England World Cup Squad

[Booboobang]

Problem with that is for an early guilty plea they will factor in the plea, any remorse and mitigation. Not necessarily for a serial killer but in mercy killings, manslaughter, one punch kills etc they can and do. An early guilty plea removes the need for a full trial in the first place.

Factor in intent, recklessness or lack of which i don't think you can ignore, then t's messy old business.

You can't lump a reckless challenge with intent into the same bracket. I'd have thought you have to take every case on it's merits, mitigation, plea, and all. If you are taking previous bad behaviour into account then you must good behaviour as well. Ie Billy V only having one red vs Farrell's multiple indiscretions when considering sentences. You can't find guilt on previous alone that's a dangerous route in any court, civil or criminal.

This is sport though, the rule is the rule wether intentional or not, the damage is caused. Even if something is unintentional, for example wth farrell, if he was tackling low it would never happen accidently or not. So intention doesnt really fly if you are putting others in dangers with **** technique.

Treating bans as if it is a court case is ridiculous. The rule is black and white, hit high or insert any offense here, illegal.

You hit high, as a result of poor technique? Ban. You hit high to take the man out? Ban. If it is a genuine mistake you adjust your behaviour and it doesnt happen again, you do it with intent? You are going to spend more time of the pitch than not.

Why should mitigation for good be included? The behaviour happened so you get the mimimal ban, if you dont do it again you dont have to worry, if you do it again? Should have learned to tackle properly.

This is sport. Rules are written fown in black and white, enforce them in that manner and players soon start following. Players will always take the **** if they think they can just play to the gallery of a fresh review every time.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

This will probably be the bleakest day in Los Pumas history if they don't beat us.

Apart from the fact that we're rubbish:

Our first choice 7 may not be available but if he is won't be battle hardened and also missed the 6 N through injury.

Our first choice 8 is banned.

Our first choice 9 is out of the tournament through injury.

Our first choice 10 is banned.

If not exactly the spine of the team they're definitely a few key vertebrae.

(When I say "our first choice" I'm talking in Borthwick's world as we TRF sages obviously know better).

Spice up what's left with a few over the hills, underperformers, still in nappies, just coming back from injuries and the odd clubless to taste.

Argentina will definitely be fancying this more as time goes on. Plus they also edged us out at HQ in last years AIs - 11 of our 23 that day aren't even heading to France.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I wonder if our reserves are just being kept in camp until the rwc starts and they're not allowed to be involved in training anymore?

I didn't realise you had a firm set of reserves to pick from until the whole Pollard/Am think with the Boks

 

[Booboobang]

This will probably be the bleakest day in Los Pumas history if they don't beat us.

Apart from the fact that we're rubbish:

Our first choice 7 may not be available but if he is won't be battle hardened and also missed the 6 N through injury.

Our first choice 8 is banned.

Our first choice 9 is out of the tournament through injury.

Our first choice 10 is banned.

If not exactly the spine of the team they're definitely a few key vertebrae.

(When I say "our first choice" I'm talking in Borthwick's world as we TRF sages obviously know better).

Spice up what's left with a few over the hills, underperformers, still in nappies, just coming back from injuries and the odd clubless to taste.

Argentina will definitely be fancying this more as time goes on. Plus they also edged us out at HQ in last years AIs - 11 of our 23 that day aren't even heading to France.

I agree on principle, but as you point out as sages, we surely think this reult looks more on with a differnt 8 and 10?

Imagine the media will have a field day if we win though with the adversity this team has faced, self inflicted or not

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

This is sport though, the rule is the rule wether intentional or not, the damage is caused. Even if something is unintentional, for example wth farrell, if he was tackling low it would never happen accidently or not. So intention doesnt really fly if you are putting others in dangers with **** technique.

Treating bans as if it is a court case is ridiculous. The rule is black and white, hit high or insert any offense here, illegal.

