[2016 RBS Six Nations] Round 1: Scotland vs. England (06/02/2016)

[ncurd]

No, it couldn't. He doesn't have to change his line to accommodate Farrell's idiocy. If he'd leaned bck into Farrell, you have an argument, but that didn't happen. The ball was over the line and he simply threw the dummy out of the pram. Penalty in any ref's book.

I don't think it was an act of petulance but more one of trying to get Laidlaw to touch the ball before it entered touch. A very botched attempt I'll admit but I still think that's what he was trying to do.

 

[YoungScud]

Saw this on the Warriors forum, anyone else pick up on this?


In the first half of the game after Laidlaw's missed penalty the English drop-out carried all the way to the Scotland in-goal and was grounded by Finn Russell.

Per law 13.15 (b) option offered should have been scrum at the centre of the English 22 or drop-out to be retaken. Instead we had a Scottish drop-out.

It's got to be a rare turn of events so not surprised our players didn't pick up on it, but what's Lacey's excuse?

Simple. He's incompetent.

- - - Updated - - -

No! Only where it is deliberate is it a penalty and he could not have known that it was knocked on so, therefore, scrum!

I would agree with Moore that Cole should not have taken a chance!

Lacey is an appalling ref mainly because he is inconsistent and he has been that all right!

I am not sure that either side deserves to be ahead......and they have to learn to play with Lacey's inconsistency!!

I think you're lost sight of the meaning of 'deliberate' in this context. Cole caught the ball. That wasn't accidental, he chose to do it. Ergo, it was a deliberate act. The referee can't be responsible for what's in Cole's head, so if the ball was played forward to him, and he deliberately caught it, it's a penalty.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Law 10.1 (d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.

Isn't that precisely what Laidlaw was doing?

Split second stuff, but if Laidlaw hadn't been in the way, Farrell could have made a legitimate attempt to play the ball. No, he shouldn't have pushed him, but to give a pen for that is reffing by the law, not the spirit.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Guys, can we have a step back and think about what being a specialist openside is all about before you drive me postal?

It's not all about the turnovers. If we're measuring the success of a specialist openside solely by turnovers, something has gone horribly awry. I know they're really prominent and a lot of specialist opensides are really good at them, but it's really not the only reason they're on the pitch. There's very few players in recent years who've made their way onto the pitch solely because they're good at turning over ball at the ruck and those guys have been exceptional.

The point of a specialist openside is he is the forward constantly working to be in support of the ball. And yes, if he's doing that correctly, frequently he will be the first person at the breakdown and that should give him a lot of chances to turnover ball at the ruck. But an openside can have a good game without ever turning over the ball there if he's effectively rucking out his own ball, preventing players from getting isolated, offering a linking option, diving on loose balls, slowing opposition ball, and so on.

Just because Haskell didn't get a turnover didn't mean he was a failure as an openside, just as Robshaw having the second most turnovers in the last 6N didn't mean he was a success as an openside. Success and failure in the role of openside depends on how they fulfilled the above paragraph.

And both men have been to date, imo, failures. There were simply too many problems in securing our own ball swiftly for the openside and too little sign of opposition ball being slowed to be deemed a success. Haskell deserves more than one game before being deemed an overall failure (and needs to play in more open games to boot) but his general history does not make for confidence on the score. Nor does the sight of Joe Launchbury once again looking more like England's openside than any of the back row - and, on reflection on the opinions of others, I'm really not sure Launchbury was properly fit that game.

Fair enough if you disagree with me on that. But please make it about how they played as an openside, and not about the turnovers, or I'm billing this place for any ensuing mental health problems.

Great post, particularly the bit about working on your own ball. We win plenty, it's just slow and turgid - we really need someone in there right up the carrier's jacksie who can turn that into quick ball. Doing that half a dozen times a game is just as effective as winning a coupe of turnovers, and probably easier.

 

[iINDOMINUSxx]

Saw this on the Warriors forum, anyone else pick up on this?


In the first half of the game after Laidlaw's missed penalty the English drop-out carried all the way to the Scotland in-goal and was grounded by Finn Russell.

Per law 13.15 (b) option offered should have been scrum at the centre of the English 22 or drop-out to be retaken. Instead we had a Scottish drop-out.

It's got to be a rare turn of events so not surprised our players didn't pick up on it, but what's Lacey's excuse?

pretty sure if Russell grounded the ball (which he did) it's a 22 drop out to Scotland. However if the kick went dead then its a scrum on where the kick was made.

