Always a Wasp

First change; oh great, more driving maul tries, Chiefs will be delighted. Hardly going to attract more fans to rugby, not convinced it makes a significant improvement to player safety.

Second change. I'm glad for once that they're rewarding good defence.

Third change. Unnecessary, already a law. You can't "target lower limbs" in a clear out and remain on your feet. Sorry to be a broken record but KEEP PLAYERS ON THEIR FEET AT THE BREAKDOWN LIKE IT SAYS IN THE IRB LAWS!!

Forth change. Unnecessary, a flying wedge is already illegal.

This
England had two outstanding questions (assuming - probably wrongly - that England do sane) First, why were we so poor in the 6Ns and secondly, who would play in the positions that we tend to keep picking the same players - in form or not? (i.e. 8,9,10,12 and 15)

So - it may well be that the answer to 1) is in the selection of out of practice EA's and a failure to adapt to the changes in how the game is being played and can be mainly parked to the AI's but as far as who to play if form or injury strikes.....
8 - Ignore load of Prem players in decent form and play a tyro who you prob wouldn't start before 2024 if ever
9 - Dan needs a start to show if he can being Wasps form and game control to England, so play Randall instead....
10 - Smith, yep, form 10 in the Prem recently
12 - Play someone who play's 12 and would slot in - even at short notice...why isn't Devoto involved then?
15 - Malins needs more game time for England, we know Watson can play 15 but in SA, so I'll play a tyro Tiger....and Malins at wing....

It's like Jones' is actively trolling the team and supporters - what in reality is going to be gained IRO what is needed for RWC '23? Damn all......
[/quote]

You correctly identified the reasons for a poor Six Nations, undoubtedly picking out of form players who had next to no recent game time, plus failure to adapt to the way the game is being played until temporarily changing to the style that put the All Blacks away in the WC Semi final when playing France before reverting to the losing formula for the final game against Ireland. What you forgot to mention of course is that according to the RFU review, none of this was Eddie Jones fault. You know, the head coach, the chap who picks the team and determines the game plan and playing style... 

I can't help thinking that we signed him primarily as a lock given the departure of Will Rowlands and injury to Joe and clearly he's a great lineout operator. As for the rest of his game, when I saw the highlights reel I thought that we hadn't so much signed a replacement for Rowlands, more a replacement for Simon Shaw! Great line out operator, superb handling skills and often found popping up on the wing to score tries!

Pretty unique player but if we can get our mojo back and return to the attacking game that was so devastating at the end of last season he'll fit in extremely well.

Agree. To be pedantic, the defender does have to be first - assuming that the team in possession arrive legally. At that point it is a ruck and no hands allowed.

The flop is a penalty (ought to be) You secure the ball within a ruck situation by arriving legally. The first defender arriving cannot use their hands if its a ruck. Law 15.11 etc is really clear. In many ways the NH style "clear out" isn't really allowed...either you are looking to tackle the defender - who was first and picked up the ball, or you are looking to bind and push, as it's a ruck. Again, I think this is v poorly officiated in the NH especially.

It's not about coaching for me, so much, as enforcing the Laws as currently written. The play would quickly follow.

Absolutely. My point about players arriving from the team in possession not remaining on their feet is that they have either committed an offence if they've prevented a contest for the ball, or they're not part of the game as they're off their feet, either way, the arriving player who IS on his feet is still entitled to go for the ball.

The thing about forcing all players to remain on their feet is that it clears up so many other contentious issues. As you say, the clear-out couldn't happen. You could only tackle the arriving player once he'd picked up the ball, do it to any other player in the ruck and you've gone off your feet. The "crocodile roll" that crippled Jack also would disappear as it cannot be executed if a player remains on his feet.

Another thing thing I keep saying, there's no need for new laws or bloody "interpretations", just officiate what's written in the IRB World Rugby law book.

What I meant by coaching was that teams would have to reconsider their approach to the breakdown or risk being pinged off the park.