You hit high, as a result of poor technique? Ban. You hit high to take the man out? Ban. If it is a genuine mistake you adjust your behaviour and it doesnt happen again, you do it with intent? You are going to spend more time of the pitch than not.

Why should mitigation for good be included? The behaviour happened so you get the mimimal ban, if you dont do it again you dont have to worry, if you do it again? Should have learned to tackle properly.

This is sport. Rules are written fown in black and white, enforce them in that manner and players soon start following. Players will always take the **** if they think they can just play to the gallery of a fresh review every time.

They treat tackles like speeding, it is what it is at this point.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

They treat tackles like speeding, it is what it is at this point.

Yep, tackle school's a speed awareness course (not that I've done one of those, obviously….).

Rather than agonising over individual offences, maybe that's exactly what we need to sort out behaviours - a clear totting up system across domestic, regional and international competition like you have for points on the driving licence over here.

3 points for a yellow

6 points for simulation

6 points for verbally abusing ref

10 points for a straight red for head contact. 7 points for other reds.

12 points for being Dan Biggar.


Etc

Automatic 4 month in season ban when exceeding 15 points over a 2 year period.

Or something like that.

 

[Which Tyler]

Just seen a clip of Wigglesworth saying Curry hasn't been in team training since he rolled his ankle - really should've called up an injury replacement, in that case. I'm guessing the rules around injury replacements are the same as a standard EPS one where you swap them back round once the first guy is fit again? So it's not like he's being dropped from the squad fully, but means we've got an extra body there

RWC injury replacements are permanent. So if the squad has been officially entered to WR, then that's the squad.



As for bans, IMO any reductions for mitigating factors should be seen as a suspended sentence. If you pick up another ban for a similar offence within 4 years, the suspended bit gets added to your ban.

Previous history shouldn't make any difference when deciding guilt, but it sure as hell should when deciding the punishment.

 

[stus768]

RWC injury replacements are permanent. So if the squad has been officially entered to WR, then that's the squad.



As for bans, IMO any reductions for mitigating factors should be seen as a suspended sentence. If you pick up another ban for a similar offence within 4 years, the suspended bit gets added to your ban.

Previous history shouldn't make any difference when deciding guilt, but it sure as hell should when deciding the punishment.

Pretty sure the squad isn't officially submitted until start of September.

 

[ShropshireAllBlack]

Pretty sure the squad isn't officially submitted until start of September.

August 28th is the deadline as far as I know….

 

[BrokenWing]

He's already laminated it…

 

[Geordie]

This will probably be the bleakest day in Los Pumas history if they don't beat us.

Apart from the fact that we're rubbish:

Our first choice 7 may not be available but if he is won't be battle hardened and also missed the 6 N through injury.

Our first choice 8 is banned.

Our first choice 9 is out of the tournament through injury.

Our first choice 10 is banned.

If not exactly the spine of the team they're definitely a few key vertebrae.

(When I say "our first choice" I'm talking in Borthwick's world as we TRF sages obviously know better).

Spice up what's left with a few over the hills, underperformers, still in nappies, just coming back from injuries and the odd clubless to taste.

Argentina will definitely be fancying this more as time goes on. Plus they also edged us out at HQ in last years AIs - 11 of our 23 that day aren't even heading to France.

You can continue OH

We dont have an established lock partnership
We dont have an established tight head
We dont know who we want at 10
We dont have a 12
We dont have established wings.

 

[higgik]

You can continue OH

We dont have an established lock partnership
We dont have an established tight head
We dont know who we want at 10
We dont have a 12
We dont have established wings.

This is the biggest worry.

SB had a gameplan, but did not pick the players to play it well. Now he is trying to change to a gameplan that suits the group of players, 1 game before the RWC.

As much as I find kickchase boring, if they were effective at it, I could run with it.
Look at the players not picked, who could have made it more effective.

