You say "every scenario" ... there are too many variable to cover every possible scenario, players are still responsible for decisions they make, even if the responsibility is shared with the instructions.
The three things I'd say to that
- An awful lot of coaches seem to be going to their damn'est to ensure there are no decisions, only the instructions. They'd remove the players' brains and replace them with software programs if they could. No one ever got dropped for following instructions, but decisions? Not saying Jones is that sort of coach, this is more of a general point - but then, I'm not saying he isn't. He does have a reputation as a micro-manager for what it's worth.
- In an ideal world though, these things *are* player decisions - just the players collectively made the decision on how to respond to certain scenarios collectively in a calm environment, rather than when stressed and tired as individuals. Which I think is a lot better. It's, say, the difference between discussing what car you want with your wife at home, and getting in a row at the car dealership while the salesman tries to sucker you into a bad deal.
- Obviously you can't cover everything, but perfection is worth aiming for, even if you can't get there. They should certainly be doing the major scenarios and I'd argue defending a 5m scrum/lineout when on a final warning from the ref is one of the major scenarios.
There's still individual decisions to be taken at the time, but every sensible team's looking to reduce the number of them taken, and in most cases the individual decision is on how to pursue a particular goal, rather than what goal to pursue (i.e. how to prevent the maul getting from across the line at all costs, rather than should I be trying to prevent the maul from getting across the line at all times).
I make these points more as academic points on the issue rather than arguments, as we seem mainly in agreement on the specific situation.
We now return to your daily schedule of laughing at Haskell.
