of what he does at Quins to England. Initially at least that was hampered somewhat by selection. I mean we had Marchant and Dombrandt in the squad at the time and he even brought Care back briefly so why not back Smith with those?
Even if you still stuck Farrell at 12 (which was possibly not ideal but the alternatives were limited) there would have been enough of that Quins spine around him to make the transition easier.
That said I'm of a similar view to The Bear that Quins style just doesn't cut it at the very top. They won a Premiership final because Chiefs got suckered into playing an open game. Had they gone Chiefs 101 then I think they win that game comfortably and that's sort of how it's looked at International level. Smith and Dombrandt without the space struggle to impact the game.
Of you can make a hybrid of game styles an hope it works but I think the reality is we lack the forward pack to deliver that front foot ball that the most attacking teams need.
Pick Simmonds at 8 but stick him with the same flankers as you'd used with Billy.
Pick Smith but give him Youngs at 9 and (initially) Farrell at 12 with Simmonds at 8 ...
I still think "benching" Ford was probably the right call. He was a known quality and it was worth seeing if Smith could transfer some of what he does at Quins to England. Initially at least that was hampered somewhat by selection. I mean we had Marchant and Dombrandt in the squad at the time and he even brought Care back briefly so why not back Smith with those?
Even if you still stuck Farrell at 12 (which was possibly not ideal but the alternatives were limited) there would have been enough of that Quins spine around him to make the transition easier.
That said I'm of a similar view to The Bear that Quins style just doesn't cut it at the very top. They won a Premiership final because Chiefs got suckered into playing an open game. Had they gone Chiefs 101 then I think they win that game comfortably and that's sort of how it's looked at International level. Smith and Dombrandt without the space struggle to impact the game.
Of you can make a hybrid of game styles an hope it works but I think the reality is we lack the forward pack to deliver that front foot ball that the most attacking teams need.
I don't know about whether Quins style rugby can win at International level but I do believe Smith is another clone of the Finn Russell mode and Finn seems to do OK at International level.
Quote:OldMarovian
it was worth seeing if Smith could transfer some of what he does at Quins to England
Jones only picked Smith because he was so desperately in need of a PR boost after the utter fiasco of the Autumn Nations Cup in 202 and the dire 6 Nations that followed.
No news of a retrospective citing for Maitland, so does that mean the authorities believe there was no case to answer?
Personally, I thought there was clear head contact, but without seeing a review accept I could be mistaken, or such contact fleeting and not reckless. What I find strange is that, in a game supposedly trying to eradicate dangerous head contacts (and worried about the existential threat to the sport from legal action)that the TMO did not believe such an incident -in a high profile match- worthy of review.
PG
Personally, I thought there was clear head contact, but without seeing a review accept I could be mistaken, or such contact fleeting and not reckless. What I find strange is that, in a game supposedly trying to eradicate dangerous head contacts (and worried about the existential threat to the sport from legal action)that the TMO did not believe such an incident -in a high profile match- worthy of review.
PG
Quote:OptimistQuote:The Bear
it's not the gameplan you'd pick if you need to deliver success and not the gameplan you'd pick to maximise the strength of our 'key' players.
Fine .... but don't pick Smith in the first place. As I said - it's always so half-hearted from England. I don't expect them to play like Quins - the All Blacks at their best are always the template for me.
There is a lot England could learn from NZ's rigourous focus on rugby abilities and way of viewing the game but even NZ have found they can't keep up with England's (to some extent), Ireland and, certainly, SA's power game.
SA and Ireland score some nice tries but if you can't match up to them physicality-wise then 9 times out of 10 you're going to lose.
(Simplistically, I think some of France's world cup struggles come down to this - they can beat anyone on the day but the chances of getting 5 to 6 good days in a row is small).
Quote:SarrieboneQuote:OldMarovian
No one else springs readily to mind. Question is will it be third time lucky?
Wigglesworth? Sale, Sarries and Tigers.
Chris Ashton: Sarries, Quins* and Tigers?
[* he may have got a medal but not played the final thinking about it]
[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023:05:16:13:56:08 by BathMatt53.
I agree that it is often about basic rugby skills. NZ in the 80s and 90s were simply better at catching and passing than us. It meant that they finished off their chances. Ireland are great at that now. It hasn't happened overnight and guys like Henshaw and Ringrose weren't always the stars they are now. Lawrence is on course to be a top player but he needs a few guys around him for a bit of consistency. Ireland can slot people in as they all know the drill but England can't do that.
There's no time before the tournament to forge any sort of midfield understanding. I can see him going Ford, Farrell and Lawrence. I just don't see who else plays at 12. It's either Faz or using Lawrence out of position.
There's no time before the tournament to forge any sort of midfield understanding. I can see him going Ford, Farrell and Lawrence. I just don't see who else plays at 12. It's either Faz or using Lawrence out of position.
Quote:Correct, he didn't play in the finalBathMatt53Quote:SarrieboneQuote:OldMarovian
No one else springs readily to mind. Question is will it be third time lucky?
Wigglesworth? Sale, Sarries and Tigers.
Chris Ashton: Sarries, Quins* and Tigers?
[* he may have got a medal but not played the final thinking about it]
Quote:P G Tips
Personally, I thought there was clear head contact, but without seeing a review accept I could be mistaken, or such contact fleeting and not reckless.
For me you can condense it into a basic point. Was Maitland trying to catch the ball or not and was he "reckless" whilst trying to do so?
For me he is absolutely trying to catch the ball. His eyes are on it before and after he leaves the ground and only change when Furbank enters his line of vision. The way he jumps, knee out to protect himself and arms already cradled to catch the ball is also fine (whilst I get some people don't like leading with the knee it's what most players do in that situation) when he realises he's going to collide he pulls his arms in towards his body in a protective sort of moment.
The ball is held up in the wind and doesn't come down where he expects (landing either on his back or just behind him, I still can't quite work out from the video) when he collides with Furbank he is the higher player and Furbanks contact with Maitlands knee dips him into Maitlands forearms/elbow which looks to make contact with his head.
I appreciate some will see it differently despite watching the same video but that's how I see it (bias acknowledged)
So my questions:
There's no tackle so no attacker and defender. Its competition for the ball. If one maintains that Maitland was reckless then you are making the case that he wasn't watching the ball/never thought he'd get the ball. I don't believe the video supports either of those conclusions.