Touching the floor shouldn't automatically mean a penalty, they are supposed to be looking for the "Jackaler" both being first to the breakdown and then supporting their own weight. If the team in possession get a man to the breakdown first and they remain on their feet (i.e. not diving straight off their feet to make a contest impossible or an "Exeter" as it's known) the "Jackaler" cannot use their hands as their presence means that a ruck is formed. It may look like that they are not supporting their own weight if they have a hand on the ground but obviously that's not necessarily the case, particularly with the likes of Jack Willis and others (Curry for one) who seem to be able to get in the most absurd positions whilst still supporting their own weight.

Given this all happens in a matter of seconds, referees can be forgiven for occasionally getting it wrong but if a try is scored immediately after you would hope that the TMO would check that the build up was entirely legal.

What a farce.

The RFU are in a no-win situation. To cite Biggar as he clearly deserves, would be admitting that the TMO is proven to be either totally incompetent or biased against Wasps or both following his inaction when Josh was deliberately gouged in the Falcons match. Clear, irrefutable video evidence in both cases.

If they don't cite him it looks like favouritism of the worst order and will have every DoR who has had a player banned for a high tackle fuming. There was no mitigation, Jacob was stationary, Bigger tried to clear him out, led with his forearm and connected with his head. Identical to countless instant red cards this season.

If I were a DoR I'd keep a copy of the video of Biggar smashing Jacob in the face and if one of my players gets red carded for a high tackle I'll demand that there's no ban as Biggar's offence wasn't even deemed worthy of a penalty. If I were Lee I'd play Ben Morris in the next two games and invite the RFU to take legal action. The phrase not a leg to stand on springs to mind

That's nothing like consistency and this is certainly, absolutely nothing like consistency...

the England players didn't suddenly become rubbish because their coach had a weird game plan. Gatland knows what he's getting with most of those. think Mako is slightly fortunate....

Aki would be the substitute for Manu you would suspect?

The RFU review of England's dismal Six Nations identified a number of players not having had enough game time which obviously meant the Saracens players (the report conveniently ignored the coach who still picked them...) They're not rubbish players but were just not international standard match sharp. Clearly they still won't be playing against amateurs in the Championship. They've played arguably their toughest game against Ealing and are likely to face them again in the play-off final. Two fairly tough matches, no way is that adequate preparation for facing the World Champions in their back yard. On top of that, Daly shouldn't be allowed anywhere other than 13, put him in the back 3 and they'll pepper him with high balls which he'll drop, or just run past him as he appears to have forgotten that tackling is part of rugby. Farrell is an excellent kicker, an adequate 12 and a poor fly half with a dreadful tackle technique and atrocious temperament. I wouldn't pick either of those two. The Vunipola brothers both appear to be past their best, it's been obvious in Billy's game by his own admission, baffled why few have noticed Mako's consistent poor form. George and Itoje I don't have a problem with, not at their best at present but can improve.

I do not quite understand why referees are given orders to prioritise certain laws over others? Surely they should be applying all of them?

Who decided for example that in the last few months the back line being off side at the line out was suddenly going to be enforced vigorously, while ignoring the mess that is the breakdown?

I assume it is the Professional Referee Unit (PRU) management team of Ed Morrison, Brian Campsall and Tony Spreadbury? Do they take instruction from World Rugby, or the PRL or RFU? Or do they decide themselves based on what they see every week? Or maybe what the media happen to be wailing about at the moment?
Anybody know?

Yes they should. The issue is that coaches are always looking to get any possible advantage so will look for any perceived loopholes in the laws or more commonly, areas that are not properly refereed- the breakdown laws being the prime example. That's how we ended up with ridiculous actions like the "clear-out" and the bl**dy caterpillar. If referees applied the laws as they're written, both those actions would be pinged off the park. By the time the PRU realise what's happening these actions have become commonplace and they just get accepted- the tail is indeed wagging the dog. I'm guessing that they've noticed backlines encroaching at line outs and are attempting to put down a marker to prevent it becoming the norm. Sadly it's likely to mean other offences being ignored or going unnoticed.