 

[YoungScud]

Law 10.1 (d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.

Isn't that precisely what Laidlaw was doing?

Split second stuff, but if Laidlaw hadn't been in the way, Farrell could have made a legitimate attempt to play the ball. No, he shouldn't have pushed him, but to give a pen for that is reffing by the law, not the spirit.

'Intentionally' is the operative word there. Laidlaw simply stood his ground, without any intent to prevent anyone playing the ball. It seesm to me that reffing to the law is what's needed more often, for example, put ins at scrums.

 

[McTallshort]

Doesn't matter, had no relevance on the outcome of the game.

 

[tsof]

I don't think it was an act of petulance but more one of trying to get Laidlaw to touch the ball before it entered touch. A very botched attempt I'll admit but I still think that's what he was trying to do.

Exactly this. He was simply trying to push Laidlaw onto the ball in order to win the line out. Nothing more.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Exactly this. He was simply trying to push Laidlaw onto the ball in order to win the line out. Nothing more.

Could have done it better than sending him flying, running into the back of him and driving him forward rather than a single shove would have achieved a similar effect and been completely legal.

 

[Tony Manx]

Simple. He's incompetent.

- - - Updated - - -




I think you're lost sight of the meaning of 'deliberate' in this context. Cole caught the ball. That wasn't accidental, he chose to do it. Ergo, it was a deliberate act. The referee can't be responsible for what's in Cole's head, so if the ball was played forward to him, and he deliberately caught it, it's a penalty.

Not my point....how could he have possibly know it was a knock on before he caught when the ref did not was my point!

 

[tsof]

Could have done it better than sending him flying, running into the back of him and driving him forward rather than a single shove would have achieved a similar effect and been completely legal.

Possibly. I think Laidlaw knew exactly what was coming and was more than obliging in hitting the floor, and so running into the back of him would have been even less discreet than a shove in the back.

 

[Every Time Ref]

'Intentionally' is the operative word there. Laidlaw simply stood his ground, without any intent to prevent anyone playing the ball. It seesm to me that reffing to the law is what's needed more often, for example, put ins at scrums.

You can't seriously be claiming Laidlaw wasn't intentionally blocking Farrell from getting to the ball...?

A bit stupid of Farrell to push Laidlaw, but he was clearly blocking and, within the letter of the law, should have been penalised. He was never likely to be though.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Possibly. I think Laidlaw knew exactly what was coming and was more than obliging in hitting the floor, and so running into the back of him would have been even less discreet than a shove in the back.

Not full tilt, just make a bit of contact and, once contact was made, just keep shoving forwards. Better yet, why not run off the pitch around Laidlaw and try to get a quick tap in towards the try line? It will be very hard to claim you are not obstructing if the other player has gone off the pitch and you are still in their way.

 

[Peat]

You can't seriously be claiming Laidlaw wasn't intentionally blocking Farrell from getting to the ball...?

A bit stupid of Farrell to push Laidlaw, but he was clearly blocking and, within the letter of the law, should have been penalised. He was never likely to be though.

He was, but he was doing it within the law. Or maybe I should say the common interpretation of the law.

 

[Every Time Ref]

He was, but he was doing it within the law. Or maybe I should say the common interpretation of the law.

You're right, common interpretation doesn't penalise blocking in that context. It should though, do you not agree?

 

[McTallshort]

Care blocked Laidlaw prior to the first England try, Laidlaw should have given him a shove and I am sure the likes of youngscud would rightly not found anything wrong with that.

Farrell shoved Laidlaw out the way, so what, big deal made no difference to the outcome of the game and the penalty was in a none critical area for England. Obviously we are getting the normal sanctimonious hand wringing from the usual suspects but that's understandable given their team has just shown again how rubbish they are and the one off performance against the aussies was just a one off.

 

[bertiec]

The words Richard and head come to mind. I f England are no good what do you call the lower ranks. You play well with other things it would seem, let's see if you can free your hands long enough to beat us. In that instance I will admit England must be cr*p.

I have stood in front of the mirror and slapped myself. I have made a vow not to reply when full of hobgoblin. Was in a flaming temper, considered having a sex change so I know what it's like to be in the right. So I must say sorry lads.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Care blocked Laidlaw prior to the first England try, Laidlaw should have given him a shove and I am sure the likes of youngscud would rightly not found anything wrong with that.