Then you have the head contact where the point ultimately comes down to did he catch the ball or not, not did he make head contact or not. If he catches the ball there and everything else is the same are the people who are saying he should have been carded for head contact saying he still should have been? I'm not sure they are. They're relying on categorising his actions as reckless to get to that conclusion and (again) I don't think the video supports that. This was very early on but in both halves you see the ball being held up in the wind. To me that is the major factor in that but IMO it was too early in the game for him to have appreciated how much of a difference it was making to the flight of the ball.
when I say you I mean general, not you specifically P G
You are right PG very clear head contact!
So what you are saying is he goes in blindly with his knee up, recklessly and hits Furbank's head with his forearm with force in the challenge. Basically condemned by your own words.
I'm all for supporting your own team but this complete lack of impartiality coupled with the refusal to believe a Saracen's player can do no wrong is becoming wearing.
Add to that look at the attitude of Earl towards the injured Furbank in the video absolutely no concern for a player who has fallen from height with a head injury. Personally I find that maddening!
Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.
Quote:Old Marovian
His eyes are on it before and after he leaves the ground and only change when Furbank enters his line of vision.
So what you are saying is he goes in blindly with his knee up, recklessly and hits Furbank's head with his forearm with force in the challenge. Basically condemned by your own words.
I'm all for supporting your own team but this complete lack of impartiality coupled with the refusal to believe a Saracen's player can do no wrong is becoming wearing.
Add to that look at the attitude of Earl towards the injured Furbank in the video absolutely no concern for a player who has fallen from height with a head injury. Personally I find that maddening!
Quote:shipwrecked
So what you are saying is he goes in blindly with his knee up, recklessly and hits Furbank's head with his forearm with force in the challenge. Basically condemned by your own words.
The only wearing thing is your continual use of strawman arguments, it really is a dullards way to continue a discussion.
Where did I say he goes in blindly? quite the opposite, I said (and it's very clear in that video despite what Healey says) that he is looking at the ball and where he thinks it's coming until the point where Furbank enters his vision. He goes up with his knee up as the vast majority of players who contest do. In fact pause the frame and you'll see that is exactly what Furbank does, reckless huh? and yes Furbanks head collides with Maitlands forearm/elbow but it's easy to see he has them in a position to catch before he pulls them back to his body slightly before contact (reflex)
No dispute that there is head contact and I'm glad that Furbank is ok but to me there it isn't reckless it's simply the ball changing course very late at a point where Maitland has committed to jumping.
Quote:OldMarovianQuote:shipwrecked
So what you are saying is he goes in blindly with his knee up, recklessly and hits Furbank's head with his forearm with force in the challenge. Basically condemned by your own words.
The only wearing thing is your continual use of strawman arguments, it really is a dullards way to continue a discussion.
Where did I say he goes in blindly? quite the opposite, I said (and it's very clear in that video despite what Healey says) that he is looking at the ball and where he thinks it's coming until the point where Furbank enters his vision. He goes up with his knee up as the vast majority of players who contest do. In fact pause the frame and you'll see that is exactly what Furbank does, reckless huh? and yes Furbanks head collides with Maitlands forearm/elbow but it's easy to see he has them in a position to catch before he pulls them back to his body slightly before contact (reflex)
No dispute that there is head contact and I'm glad that Furbank is ok but to me there it isn't reckless it's simply the ball changing course very late at a point where Maitland has committed to jumping.
Which set of circumstances we have seen penalised all season with yellow or red cards and yet there was no sanction here beyond a penalty. The original point was that Salaries tend to get the rub of the green far more frequently than other teams and this (to the eyes of most non-Salaries supporters) was a good example. The fact that Sean Maitland then went to score 2 tries did rub the salt in a bit.
... IMHO, of course.
Now in Honolulu
Quote:OldMarovianQuote:shipwrecked
So what you are saying is he goes in blindly with his knee up, recklessly and hits Furbank's head with his forearm with force in the challenge. Basically condemned by your own words.
The only wearing thing is your continual use of strawman arguments, it really is a dullards way to continue a discussion.
Thank you for verbosely confirming my point. To continue to defend Maitland is frankly ludicrous.
The original criticism was of the referee yet you decide to defend your Saracens player.
Neat avoidance of Earls disrespect as well. As stated above there does seem to be a disproportionate level of generosity from refs but that could be put down to acquiring trophies.
The issue for me is that by defending the error as though the referee was faultless when a vast majority of rugby journalists pundits and spectators saw the opposite you just confirm a view that Saracens fail to learn from past indiscretions.
Frankly I’ve no idea why you are making an issue on here, you do realise it is the Bath site I suppose? You could take it to the Saints board where I’m sure you will get more sympathy.
Your rugby views will be challenged, politely on here, how you respond says a great deal.
"There's no tackle so no attacker and defender."
Not sure that point is relevant OM. IIRC the HTP guidelines were used when O'Mahoney was red carded last year for a shoulder to the head diving into a ruck. If a player elbowed another in the face on the edge of a ruck or in the act of obstructing them, would that not be a cardable act?
I return to my key point- the incident should have been reviewed. Whether or not it was deserving of a card would be much clearer if it had been.
PG
Not sure that point is relevant OM. IIRC the HTP guidelines were used when O'Mahoney was red carded last year for a shoulder to the head diving into a ruck. If a player elbowed another in the face on the edge of a ruck or in the act of obstructing them, would that not be a cardable act?
I return to my key point- the incident should have been reviewed. Whether or not it was deserving of a card would be much clearer if it had been.
PG
Shipwrecked
OM is welcome to air his view here. He is a regular, valuable contributor and a courteous visitor.
I hope you are not suggesting he should not post in response to points made by a Bath follower but should instead provoke the Saints?
PG
OM is welcome to air his view here. He is a regular, valuable contributor and a courteous visitor.
I hope you are not suggesting he should not post in response to points made by a Bath follower but should instead provoke the Saints?
PG
Quote:P G Tips
Shipwrecked
OM is welcome to air his view here. He is a regular, valuable contributor and a courteous visitor.