Freeman and Murley in for Malins and Daly for one.
Also stronger scrummagers, like Schonert and VRR, and an overall bigger pack.

Isiekwe, Willis, Mercer and Underhill would have been good for this style, as they are aggressive defenders.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

For a kicking (not a kick chase) style gameplan, you need a monstrous pack and some lethal backs to finish the mistakes the opposition make.

We don't really have a set of monster forwards in England but SB with his rose tinted glasses thought out players were better than they were.

I mean on paper (if you ignore form and talent and actually how they play) a Genge, George, Stuart, Itoje, Chessum, Lawes, curry, Billy pack should be a dominant force. Maybe SB fell into this trap. It's a fair point though, why are players playing so badly for England.

 

[Geordie]

For a kicking (not a kick chase) style gameplan, you need a monstrous pack and some lethal backs to finish the mistakes the opposition make.

We don't really have a set of monster forwards in England but SB with his rose tinted glasses thought out players were better than they were.

I mean on paper (if you ignore form and talent and actually how they play) a Genge, George, Stuart, Itoje, Chessum, Lawes, curry, Billy pack should be a dominant force. Maybe SB fell into this trap. It's a fair point though, why are players playing so badly for England.

Theres some monsters coming through though...

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Theres some monsters coming through though...

Agree there is potential but it feels like we'd need the clubs buy in to get them massive and get them used to playing in a pack in that kind of way.

Take Moon for example at the saints, the way we play means he'll never reach his 'beef' potential or maximum size etc compared to if he played somewhere like tigers or sarries maybe.

There used to be so many sides with great packs filled with English players but the premiership just doesn't seem to have that any more. Maybe I'm looking at things through rose tinted glasses but it feels like the entire prem has gone from size to mobility which overall has sped the game up but made us a little toothless in bigger knockout rugby in general.

 

[Geordie]

Agree there is potential but it feels like we'd need the clubs buy in to get them massive and get them used to playing in a pack in that kind of way.

Take Moon for example at the saints, the way we play means he'll never reach his 'beef' potential or maximum size etc compared to if he played somewhere like tigers or sarries maybe.

There used to be so many sides with great packs filled with English players but the premiership just doesn't seem to have that any more. Maybe I'm looking at things through rose tinted glasses but it feels like the entire prem has gone from size to mobility which overall has sped the game up but made us a little toothless in bigger knockout rugby in general.

I think this goes back to the Prem is not currently a good breeding ground for internationals....its not a testing environment...and we need to re-establish it as being so.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Still don't agree with that,
Plenty of other countries have players in the prem who don't nose dive at international level

 

[TommiG88]

Still don't agree with that,
Plenty of other countries have players in the prem who don't nose dive at international level

Argentina for example

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Still don't agree with that,
Plenty of other countries have players in the prem who don't nose dive at international level

It's not all players either. Look at players like Lawes and curry (can't think of any others right now) but they always perform at that level.

It seems it's the core of the squad, or the undroppables (from Eddie's era) that are the ones constantly not performing. Im
blaming the sarries and tigers players lol.

I'd be interested (when I have more time) to look at who the key forward performers were for each prem team and then look at if they were picked or not.

A quick and maybe lazy example of this could be collier. A cornerstone of the Quins pack meaning their backs could function from a solid base. I'll have to think more about this and maybe look back to who performed and who coasted or maybe ram off the he'd work of others.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I'd be interested (when I have more time) to look at who the key forward performers were for each prem team and then look at if they were picked or not.

From Sale our best EQP players this season have been:

Macintyre --> Not involved
Schonert --> Not involved
Hill (50/50, played some of his best rugby but also had a run of really terrible games around the 6N) --> Made training squad, then cut (fair)
Curry x 2 --> TC there, BC injured but got a sniff during the 6N
Warr --> Not involved
O'Flaherty --> Not involved
Ford --> There
Tuilagi --> There
Roebuck --> Not involved
Carpenter --> Not involved