[2022 Six Nations] Scotland vs England (05/02/22)

[Vieux Talonneur]

Could have taken Marchant off, played minus one winger then subbed LCD off after his sinbin for Nowell. Both would have been irreversible substitutions not 'must have a front rower for the scrum' reversible ones, but at 65 minutes (75 after the sin bin) it wouldn't have mattered.

Poor, poor coaching, I thought, especially as he ended up having to bring George on immediately after the lineout cockup anyway. Of course, George could have bombed the lineout throw anyway, but it couldn't have been any worse than it actually turned out to be. For a 'tactical genius' is was really dopey.

Exactly this. I wasn't thinking reversible. Or a back rower could have gone off. It was a difficult situation but that's exactly the kind of big call that coaches and captains have to make. I think that and the later decision to throw to Ewels were both bad errors of judgement. I wasn't hugely concerned about turning down the shot at goal as it was no gimme. We might have expected Ford to put us further forward but that's what pressure does and there's no guarantee Smith would have done any better - he'd probably have been fairly conservative given his earlier error.

 

[Which Tyler]

Could have taken Marchant off, played minus one winger then subbed LCD off after his sinbin for Nowell. Both would have been irreversible substitutions not 'must have a front rower for the scrum' reversible ones, but at 65 minutes (75 after the sin bin) it wouldn't have mattered.

Poor, poor coaching, I thought, especially as he ended up having to bring George on immediately after the lineout cockup anyway. Of course, George could have bombed the lineout throw anyway, but it couldn't have been any worse than it actually turned out to be. For a 'tactical genius' is was really dopey.

Worth pointing out that bombing of the lineout had absolutely nothing to do with Marler, and everything to do with Dombrandt running around like a poorly socialised labrador and screwing up everyone's timing, and positioning, and leaving Marler with no legal option for the throw.

 

[MikeTheNative]

I have sympathy for Marler there. You can't even just say go for the easy/funny option at the front as the opposition would be marking that so you probably end up losing it anyway.

 

[g6mcg]

Worth pointing out that bombing of the lineout had absolutely nothing to do with Marler, and everything to do with Dombrandt running around like a poorly socialised labrador and screwing up everyone's timing, and positioning, and leaving Marler with no legal option for the throw.

Agree not Marler's fault but I reckon that probably comes from the pressure of not having a regular thrower.

 

[Crash Hamster]

Worth pointing out that bombing of the lineout had absolutely nothing to do with Marler, and everything to do with Dombrandt running around like a poorly socialised labrador and screwing up everyone's timing, and positioning, and leaving Marler with no legal option for the throw.

I'm sure it wasn't his fault, the fault lay with whoever made the call. I doubt Marler could help throwing it directly at the obvious large bloke charging at him from 3m away.

I don't think that they'd have tried the fancy trick play if there'd been a proper hooker throwing.

Also, it was obvious what Russell was thinking with the kick to touch. It really was simple to counter by bringing George on and Jones wasn't agile enough of mind to do so. Really good from Russell and really poor from Jones.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I'm sure it wasn't his fault, the fault lay with whoever made the call. I doubt Marler could help throwing it directly at the obvious large bloke charging at him from 3m away.

My guess is a no hooker contingency that was pre planned on the training field and would have happened regardless of game situation / field position. If you had to have a non thrower throwing, something like that was probably the least worst option. You couldn't really expect a non thrower to hit a jumper under what would have been huge pressure from the Scots.

But more generally who is calling the line outs now? I doubt it would have been any of the back row or Isiekwe so I'm guessing either whichever hooker was on the pitch or Itoje and probably the latter. Anyone know?

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

My guess is a no hooker contingency that was pre planned on the training field and would have happened regardless of game situation / field position. If you had to have a non thrower throwing, something like that was probably the least worst option. You couldn't really expect a non thrower to hit a jumper under what would have been huge pressure from the Scots.

But more generally who is calling the line outs now? I doubt it would have been any of the back row or Isiekwe so I'm guessing either whichever hooker was on the pitch or Itoje and probably the latter. Anyone know?

I'd be amazed if its the hookers calling the lineouts at that level. I think it would almost certainly be Itoje given his experience at this level and I also wouldn't have thought Isiekwe does too much calling at Sarries given how much time he spends in the back row.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

But more generally who is calling the line outs now? I doubt it would have been any of the back row or Isiekwe

Why wouldn't it be Itoje or Isiekwe?