I hope you are not suggesting he should not post in response to points made by a Bath follower but should instead provoke the Saints?
PG
Of course not. But I object being called a “dullard” having been subject to previous albeit mild abuse.
Fact is looking at that video to suggest Maitland didn’t get away with one is simply ridiculous, it’s not me saying that either it’s a widely held view.
Quote:shipwreckedQuote:OldMarovianQuote:shipwrecked
So what you are saying is he goes in blindly with his knee up, recklessly and hits Furbank's head with his forearm with force in the challenge. Basically condemned by your own words.
The only wearing thing is your continual use of strawman arguments, it really is a dullards way to continue a discussion.
Thank you for verbosely confirming my point. To continue to defend Maitland is frankly ludicrous.
The original criticism was of the referee yet you decide to defend your Saracens player.
Neat avoidance of Earls disrespect as well. As stated above there does seem to be a disproportionate level of generosity from refs but that could be put down to acquiring trophies.
The issue for me is that by defending the error as though the referee was faultless when a vast majority of rugby journalists pundits and spectators saw the opposite you just confirm a view that Saracens fail to learn from past indiscretions.
Frankly I’ve no idea why you are making an issue on here, you do realise it is the Bath site I suppose? You could take it to the Saints board where I’m sure you will get more sympathy.
Your rugby views will be challenged, politely on here, how you respond says a great deal.
I think OM's point is that you're condemning Maitland for going up for the ball while looking at the ball and not where he's jumping, yet if he jumped without looking at the ball you would also condemn him (correctly) for not making a genuine attempt to go for the ball.
In this case he goes up with his arms in a catching position, yes his knee comes up but there's nothing unusual there for a running jump type motion.
The fact there has been no citing means it wasn't deemed a red card offence. So KD wasn't completely wrong.
As for Earl's reaction? There's no disrespect there at all as far as I can see. He's focussing on the game, and celebrates Sarries being awarded a penalty (overly, appreciate that rubs a lot of people the wrong, and I'm not a huge fan of it).
Don't see any concern from any of Furbank's own teammates either, they're happy to keep playing, are they disrespectful as well?
In terms of getting the rub of the green while I can understand that in terms of penalties during matches, commentators always say that if you've got the ascendancy you'll paint a picture for the ref. However in terms of cards awarded Saracens have had 4 in game reds this season, twice as many as any other team (in terms of foul play, haven't counted players getting a red for two yellows.) and are about mid table for the number of yellows for the season.
For me having seen it for the first time this eve I find the lack of review on the mailtland incident bizarre. I thought it was a yellow personally.
Glad you aren't a big fan of the overcelebrating- I can tolerate it til it gets to head rubbing / head patting /shouting in the face of players who have made errors or been penalised. Tompkins seems esp adept at it.
From the highlights looked like sarries were v v good and played some cracking rugby with faz looking firmly on song.
Hope sale do it in the final just to mix it up more.
Glad you aren't a big fan of the overcelebrating- I can tolerate it til it gets to head rubbing / head patting /shouting in the face of players who have made errors or been penalised. Tompkins seems esp adept at it.
From the highlights looked like sarries were v v good and played some cracking rugby with faz looking firmly on song.
Hope sale do it in the final just to mix it up more.
Quote:Sarriebone
I think OM's point is that you're condemning Maitland for going up for the ball while looking at the ball and not where he's jumping, yet if he jumped without looking at the ball you would also condemn him (correctly) for not making a genuine attempt to go for the ball.
Loyal of you for defending OM but that wasn't really my point. The criticism was of the ref not referring it to the TMO. It still is and there are other refereeing issues currently in the game, with a potential erosion of vigilance.
PG pointed out that to ignore a collision involving head contact when most current initiatives are aimed at reducing head contact was another inconsistency.
In fact you yourself recognised the potential for controversy by stating you might advocate banning jumping in competition for the ball.
I had taken your point and moved on noting your rugby observation but decided it probably didn't have legs because it reduces the overall rugby spectacle.
My recent point was simply a reaction to the insistence that Maitland was perfectly entitled to act in a way that resulted in a head collision. You hold that view as well.
I don't agree and as many others have posted it was baffling that it wasn't referred to the TMO at all.
My other frustration is that to pursue that line so vigorously on an unrelated board is strange.
I welcome comment from yourself and others but my own opinion is that as a guest there is a time to withdraw from comment on the board of a club that wasn't even participating in the game.
I wouldn't do that. It's just my opinion.
Quote:P G Tips
OM …. is a … valuable contributor and a courteous visitor
… albeit the most patronising and pompous of posters who tends to think that others are simply too stupid to understand certain things rather than just having their own opinion. A little like a Sarries over-celebration, it can grate, even as the depth and breadth of rugby knowledge is unquestionable.
Quote:OptimistQuote:P G Tips
OM …. is a … valuable contributor and a courteous visitor
… albeit the most patronising and pompous of posters who tends to think that others are simply too stupid to understand certain things rather than just having their own opinion. A little like a Sarries over-celebration, it can grate, even as the depth and breadth of rugby knowledge is unquestionable.
TBF to OM, he clearly moderates his views when he posts on this (and other) boards. If you read his posts on the Salaries board, they tend to be rather more vigorously partial - which is entirely to be expected. If I posted my unvarnished thoughts on the Tigs on the Tigs' board, I'd expect some feedback. To put it mildly.
... IMHO, of course.
Now in Honolulu
Fair points joe. You're right that there have been similar but not identical incidents that have been carded and I certainly agree that a player scoring at least one try when he perhaps shouldn't have been on the field is a biter pill.
I simply didn't reply because exactly as Sarriebone says I don't see any disrespect. I honestly don't get how you do but fair enough.
I find the discussions I can have with P G, Opti, hasta, joe, charlie and a host of other Bath supporters fascinating and often they've changed my mind on how I see events or players.
In contrast every time I have tried engaging you in a conversation you duck straight forward questions and create strawmen to argue your view as you've done yet again above.
P G I only mentioned it because so many of the Laws are defined in terms of attacker and defender although I appreciate that isn't the only way the Laws are applied.
I don't think I've disagreed that it should have been reviewed or that it could have been carded just that my view on it changed.
