England Training Squad

[chippieolamus]

I think Joboo is right in some ways, striking a woman as Julian Saves did is a huge taboo in society and rightly so.... However there is no proof that Tuilagi struck the female officer and it's been reported quote a lot that he pushed them/shoved them away (which is a little different).

The ban was the right thing, Lancaster has stick to his guns on off field discipline/community role models.

Only St Andre has really fine similar iirc.

I don't accept this though. If you're going to campaign for equality, it needs to swing both ways, i.e. it should never be acceptable to hit someone, but it should not be more or less acceptable because of their gender. Otherwise you can end up in the situation where a an isn't allowed to defend himself because its not 'chivalrous'.

 

[goodNumber10]

I don't accept this though. If you're going to campaign for equality, it needs to swing both ways, i.e. it should never be acceptable to hit someone, but it should not be more or less acceptable because of their gender. Otherwise you can end up in the situation where a an isn't allowed to defend himself because its not 'chivalrous'.

I get what your saying, and while we want a violence free society I don't think the push for equality is really about making it the same to hit a man as a woman.

In fact I think that specific point is a particular red herring. Your average male is generally physically stronger than your average woman, making it a crime of power/dominance as much as violence (not saying this is the case with tuilagi) and as such is particularly heinous, and again as such it moves will outside the reins of equality for all, especially when you think of the centuries of suppression behind it.

The mentality you describe above is a precarious race to the bottom, justifying hitting a woman as "I treated her like i'd treat a bloke", and is the defensive justification used by a lot of spousal abusers. (I know that's not what you mean I'm just trying to illustrate a point)

Regardless it's certainly the public's perception that hitting a woman, as with child beating, is a massive taboo and as such people found guilty of it tend to be treated accordingly.

 

[Peat]

In a not at all naked attempt to divert conversation away from a never ending tangent on whether it's ok to hit girls, I'm going to throw out a theory and suggestion...

Tom Youngs has the best lineout percentage in the Premiership this season, so is clearly capable of throwing, but has regularly gang agley for England.

Disliking Harmony has been pretty rock solid for England until the last 6N, at which point the f'ck up fairy visited him. Why then? Most people saw our lineout go wrong and simply blamed Hartley, but I'm not sure that's fair. If a unit is working, then you change personnel and all of a sudden it isn't, do you blame the guys who were part of the working unit first? Probably not. Every single one of Hartley's primary lineout targets changed that tournament, that's got to throw a guy off his stride a little.

If you accept stability and working with the same guys is an important part of a lineout, then maybe it starts becoming apparent why Hartley's been very consistent for England and why Youngs hasn't. You have to go back to 2012 and the South Africa tour to find a game where Hartley didn't have both Lawes and Wood to aim at - and in that game, he only got 80pc of his throws. Maybe coincidence; he got 100pc in the first game on that tour, 82.4pc on the second (incidentally, Spies got 4 of the 5 steals, not sure whether that points at overthrows; also Hartley got sinbinned in the third game, while wearing the captain's armband, and I wish I could remember why).

My theory just got blown slightly out of the water by finding out Youngs has only started one game for England without Parling - Australia 2013. But that was a 76.9pc performance; and, in fairness, 4 of his 9 international starts with Parling had a throwing percentage of 90%+; three of 80%+ and only two dipping below that. Incidentally, Youngs' two really crap games, not much of the opposition being credit with steals on ESPN (mild point of interest).

Anyway, to fulfill my ponderous journey towards a by now increasingly obvious point; given that familiarity with one's jumpers and lineout caller are clearly of some import for a hooker - do we hand Geoff Parling a starting slot?

 

[Maverick1987]

Why bring Gatland into it? 'Gatlands law' as named by the press has nothing to do with player behavior... Completely irrelevant to the discussion and doesn't actually exist.

The precedent was set during the last world cup for England and Tuilagi was one of the problem players, Lancaster had to take the hard stance, or lose all credibility like Johnson, easy decison. If he ignored their most recent violations of the laws of the game/actual real life laws it would pretty much be the stupidest decision ever made by a coach. Regarding Hartley, it isn't even about his atrocious previous offenses or this once, he excluded him simply because it would be a huge risk to have one of your three hookers banned from the first game of a major tournament, Lancaster gave this reasoning himself. An injury to one of the two eligible hookers before or during the game would leave the team hugely exposed. Don't pretend it is because of a higher moral code he holds, he made the smart and correct decision. Any manager/coach would.