Farrell shoved Laidlaw out the way, so what, big deal made no difference to the outcome of the game and the penalty was in a none critical area for England. Obviously we are getting the normal sanctimonious hand wringing from the usual suspects but that's understandable given their team has just shown again how rubbish they are and the one off performance against the aussies was just a one off.

Different situation, Laidlaw had no right to be infront of Care before BV took the ball out but Farrell has every right to be in front of Laidlaw chasing the ball in open play. Shoving a scurmhalf out the way when the scrum is still going is illegal as long as he is in line or beyond where the ball is. As someone said, Care didn't put himself between BV and Laidlaw, Laidlaw went around Care in his desperation to be disruptive and BV simply ran the other side. Care did not actually move in front of Laidlaw, Laidlaw was already behind him.

 

[Peat]

Peat, I see that being the role of the second row and blindside primarily. They have the powerful frames to be able to drive over the ball effectively. I also don't see it being a particularly specialist role, everyone in the pack should be working in support of the ball carrier. In attack, I see the 7 playing the link between forwards and backs, which is why you often see the 7 making the most passes of any forward, but also rucking when numbers are low.

Breakdown skills are what I see as the most important part of an openside because they are so specialist. Whilst a lot of forwards can be situationally competent in the breakdown, the 7 is the only player on the field that is actively looking for ways of disrupting the breakdown. I agree that the success of an openside shouldn't be measured on turnovers though. I think that more often than turning the ball over, they are slowing down opposition ball and this is a crucial role. There's no useful metric to really tell how often they are slowing opposition ball down relative to other players, but my instincts say that if you're the kind of player that turns the ball over often, then you're the kind of player that is slowing down opposition breakdown too.

I think the point is that Kvesic is seen to lack in a skill that Jones deems as important for all forwards to have.

What is the that/it of the first paragraph?

If it's constantly working in support of the ball, then I think you've misread me; I would suggest that what I mean by that at least includes what you mean by playing the link between forwards and backs. Maybe we're talking about the same thing, I don't know. What I do know it's a specialist role alright simply due to the fitness needed; tight five forwards need not apply. It would be cruelty to dumb animals.

I would also suggest that in any team that attacks with width and is any good at it, there will frequently be low numbers and the openside will frequently need to enter the ruck. A large part of constantly working in support of the ball and the openside role is, imo, ensuring there's always someone near by who's very good at the ruck for when that situation occurs. An openside who is not much cop at securing his own ball in these situations is a bad openside.

Incidentally, I think you're paying too much attention to powerful frames and not enough to technique. As you note, breakdown skills is an important part of the brief; opensides should always have good technique there and that frequently makes them better clearers than other forwards, particularly locks and big blindsides, some of whom have awful technique on account of being too damn tall. Personally I think front rows make the best clearers of the breakdown; lots of power in a low squat frame.

But the absolute best clearer of the breakdown is the first guy there and the openside will play that role more than anyone else.


Defence - If the openside is the only guy on the field looking for ways to disrupt the breakdown, you've got a serious weakness (imo) but just as with attack, he should be getting more bites at the cherry than anyone else. I completely agree on the value of slowing the ball down though; you do occasionally see home done ruck stats that take account of this. I was going to do some for England this 6N but basically am already bored of it. Like hell am I rewatching the Scotland game again.


As for Kvesic... opensides really come into their own when the game opens up. Jones showed zero interest in opening up against Scotland. His omission is not, in hindsight, surprising in those circumstances. He wants to spank Italy, maybe that'll give Kvesic a chance. Or maybe not. We shall see. I hope so.

 

[YoungScud]

Care blocked Laidlaw prior to the first England try, Laidlaw should have given him a shove and I am sure the likes of youngscud would rightly not found anything wrong with that.

Farrell shoved Laidlaw out the way, so what, big deal made no difference to the outcome of the game and the penalty was in a none critical area for England. Obviously we are getting the normal sanctimonious hand wringing from the usual suspects but that's understandable given their team has just shown again how rubbish they are and the one off performance against the aussies was just a one off.

There is a difference, ad I suspect you know it. There was zero prospect of Farrell ever gettingin front of Laidlaw, but the crucial difference is this: usually, a blocking scrum half will actually be leaning back into his opposite number while making no attempt to pay the ball. In the incident we're talking about, Laidlaw simply held his line, made no attempt to physically impede Farrell, and Farrell reacted with a tantrum.

- - - Updated - - -

Not my point....how could he have possibly know it was a knock on before he caught when the ref did not was my point!

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. How do you know he couldn't have known? The touch judge saw the knock on. Is it inconceivable that Cole did?