P G I think what I'm struggling with is that we're saying that as soon as there's head contact there's a sanction. What seems to determine the sanction is whether Maitland catches the ball or not. In a scenario where the wind plays a significant factor that feels too arbitrary to me. I take that on board totally if he isn't looking where he's going or his eyes are only ever on Furbank (so he is effectively controlling the "terms" of the collision) but for me that wasn't the case.
Matthew on the Saints board made an excellent point that when the weather isn't ideal maybe you make a conscious decision not to contest those plays. In this instance it was literally the second or third kick I'm not sure that the players were aware how much the ball was being held up by the wind but it's certainly one to think about.
joe "vigorously partial" is probably the kindest thing anyone has said about me this month
Quote:shipwrecked
Neat avoidance of Earls disrespect as well
I simply didn't reply because exactly as Sarriebone says I don't see any disrespect. I honestly don't get how you do but fair enough.
Quote:They are challenged frequently and that's what makes this enjoyable. Opti considers me "patronising and pompous" and I'm sorry that I can come across that way. I think something is lost writing on the internet that wouldn't be the case in person (plus there would be beer)shipwrecked
Your rugby views will be challenged, politely on here, how you respond says a great deal
I find the discussions I can have with P G, Opti, hasta, joe, charlie and a host of other Bath supporters fascinating and often they've changed my mind on how I see events or players.
In contrast every time I have tried engaging you in a conversation you duck straight forward questions and create strawmen to argue your view as you've done yet again above.
P G I only mentioned it because so many of the Laws are defined in terms of attacker and defender although I appreciate that isn't the only way the Laws are applied.
I don't think I've disagreed that it should have been reviewed or that it could have been carded just that my view on it changed.
P G I think what I'm struggling with is that we're saying that as soon as there's head contact there's a sanction. What seems to determine the sanction is whether Maitland catches the ball or not. In a scenario where the wind plays a significant factor that feels too arbitrary to me. I take that on board totally if he isn't looking where he's going or his eyes are only ever on Furbank (so he is effectively controlling the "terms" of the collision) but for me that wasn't the case.
Matthew on the Saints board made an excellent point that when the weather isn't ideal maybe you make a conscious decision not to contest those plays. In this instance it was literally the second or third kick I'm not sure that the players were aware how much the ball was being held up by the wind but it's certainly one to think about.
joe "vigorously partial" is probably the kindest thing anyone has said about me this month
Sorry PG but those comments can't go unchallenged.
Thats the third time you have mentioned the term "strawman argument" do you even know what it means?
Lets briefly examine this:
So he only looks when "Furbank enters his line of vision".
Where is the "refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion" in those two statements then? Entering a line of vision and going in blindly. Look at the video Maitland angle of approach means he can't see Furbank yet he doesn't look and enters at speed ........... isn't that reckless?
But we were not discussing if Maitland was right or wrong though, we were discussing the failure to refer to the TMO. Let the logic of that filter through.
Or perhaps you don't want to engage because you make statements like "Can Underhill step up to the next level?" then when presented with the facts and statistics that prove his winning % being superior to a Saracens BR forward and cite his performance against the ABs simply state the All Blacks have been in decline since 2015.
I'll not engage further but I would say that to pretend you are mates with everyone on this board except me is frankly pathetic. I would urge you to try to be a little more impartial as well and be assured I'll continue to provide "feedback" where necessary.
Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.
Thats the third time you have mentioned the term "strawman argument" do you even know what it means?
Lets briefly examine this:
Quote:Old Marovian
His eyes are on it before and after he leaves the ground and only change when Furbank enters his line of vision.
So he only looks when "Furbank enters his line of vision".
Quote:Shipwrecked
So what you are saying is he goes in blindly with his knee up, recklessly and hits Furbank's head with his forearm with force in the challenge.
Where is the "refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion" in those two statements then? Entering a line of vision and going in blindly. Look at the video Maitland angle of approach means he can't see Furbank yet he doesn't look and enters at speed ........... isn't that reckless?
But we were not discussing if Maitland was right or wrong though, we were discussing the failure to refer to the TMO. Let the logic of that filter through.
Or perhaps you don't want to engage because you make statements like "Can Underhill step up to the next level?" then when presented with the facts and statistics that prove his winning % being superior to a Saracens BR forward and cite his performance against the ABs simply state the All Blacks have been in decline since 2015.
I'll not engage further but I would say that to pretend you are mates with everyone on this board except me is frankly pathetic. I would urge you to try to be a little more impartial as well and be assured I'll continue to provide "feedback" where necessary.
"blindly" implies he is not aware of any of the environment. You specifically said I had agreed he had gone in blindly whereas I said he was focused on the flight of the ball.
Is that not a strawman argument? You're arguing against a point you're claiming I made that I never did.
If Maitland never looks at the ball he is being reckless as he has no realistic chance of knowing where it will land. Is Furbank being reckless as he is also only watching the ball? (for clarity I don't think he is but I'm trying to show the parallel between how both players enter that collision)
An interesting discussion might be about the role and responsibility of the screen/blockers in these situations.
"We" were discussing several different things in this thread as Sarriebone pointed out, how does that logic work for you?
I have never said it shouldn't have been reviewed or even that it couldn't have been yellow simply that watching it again I changed my mine to seeing why Dickson made the decision he did.
That the ABs have been in decline since 2015 is fact not opinion. That comparing W/L records of a flanker and a no8 in isolation is an imperfect way to prove the quality of one player (something you sought to do for some bizarre reason, I never compared Underhill with Vunipola) seems obvious to me.
Underhill is a quality player. He may well be an International again. Good luck to him if he is, in fact good luck to him regardless!
As for the rest? ... meh. Take it to PM if you want a proper talk otherwise I suggest we (I) stop boring folk with this.
Is that not a strawman argument? You're arguing against a point you're claiming I made that I never did.
If Maitland never looks at the ball he is being reckless as he has no realistic chance of knowing where it will land. Is Furbank being reckless as he is also only watching the ball? (for clarity I don't think he is but I'm trying to show the parallel between how both players enter that collision)
An interesting discussion might be about the role and responsibility of the screen/blockers in these situations.
"We" were discussing several different things in this thread as Sarriebone pointed out, how does that logic work for you?