I don't care what the 'press said' the fact is that if you lay your hands on an officer you will get punished 2 fold of what you would an 'ordinary citizen' and if that officer is also a woman, then I'm afraid you've even further crossed a line and societally it is completely unacceptable. Of course it makes a difference. Management and staff of rugby teams are not exempt from General social convention and standards. You'd be stupid to think that Lancaster doesn't know this.

By the way Phillips was suspended by Wales and did not beat up a bouncer, he was restrained but did not hurt anyone (provide proof he did cause bodily harm and I'll admit I'm wrong). You're talking crap to try and justify your argument which has no grounding. Also you're bringing up an incident which happened 4 years ago. Regarding him being 'smashed' at least he was outside a night club and not driving a bloody car... You can't compare it anywhere near to what Tuilagi, if you do, you're clearly one eyed.

The only reason I mentioned Gatland was because both men have made a statement to the press (Lancaster with discipline and Gatland with not picking player from abroad over players from Wales) one person has stuck to it the other hasn't . What I was trying to get at is that Stuart Lancaster didn't have to go banning people he could have done what Gatland did and go back on what he said and brushed it under the carpet

 

[goodNumber10]

In a not at all naked attempt to divert conversation away from a never ending tangent on whether it's ok to hit girls, I'm going to throw out a theory and suggestion...

Tom Youngs has the best lineout percentage in the Premiership this season, so is clearly capable of throwing, but has regularly gang agley for England.

Disliking Harmony has been pretty rock solid for England until the last 6N, at which point the f'ck up fairy visited him. Why then? Most people saw our lineout go wrong and simply blamed Hartley, but I'm not sure that's fair. If a unit is working, then you change personnel and all of a sudden it isn't, do you blame the guys who were part of the working unit first? Probably not. Every single one of Hartley's primary lineout targets changed that tournament, that's got to throw a guy off his stride a little.

If you accept stability and working with the same guys is an important part of a lineout, then maybe it starts becoming apparent why Hartley's been very consistent for England and why Youngs hasn't. You have to go back to 2012 and the South Africa tour to find a game where Hartley didn't have both Lawes and Wood to aim at - and in that game, he only got 80pc of his throws. Maybe coincidence; he got 100pc in the first game on that tour, 82.4pc on the second (incidentally, Spies got 4 of the 5 steals, not sure whether that points at overthrows; also Hartley got sinbinned in the third game, while wearing the captain's armband, and I wish I could remember why).

My theory just got blown slightly out of the water by finding out Youngs has only started one game for England without Parling - Australia 2013. But that was a 76.9pc performance; and, in fairness, 4 of his 9 international starts with Parling had a throwing percentage of 90%+; three of 80%+ and only two dipping below that. Incidentally, Youngs' two really crap games, not much of the opposition being credit with steals on ESPN (mild point of interest).

Anyway, to fulfill my ponderous journey towards a by now increasingly obvious point; given that familiarity with one's jumpers and lineout caller are clearly of some import for a hooker - do we hand Geoff Parling a starting slot?

I'm a parling fan, I'd potentially take him over launch.

 

[j'nuh]

I'm a parling fan, I'd potentially take him over launch.

 

[goodNumber10]

hahaha!

 

[nickdnz]

Pretty much exactly the same as what NZ did regarding Savea.

Few things:
1. Savea wasn't convicted (which from a moral point is irrelevant - from a legal one it is).
2. Savea did miss several games because of it.

A slightly more apt comparison would be George Moala.

 

[Maverick1987]

Few things:
1. Savea wasn't convicted (which from a moral point is irrelevant - from a legal one it is).
2. Savea did miss several games because of it.

A slightly more apt comparison would be George Moala.

When you say several how many games ? And also of what importance were those games for NZ ?

 

[goodNumber10]

Few things:
1. Savea wasn't convicted (which from a moral point is irrelevant - from a legal one it is).
2. Savea did miss several games because of it.

A slightly more apt comparison would be George Moala.