I think it's usually Lawes, but without him there I'd guess at Itoje and then Isiekwe (I had a google to see who calls Saracens lineouts and saw an article from a season or so ago saying Isiekwe is learning to be a lineout caller from Itoje, and McCall was saying he's becoming very good at it)

Edit:
Looks like Hill is our main lineout caller, and Ewels is reserve, from an article I just saw

 

[Crash Hamster]

My guess is a no hooker contingency that was pre planned on the training field and would have happened regardless of game situation / field position. If you had to have a non thrower throwing, something like that was probably the least worst option. You couldn't really expect a non thrower to hit a jumper under what would have been huge pressure from the Scots.

All throws to 1 in the lineout suffer at least one of the following:
not straight*
not 5*
knocked on*
taken by opposing 1
forward pass back to hooker*
getting bundled into touch
*Admittedly the ref may not notice

It's a really high risk call and not one to be taken 5m from your line under any circumstances.

I would also expect any professional rugby player to be able to throw a ball 8m at a pre-determined height; 2 ball has to be the safest option. If they can't find someone amongst the remaining 14 players, then George should have been on.

If they can find someone to do it, then they should have done it.

What's the worst that could have happened with a 2 ball? Scotland get the ball? It's in no way worse than what did happen and had great scope to be better.

It's just a complete lack of thinking.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Why wouldn't it be Itoje or Isiekwe?

I think it's usually Lawes, but without him there I'd guess at Itoje and then Isiekwe (I had a google to see who calls Saracens lineouts and saw an article from a season or so ago saying Isiekwe is learning to be a lineout caller from Itoje, and McCall was saying he's becoming very good at it)

Edit:
Looks like Hill is our main lineout caller, and Ewels is reserve, from an article I just saw

Figured it would have been a huge ask and unnecessary pressure to have piled that on Isiekwe given he'd only just been recalled and isn't sure of his place. I was assuming it would have been Itoje.

Ewels as reserve? Please please please don't tell me Ewels took over and called that attacking line out to himself. I genuinely think I'd go into meltdown.

All throws to 1 in the lineout suffer at least one of the following:
not straight*
not 5*
knocked on*
taken by opposing 1
forward pass back to hooker*
getting bundled into touch
*Admittedly the ref may not notice

It's a really high risk call and not one to be taken 5m from your line under any circumstances.

I would also expect any professional rugby player to be able to throw a ball 8m at a pre-determined height; 2 ball has to be the safest option. If they can't find someone amongst the remaining 14 players, then George should have been on.

If they can find someone to do it, then they should have done it.

What's the worst that could have happened with a 2 ball? Scotland get the ball? It's in no way worse than what did happen and had great scope to be better.

It's just a complete lack of thinking.

Yep but countering, any 'proper' throw from a non thrower would surely only ever be to 2 so the opposition know where it's going and would automatically compete hard for it. If taken cleanly you've immediately got a driving maul.

But I think we're violently agreeing that George should have been on to take it!

 

[BrokenWing]

Regardless of who's fault it was, it's something that shouldn't happen in a professional environment.
All well and good Jones taking the blame, but that's more alarming with the amount of experience he has.
England are still making unforced errors which are easily avoidable.

 

[Amiga500]

I sing it every morning in front of the flagpole I have at the foot of my bed actually so you can **** right off

You raise a flagpole for Lizzie in yer bed?

Hmmm, whatever works for you I guess....

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

You raise a flagpole for Lizzie in yer bed?

Hmmm, whatever works for you I guess....

Got to use that morning wood for something.

 

[Amiga500]

Got to use that morning wood for something.

Jaysus ye think you could come up with a better mental image though!

 

[Wasps92]

He's getting mighty sick of you lot crying for him to go save Lizzie ever other week when there are 80,000 of you sat there on yer holes doing nothing to save her yerselves apart from calling at him loudly and out of tune.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

NGL it's funny watching pundits and fans say why bring on ford give smith the full 80.

Despite them all crying that Ford wasn't picked.

What's the point of bringing a player who can only play 10 if you don't plan on using him then and therefore was Eddie right to leave ford out of the squad in the first place?
Can't have it both ways I feel.

 

[BrokenWing]

Does having a player on the bench mean you HAVE to use them?

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Does having a player on the bench mean you HAVE to use them?

No it doesn't but having 2 positions on the bench that only cover 2 positions is not really well planned.

A reason why pretty much all the other six nations teams did it.

 

[General Melchett]

Got to use that morning wood for something.

Get your passports or drivers licenses looked out lads.

Porn sites will be legally required to verify users' age

Users may be asked to prove they own a credit card or confirm their age, under new UK rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Reiser99]

Get your passports or drivers licenses looked out lads.

Porn sites will be legally required to verify users' age

Users may be asked to prove they own a credit card or confirm their age, under new UK rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

I know it's off topic, but how does this even work? Surely it only applies if the website is is registered to and operates out of the UK. How are they going to fine an American site or a Brazilian site for example?