I have never said it shouldn't have been reviewed or even that it couldn't have been yellow simply that watching it again I changed my mine to seeing why Dickson made the decision he did.
That the ABs have been in decline since 2015 is fact not opinion. That comparing W/L records of a flanker and a no8 in isolation is an imperfect way to prove the quality of one player (something you sought to do for some bizarre reason, I never compared Underhill with Vunipola) seems obvious to me.
Underhill is a quality player. He may well be an International again. Good luck to him if he is, in fact good luck to him regardless!
As for the rest? ... meh. Take it to PM if you want a proper talk otherwise I suggest we (I) stop boring folk with this.
What would be the point? You clearly react personally to any criticism of a Saracens player, Farrell, Vunipolas, Earl, Daly and of course Maitland being examples. You fail to recognise a consensus of opinion questioning the referee.
You post at length as a guest in the belief that quantity supersedes quality, if fact you are probably the most prolific poster on here, as a guest that is just odd.
The majority of posters on here are too polite to say what they really think or restrained by their position on the site. My view and my view alone is that as a guest restraint and discretion are the order of the day.
I don't appreciate condescending remarks about Bath Rugby, the club I support from a self imposed rugby authority either. Say what you want on your board but as a guest less is more.
Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.
You post at length as a guest in the belief that quantity supersedes quality, if fact you are probably the most prolific poster on here, as a guest that is just odd.
The majority of posters on here are too polite to say what they really think or restrained by their position on the site. My view and my view alone is that as a guest restraint and discretion are the order of the day.
I don't appreciate condescending remarks about Bath Rugby, the club I support from a self imposed rugby authority either. Say what you want on your board but as a guest less is more.
Quote:I'll address your points and then that will be it from me if you feel I am intruding.shipwrecked
Loyal of you for defending OM but that wasn't really my point. The criticism was of the ref not referring it to the TMO. It still is and there are other refereeing issues currently in the game, with a potential erosion of vigilance.
PG pointed out that to ignore a collision involving head contact when most current initiatives are aimed at reducing head contact was another inconsistency.
In fact you yourself recognised the potential for controversy by stating you might advocate banning jumping in competition for the ball.
I had taken your point and moved on noting your rugby observation but decided it probably didn't have legs because it reduces the overall rugby spectacle.
My recent point was simply a reaction to the insistence that Maitland was perfectly entitled to act in a way that resulted in a head collision. You hold that view as well.
I don't agree and as many others have posted it was baffling that it wasn't referred to the TMO at all.
My other frustration is that to pursue that line so vigorously on an unrelated board is strange.
I welcome comment from yourself and others but my own opinion is that as a guest there is a time to withdraw from comment on the board of a club that wasn't even participating in the game.
I wouldn't do that. It's just my opinion.
Firstly on the coverage of the match the TMO can be heard to say "I'm just having a better look at this, mate" Presumably the fact he doesn't then tell KD it needs looking at implies he agrees there's nothing more to it.
On the head contact, yes there is contact, but Maitland is going for the ball, which he is entitled to do, is he not? But if we're trying to eradicate dangerous head contact, as you seem to be implying, why was Du Preez not red carded for leading with the shoulder into Youngs' head in the second SF? Yes, he's the ball carrier but he clearly leads with the shoulder and seems to make deliberate contact with Youngs' head. But apparently that's ok because it's the tacklers fault for being in the wrong position
My suggestion of banning jumping for the ball is not so much a controversy thing but more that there is currently no responsibility on the jumper for his own safety or the players around them. As I mentioned if you look at the the Dupont/Kolbe incident back in the Autumn, Dupont it always looking towards the ball, Kolbe comes flying in with no regard for anything other than going for the ball. Result: he lands on Dupont, comes down dangerously, and Dupont gets red carded. Yes it was overturned, but it affected the game.
Finally, if you don't want guests commenting on matches Bath weren't involved in, maybe it might be an idea to not have threads dedicated to said matches. Personally I enjoy discussing rugby with opposition fans which is why I come on other boards. I certainly try and be respectful if I do comment. And if I disagree I will try to elaborate my point of view rather than just blankly disagreeing because it's a Saracens player.
With that said I will leave you to it.
I for one am more than happy to hear OM's views. For me it is good to hear from supporters from other teams (providing it is mature and not just wind up) to get a different perspective.
Guests are welcome on this board. Both OM and Sarriebone have contributed significantly to our discussions. Please continue to debate, but no one should question their right to be here.
Personally I'm glad the semi-final wasn't altered permanently by a red card in the early minutes for something that was daft but not malicious. I hate red cards as a sport...
I'd have given him a yellow just for missing the ball completely but I'd also be fine with no sanction whatsoever.
I'd have given him a yellow just for missing the ball completely but I'd also be fine with no sanction whatsoever.
Quote:SarrieboneQuote:shipwrecked
Loyal of you for defending OM but that wasn't really my point. The criticism was of the ref not referring it to the TMO. It still is and there are other refereeing issues currently in the game, with a potential erosion of vigilance.
Sarriebone, cheers for the sensitivity but you have just simply repeated your previous post?
Why consistently argue Maitland's innocence when the point is not about that at all, it's about non referral to the TMO? Its a wider discussion about refereeing standards including other threads.
My views are my personal opinion NOT the boards nor any other Bath poster, mine alone. COML encourages engagement from other boards, I fully accept that.
Quote:Sarriebone
My suggestion of banning jumping for the ball is not so much a controversy thing but more that there is currently no responsibility on the jumper for his own safety or the players around them.
I agree with this as soon as players leave the ground they have very little control over their destiny but as I said rugby loves the drama of the arial action so I don't think it will ever happen.
I understood your point about it not being referred to the TMO, but as I mentioned the TMO said to KD that he was looking at it. Unfortunately on the broadcast Healey and Dallaglio are too busy wetting themselves over it that we can't clearly hear the discussion between KD and the TMO. We can hear KD say "he over ran it" and the TMO say "yeah", can't quite make out the rest of what he says but it's clear he doesn't disagree with KD. 6m35 on the Prem website replay if you want to try and have a listen.
Appreciate it Hasta
Quote:hasta
Guests are welcome on this board. Both OM and Sarriebone have contributed significantly to our discussions. Please continue to debate, but no one should question their right to be here.