Savea wasn't convicted because it was withdrawn by the court after he agreed to undergo counselling for domestic violence. That's paints his "never convicted" in a very different light as he essentially plead guilty and offered to undergo counselling to avoid a conviction.

 

[Jbobo]

The only reason I mentioned Gatland was because both men have made a statement to the press (Lancaster with discipline and Gatland with not picking player from abroad over players from Wales) one person has stuck to it the other hasn't . What I was trying to get at is that Stuart Lancaster didn't have to go banning people he could have done what Gatland did and go back on what he said and brushed it under the carpet

Gatland has not made a 'law' like Lancaster which can only be broken in extreme circumstances, he does not have the same constraints in selection as Lancaster, not even close, and there never was meant to be. Don't act like he has broken any obligation or gone back on his word, because he hasn't. There is simply a preference to select players based in Wales. He will still and should still pick the best players he believes will do the job. A preference takes time, you do not just drop half your first team based on a 'preference' that they play in Wales. It is with the understanding that Wales have a relatively small player pool, so making a REAL 'Gatlands law' would not work right now, and probably ever.


Regarding Tuilagi - I knew what you were getting at, but what I've done is explain why he indeed pretty much had no choice.

Anyway we'll agree to disagree on this topic(s).

 

[goodNumber10]

Gatland has not made a 'law' like Lancaster which can only be broken in extreme circumstances, he does not have the same constraints in selection as Lancaster, not even close, and there never was meant to be. Don't act like he has broken any obligation or gone back on his word, because he hasn't. There is simply a preference to select players based in Wales. He will still and should still pick the best players he believes will do the job. A preference takes time, you do not just drop half your first team based on a 'preference' that they play in Wales. It is with the understanding that Wales have a relatively small player pool, so making a REAL 'Gatlands law' would not work right now, and probably ever.


Regarding Tuilagi - I knew what you were getting at, but what I've done is explain why he indeed pretty much had no choice.

Anyway we'll agree to disagree on this topic(s).

It's not a preference: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/gatlands-law-uncovered-full-revealing-9240603

 

[ncurd]

My history may be bad but when Gatland said it I seam to remember only a few members of the Welsh team played in other countries. Since then pretty much the floodgates opened as he didn't enforce the rule and players realised it was a pretty hollow threat.

Look at the English players to go to France and it's working, Bendy was never getting a look in, Armitage had been tried and was uninspiring, Wilko had retired from International rugby thinking he'd not make another cycle. Flood has two younger players higher up the pecking order than him, one is better at playing his style of game (Farrel) and the other offers something different (Ford). Then I'm struggling to think of English player who really pushed for selection.

Point being had Gatland enforced his rule when he made it it would of worked now it never will.

- - - Updated - - -

My apologies I though this was 'in place' long before now, what am I confusing this with?

 

[Jbobo]

It's not a preference: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/gatlands-law-uncovered-full-revealing-9240603

Well it is, because the document states that the only players who can can be affected under the policy are those who turn down a central contract with Wales. The WRU and Gatland have put the clauses there to protect the team going forward. We are already punching above our weight with our successes and can't afford to make a black and white law like Lancaster as I explained.

Can you point out to me exactly where Gatland has gone back on his word, baring in mind you actually provided the article?
The only players who could be affected are prietland and Roberts, both of whom were already in the Wales squad.

Also this is all irrelevant because you're comparing a selection policy with a disciplinary policy. Completely different kettle of fish. Besides most fans accept that Wales have a limited player base and understand that in the current climate in the regions, we can't compete with English and French clubs. What exactly do you think would happen if Lancaster decided to call up all these players keeping mind what happened during the last World Cup? Why are you all ignoring these points I've made above in detail.

You're just retracted from the point so much that this is now just a have an unfounded dig at Gatland discussion as your arguments have run dry regarding Lancaster, easier to ignore three quarters of what i say,

Meh I'm done.

 

[Peat]

Flood has two younger players higher up the pecking order than him, one is better at playing his style of game (Farrel) and the other offers something different (Ford). Then I'm struggling to think of English player who really pushed for selection.