Appreciate it Hasta
I post on here because I find it the most interesting and engaged forum of the SN network which is a credit to the Mods and posters.
There's something to be said about brevity in positing (although probably not by me!) but genuine apologies if any of my posts haven't been or not seemed to be respectful of Bath club and/or its players.
All the best for next season. I think it's going to be a good one for you guys
There's something to be said about brevity in positing (although probably not by me!) but genuine apologies if any of my posts haven't been or not seemed to be respectful of Bath club and/or its players.
All the best for next season. I think it's going to be a good one for you guys
Thanks OM for your good wishes for next season. I have only been reading and contributing to the Forums over the last 6 months or so and have noticed that you pop up regularly on them. I have always found your posts interesting and respectful. It is clear you are a fan of rugby union and enjoy the discussions, please continue to be involved. Best wishes for the final.
Quote:shipwrecked
Why consistently argue Maitland's innocence when the point is not about that at all, it's about non referral to the TMO? Its a wider discussion about refereeing standards including other threads.
If I recall correctly SW there was a discussion between the TMO and KD which resulted in a penalty. Personally I saw it as little more than a rugby incident and barely worthy of a penalty. The fact the Saints player stayed down wasn't relevant for me.
Quote:OutsideBathQuote:shipwrecked
Why consistently argue Maitland's innocence when the point is not about that at all, it's about non referral to the TMO? Its a wider discussion about refereeing standards including other threads.
If I recall correctly SW there was a discussion between the TMO and KD which resulted in a penalty. Personally I saw it as little more than a rugby incident and barely worthy of a penalty. The fact the Saints player stayed down wasn't relevant for me.
Quite possibly OB and Sarriebone also added that point, however it clearly wasn’t apparent as otherwise why would it be an issue it’s mainstream and rugby press.
There do seem to be more contentious refereeing decisions this season with red card reversals and my feeling is that the ref tends to lead these decisions often side lining TMOs objections.
I don’t think that is good for the game, if the TMO’s view isn’t accepted for why bother?
I agree with Sarriebone about Du Breeze/Youngs incident in the other SF, I heard Barnes say that Youngs head hit Du Preeze. If we are trying to avoid head injuries it seems odd that the ball carrier can get away with almost anything and all the responsibility seems to be on the tackler who is often the one whose head is in the most dangerous position.
Regarding Maitland, when I saw the incident live I was far more concerned about the knee to the centre of chest than the relatively mild head collision.
Regarding Maitland, when I saw the incident live I was far more concerned about the knee to the centre of chest than the relatively mild head collision.
Quote:shipwrecked
There do seem to be more contentious refereeing decisions this season with red card reversals and my feeling is that the ref tends to lead these decisions often side lining TMOs objections.
I don’t think that is good for the game, if the TMO’s view isn’t accepted for why bother?
On the contrary, this will be great for the game. The Ref's authority should be final and - he or she - accountable.
Rugby games don't need to be decided by a forgettable bloke in a box when everyone blames the ref anyway.
As far as I can tell no retrospective card of any kind has been brought against Maitland so, irrespective of what the press thinks, it would appear the authorities accepted his decision making.
Quote:The BearQuote:shipwrecked
There do seem to be more contentious refereeing decisions this season with red card reversals and my feeling is that the ref tends to lead these decisions often side lining TMOs objections.
I don’t think that is good for the game, if the TMO’s view isn’t accepted for why bother?
On the contrary, this will be great for the game. The Ref's authority should be final and - he or she - accountable.
Rugby games don't need to be decided by a forgettable bloke in a box when everyone blames the ref anyway.
As far as I can tell no retrospective card of any kind has been brought against Maitland so, irrespective of what the press thinks, it would appear the authorities accepted his decision making.
So on a practical level and as an ex referee are you confident that you can see everything that happens?
Why bother having a TMO then, is that what you are saying?
Quote:shipwreckedQuote:The BearQuote:shipwrecked
There do seem to be more contentious refereeing decisions this season with red card reversals and my feeling is that the ref tends to lead these decisions often side lining TMOs objections.
I don’t think that is good for the game, if the TMO’s view isn’t accepted for why bother?
On the contrary, this will be great for the game. The Ref's authority should be final and - he or she - accountable.
Rugby games don't need to be decided by a forgettable bloke in a box when everyone blames the ref anyway.
As far as I can tell no retrospective card of any kind has been brought against Maitland so, irrespective of what the press thinks, it would appear the authorities accepted his decision making.
So on a practical level and as an ex referee are you confident that you can see everything that happens?
Why bother having a TMO then, is that what you are saying?
Rugby has never been perfectly refereed to the Laws, that's one of its great attractions. The only real debate is deciding in what way that imperfection will be evidenced in any given match and that depends mostly on what the ref had for breakfast. This flexibility and variety, and the demands this places on the intelligence of the players during the match, is a large part of what I love about the game.
The addition of the TMO has not really helped this, just given us an extra official to "disagree" with. If you look at our board post match, as many posts are made about the reffing as are made about the actual play. It does make you wonder why we watch the game
... IMHO, of course.
Now in Honolulu
Quote:joethefanaticQuote:shipwreckedQuote:The BearQuote:shipwrecked
There do seem to be more contentious refereeing decisions this season with red card reversals and my feeling is that the ref tends to lead these decisions often side lining TMOs objections.
I don’t think that is good for the game, if the TMO’s view isn’t accepted for why bother?
On the contrary, this will be great for the game. The Ref's authority should be final and - he or she - accountable.
Rugby games don't need to be decided by a forgettable bloke in a box when everyone blames the ref anyway.
As far as I can tell no retrospective card of any kind has been brought against Maitland so, irrespective of what the press thinks, it would appear the authorities accepted his decision making.
So on a practical level and as an ex referee are you confident that you can see everything that happens?
Why bother having a TMO then, is that what you are saying?
Rugby has never been perfectly refereed to the Laws, that's one of its great attractions. The only real debate is deciding in what way that imperfection will be evidenced in any given match and that depends mostly on what the ref had for breakfast. This flexibility and variety, and the demands this places on the intelligence of the players during the match, is a large part of what I love about the game.
The addition of the TMO has not really helped this, just given us an extra official to "disagree" with. If you look at our board post match, as many posts are made about the reffing as are made about the actual play. It does make you wonder why we watch the game
Interesting view Joe but anyone wanting to invest in rugby would surely have serious doubts if the TV with slow motion replays, screenshots etc simply highlighted a lottery with forward passes, suspect cards of varying colour.
The game HAS to present a professional image doesn't it. You are familiar with American Football, with growing interest in the UK.
Will the public want to watch rugby typical of the amateur era? After a couple of comical but well meaning refereeing errors the public will simply turn off branding the sport unprofessional.
I posted this link on the forward pass thread but its relevant here. World Rugby is to introduce a SMART BALL trial that will "help officials decided include forward passes, crooked throws at the lineout, tries grounded on the line and at which point touch is found from a kick."
Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.
Quote:shipwreckedQuote:joethefanaticQuote:shipwreckedQuote:The BearQuote:shipwrecked
There do seem to be more contentious refereeing decisions this season with red card reversals and my feeling is that the ref tends to lead these decisions often side lining TMOs objections.
I don’t think that is good for the game, if the TMO’s view isn’t accepted for why bother?
On the contrary, this will be great for the game. The Ref's authority should be final and - he or she - accountable.
Rugby games don't need to be decided by a forgettable bloke in a box when everyone blames the ref anyway.
As far as I can tell no retrospective card of any kind has been brought against Maitland so, irrespective of what the press thinks, it would appear the authorities accepted his decision making.
So on a practical level and as an ex referee are you confident that you can see everything that happens?
Why bother having a TMO then, is that what you are saying?
Rugby has never been perfectly refereed to the Laws, that's one of its great attractions. The only real debate is deciding in what way that imperfection will be evidenced in any given match and that depends mostly on what the ref had for breakfast. This flexibility and variety, and the demands this places on the intelligence of the players during the match, is a large part of what I love about the game.
The addition of the TMO has not really helped this, just given us an extra official to "disagree" with. If you look at our board post match, as many posts are made about the reffing as are made about the actual play. It does make you wonder why we watch the game
Interesting view Joe but anyone wanting to invest in rugby would surely have serious doubts if the TV with slow motion replays, screenshots etc simply highlighted a lottery with forward passes, suspect cards of varying colour.
The game HAS to present a professional image doesn't it. You are familiar with American Football, with growing interest in the UK.
Will the public want to watch rugby typical of the amateur era? After a couple of comical but well meaning refereeing errors the public will simply turn off branding the sport unprofessional.
As far as I can tell, there is a fair amount of complaining about the official rule interpretations in NFL, too but its easier to manage as its not a continuous game.
But its a feature of rugby, not a bug. I can't think of anything more likely to drive fan engagement than the resentment generated by the conviction that "we wuz robbed by the officials". Having an opaque set of Laws that allow everyone to have a wildly divergent opinion that can be supported by selective quoting of the rules strikes me as social meedja gold dust.
I present this thread as evidence!
... IMHO, of course.
Now in Honolulu
Point taken H but we are all different. Is it wrong to ask for a standard of behaviour and respect?
I apologise if I push points or ask for proof but I’m not one to allow unsubstantiated information or questionably opinion to stand unchallenged.
Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.
I apologise if I push points or ask for proof but I’m not one to allow unsubstantiated information or questionably opinion to stand unchallenged.
Personally I think that OldMarovian and Sarriebone are welcome contributors to this forum. It would also be a pretty boring place to visit if everyone had the same opinion - I didn't see any disrepect really, just a difference of opinions.
[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]
[24/25 adoptee: Francois van Wyk]
Basically agree with Joe.
There is an expectation of precision when they, the laws themselves, are inprecise. A TMO is just someone else to make a subjective decision. The laws are not inprecise by accident and, as VAR shows, precision is not entertainment.
I will, and do, apply laws differently to the next ex-ref. That's how the laws are written. What I would look for is consistency within the laws i.e. do the laws allow that interpretation?
Most TMO decisions are just inviting a different interpretation and it does the refs authority no good, which does the game no good. Sure there are times where something happens behind the refs back and where the touch judges aren't watching (usually fights at my level) where a TMO might be nice but at the end of the day the ref has to make an interpretation and they should be supported in that.
There is an expectation of precision when they, the laws themselves, are inprecise. A TMO is just someone else to make a subjective decision. The laws are not inprecise by accident and, as VAR shows, precision is not entertainment.
I will, and do, apply laws differently to the next ex-ref. That's how the laws are written. What I would look for is consistency within the laws i.e. do the laws allow that interpretation?
Most TMO decisions are just inviting a different interpretation and it does the refs authority no good, which does the game no good. Sure there are times where something happens behind the refs back and where the touch judges aren't watching (usually fights at my level) where a TMO might be nice but at the end of the day the ref has to make an interpretation and they should be supported in that.
Quote:hemington
SW, I think you need to stop taking those skin-thinning pills.
Not heard that one before and made me laugh out loud😂
Widcombe Garçon
Watched the Sarries Saints game last night, and as good as Sarries were I thought Farrell was absolutely outstanding in everything he did.
Nailed on 10 for England now surely? With Ford on the bench
Widcombe Garçon
Nailed on 10 for England now surely? With Ford on the bench
Widcombe Garçon
Quote:Widcombe Boy
Watched the Sarries Saints game last night, and as good as Sarries were I thought Farrell was absolutely outstanding in everything he did.
Nailed on 10 for England now surely? With Ford on the bench
Spot on WB, that's the irony.
Sadly this might be another case of not fully reading the content, I have NO issue with OM posting on here, Sarriebone neither, in fact less so because of his prefaces in his posts he is politely socially aware. Where have I said anything different? I have made pains to stress it's MY problem.
So why the fuss? Simply because one poster who continually wants to promote Saracens players took exception 3 months ago to my criticism as Farrell as an international centre. I'm not alone in that. He also criticised Sam Underhill who I defended with some facts and stats, he plays for Bath, I’m a supporter. He commented personally and apologised to the board.
There months later, whist discussing a refereeing topic OM decides to vigorously defend Maitland when the topic posted by PG was about non TMO involvement. (That is actually the straw man distraction that he accused me both on 3 occasions but whatever). After much debate I posted a video of the incident for all to judge. At which point he returned to his defence of Maitland and used the terms dullard and straw man when I pointed out it was a TMO referral issue. I objected because of my thin skin but two attacks was enough for me.