Flood is far, far more similar to Ford than he is Farrell.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

My history may be bad but when Gatland said it I seam to remember only a few members of the Welsh team played in other countries. Since then pretty much the floodgates opened as he didn't enforce the rule and players realised it was a pretty hollow threat.

Look at the English players to go to France and it's working, Bendy was never getting a look in, Armitage had been tried and was uninspiring, Wilko had retired from International rugby thinking he'd not make another cycle. Flood has two younger players higher up the pecking order than him, one is better at playing his style of game (Farrel) and the other offers something different (Ford). Then I'm struggling to think of English player who really pushed for selection.

Point being had Gatland enforced his rule when he made it it would of worked now it never will.

- - - Updated - - -

My apologies I though this was 'in place' long before now, what am I confusing this with?

Farrell doesn't play a similar game to Flood!

 

[goodNumber10]

Well it is, because the document states that the only players who can can be affected under the policy are those who turn down a central contract with Wales. The WRU and Gatland have put the clauses there to protect the team going forward. We are already punching above our weight with our successes and can't afford to make a black and white law like Lancaster as I explained.

Can you point out to me exactly where Gatland has gone back on his word, baring in mind you actually provided the article?
The only players who could be affected are prietland and Roberts, both of whom were already in the Wales squad.

Also this is all irrelevant because you're comparing a selection policy with a disciplinary policy. Completely different kettle of fish.

It tells you in the article who is affected (priestland and roberts) as they turned down Central Contracts after the limit was reached, but that there is a wildcard get out clause (Exceptional circumstances).

I'm not comparing anything, you said it was different to Lancaster/RFU's overseas selection policy and that it was only a preference, i'm just pointing out it's not it's law written into the WRU players agreement. Gatland has said his preference is for all to play in wales, the WRU have it written in in law and it's now active.

I don't have an opinion on if Gatland is right or wong, just pointing out it is LAW and not preference - and that as time goes on it will be harder for Gatland to execute his get out clauses.

 

[Jbobo]

It tells you in the article who is affected (priestland and roberts) as they turned down Central Contracts after the limit was reached, but that there is a wildcard get out clause (Exceptional circumstances).

I'm not comparing anything, you said it was different to Lancaster/RFU's overseas selection policy and that it was only a preference, i'm just pointing out it's not it's law written into the WRU players agreement. Gatland has said his preference is for all to play in wales, the WRU have it written in in law and it's now active.

I don't have an opinion on if Gatland is right or wong, just pointing out it is LAW and not preference - and that as time goes on it will be harder for Gatland to execute his get out clauses.

It is not a law, it is a written convention. This means preference or understanding. To repeat myself once again, it was never meant to have anything like the restraints Lancaster has. Basically it was written in a way (rightly or wrongly) which gives Gatland almost complete control over who he selects. This is accepted by (most, not all) for the numerous reasons I've stated and that the article/common sense has states. Thus, Gatland has not gone back on his word.

Yes it will become more difficult, and this is why I mentioned that it is a strategy for the future and will take time. They know what they are doing. It is only people without a clue who shout foul against him. We're in a much much more difficult situation that England, they're almost in different worlds except for their general performance and successes on the pitch

 

[goodNumber10]

it's a contract between the Regions and the WRU, it is a legally binding document, it is not down to preference or understanding it's set out in black and white.

I don't disagree with you that it's different and more flexible than the RFU's but it is Law.

 

[Maverick1987]

It is not a law, it is a written convention. This means preference or understanding. To repeat myself once again, it was never meant to have anything like the restraints Lancaster has. Basically it was written in a way (rightly or wrongly) which gives Gatland almost complete control over who he selects. This is accepted by (most, not all) for the numerous reasons I've stated and that the article/common sense has states. Thus, Gatland has not gone back on his word.

Yes it will become more difficult, and this is why I mentioned that it is a strategy for the future and will take time. They know what they are doing. It is only people without a clue who shout foul against him. We're in a much much more difficult situation that England, they're almost in different worlds except for their general performance and successes on the pitch

Well if it's only for players who have turned down central contracts I'll save my judgment for next six nations when presumably Jamie Roberts and Toby Faletau will be left out for others in their respective position whom have signed central contracts now that Toby and Jamie have turned theirs down .....

Imho the only person that has fallen foul of the words Gatland has said is Dwayne Peel