How did I get involved, I posted links on the TMO referral issue that were in the press for someone who is less technically minded.
To use the pub analogy, I was chatting with my mates about one issue whist an away supporter insisted on changing the subject, the guy was rude, I asked him to go away. I wasn’t rude.
Am I thin skinned? Probably but I’m also not likely to accept content I don’t agree with. So I’m here on my board and I intend to stay. I love rugby and particularly Bath Rugby. Post away guests but don’t expect me not to respond and be prepared for facts.
Tyler Offiah
Opinion is based on assumptions, whereas fact is based on observation or research.
So why the fuss? Simply because one poster who continually wants to promote Saracens players took exception 3 months ago to my criticism as Farrell as an international centre. I'm not alone in that. He also criticised Sam Underhill who I defended with some facts and stats, he plays for Bath, I’m a supporter. He commented personally and apologised to the board.
There months later, whist discussing a refereeing topic OM decides to vigorously defend Maitland when the topic posted by PG was about non TMO involvement. (That is actually the straw man distraction that he accused me both on 3 occasions but whatever). After much debate I posted a video of the incident for all to judge. At which point he returned to his defence of Maitland and used the terms dullard and straw man when I pointed out it was a TMO referral issue. I objected because of my thin skin but two attacks was enough for me.
How did I get involved, I posted links on the TMO referral issue that were in the press for someone who is less technically minded.
To use the pub analogy, I was chatting with my mates about one issue whist an away supporter insisted on changing the subject, the guy was rude, I asked him to go away. I wasn’t rude.
Am I thin skinned? Probably but I’m also not likely to accept content I don’t agree with. So I’m here on my board and I intend to stay. I love rugby and particularly Bath Rugby. Post away guests but don’t expect me not to respond and be prepared for facts.
I wasn’t getting at you SW just loved the phrase.
Hey we all get on pretty well on here
All welcome
Widcombe Garçon
Hey we all get on pretty well on here
All welcome
Quote:shipwrecked
Sadly this might be another case of not fully reading the content, I have NO issue with OM posting on here, Sarriebone neither, in fact less so because of his prefaces in his posts he is politely socially aware. Where have I said anything different? I have made pains to stress it's MY problem.
So why the fuss? Simply because one poster who continually wants to promote Saracens players took exception 3 months ago to my criticism as Farrell as an international centre. I'm not alone in that. He also criticised Sam Underhill who I defended with some facts and stats, he plays for Bath, I’m a supporter. He commented personally and apologised to the board.
There months later, whist discussing a refereeing topic OM decides to vigorously defend Maitland when the topic posted by PG was about non TMO involvement. (That is actually the straw man distraction that he accused me both on 3 occasions but whatever). After much debate I posted a video of the incident for all to judge. At which point he returned to his defence of Maitland and used the terms dullard and straw man when I pointed out it was a TMO referral issue. I objected because of my thin skin but two attacks was enough for me.
How did I get involved, I posted links on the TMO referral issue that were in the press for someone who is less technically minded.
To use the pub analogy, I was chatting with my mates about one issue whist an away supporter insisted on changing the subject, the guy was rude, I asked him to go away. I wasn’t rude.
Am I thin skinned? Probably but I’m also not likely to accept content I don’t agree with. So I’m here on my board and I intend to stay. I love rugby and particularly Bath Rugby. Post away guests but don’t expect me not to respond and be prepared for facts.
Widcombe Garçon
This is a thread to discuss a couple of games. I don't think it was ever only about one game, one team, one player, one incident, one decision, or lack off it.
P G and others made a very good point about a lack of review but discussing another element of that same incident isn't refuting that point or making a strawman argument it's just expanding the conversation which is at least part of the point of a discussion forum I believe?
Cheers to all in the Pub
P G and others made a very good point about a lack of review but discussing another element of that same incident isn't refuting that point or making a strawman argument it's just expanding the conversation which is at least part of the point of a discussion forum I believe?
Cheers to all in the Pub
Quote:BathMatt53
Personally I think that OldMarovian and Sarriebone are welcome contributors to this forum. It would also be a pretty boring place to visit if everyone had the same opinion - I didn't see any disrepect really, just a difference of opinions.
I completely agree BM !
Adopted Player 2018/19 Ross Batty
Adopted Player 2019/20 Jack Davies
Adopted Player 2020/21 Cam Redpath
Adopted Player 2021/22 Darren Atkins
Adopted Player 2022/23 Gabriel Hamer-Webb
Adopted Player 2023/24 Tom Carr-Smith
Adopted Player 2024/25 Max Ojomoh
"AN OUNCE OF ACTION IS WORTH A TON OF THEORY"
FRIEDRICH ENGELS
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Bath News 24/7
More Bath headlines
- LEARNINGS FOR NEXT SEASON. SEASON REVIEW CONTINUED.
- World Rugby Junior World Championship 2026 Preview
- FAILURE, FRUSTRATION OR FLATLINE? 2026 SEASON REVIEW
- "IT'S IN OUR HANDS”...BATH V EXETER.
- NOW OR NEVER: BATH V LEICESTER
- BOUNCEBACKABILITY: EXETER CHIEFS V BATH RUGBY
- LE HANDICAP? BORDEAUX v BATH ECC SEMI FINAL
- “MAY YOUR CHOICES REFLECT YOUR HOPES NOT YOUR FEARS”.
- EYES BACK ON THE OTHER PRIZE! BATH v HARLEQUINS
Bath latest threads
- O/T Postcards from the Past No 4 – Naples 2010
- Injury latest on forgotten Bath Rugby wrecking ball Jaco Coetzee
- OT / Prostate
- OT - Fox wins the Open at Birkdale
- O/T Postcards from the Past No 3 Théoule-sur-Mer – May 2017
- OT/ Site advertising
- Will Roue Signed ahead of the 2026/27 season
- Bath Rugby's confirmed 2026/27 incoming signings and outgoings
- 2026/27 PREM Rugby Cup fixtures confirmed
- O/T Postcards from the Past No2 Cordoba 2015