RugbyRebels

There can be no doubt that the new rugby revolution has been led by Nigel, Rasta, Jerome, Wayne and JP.

God Bless 'em and pass the ammunition.

Heard that halfpenny is a doubt due to illness...

Zhivago wrote:Heard that halfpenny is a doubt due to illness...

he's got sick skilz

We released Liam Williams, didn't we? May have been an error.

Patch and Leigh know their shit.

Buggaluggs wrote:We released Liam Williams, didn't we? May have been an error.

Halfpenny out. Shall we call up Lions full back Liam Williams?

Nah. Use Gareth Anscombe instead.

Great call Wales.

On the plus side, last time Wales did okay at Twickenham was when we had run out of players before kick-off, and out of able-bodied adult men by half time...

Who is going in at fullback? Patchel?

morepork wrote:Who is going in at fullback? Patchel?

Well it's Patch 10 / Anscombe 15, or the other way around.

Either option horrifies me.

U guys getting screwed over by the French ref at the breakdown.

So TMO screwed us out of that one then

There is the makings of something there for Wales. The linking work of your flankers looks like something you'd want to develop.

I'd love to erase that TMO call - not to change the result, but to stop it completely obscuring the reasons for this defeat; principally that our defence turned up 10 minutes late, and theirs was on time. (You know it will; you can hear Catrin's squawking already, can't you? "Wehl, JON-u-thurn!")

I thought there were loads of positives - and thanks to bloody bonus points, and actual, tangible one - but we were edged pretty much everywhere. The wafer-thinness of that edge is one of the aforementioned positives, too. We were on for a battering today, and we dodged it. A decent shift, a point that may yet be useful in the shakedown, and a couple of options revealed to be actual options rather than desperate sticking-plasters. I know the 6N is the top table and it's win-or-bust and all that, but I can't help feeling quietly satisfied with today.

Sourdust wrote:I'd love to erase that TMO call - not to change the result, but to stop it completely obscuring the reasons for this defeat; principally that our defence turned up 10 minutes late, and theirs was on time. (You know it will; you can hear Catrin's squawking already, can't you? "Wehl, JON-u-thurn!")

I thought there were loads of positives - and thanks to bloody bonus points, and actual, tangible one - but we were edged pretty much everywhere. The wafer-thinness of that edge is one of the aforementioned positives, too. We were on for a battering today, and we dodged it. A decent shift, a point that may yet be useful in the shakedown, and a couple of options revealed to be actual options rather than desperate sticking-plasters. I know the 6N is the top table and it's win-or-bust and all that, but I can't help feeling quietly satisfied with today.

Yeah, I think this was a much better showing of where Wales are compared to other teams - and I’m just glad there were so many injuries or I think you could have walked over us!!!

Ross. S wrote:So TMO screwed us out of that one then

Yup, basically that's it.

Sourdust wrote:I'd love to erase that TMO call - not to change the result, but to stop it completely obscuring the reasons for this defeat; principally that our defence turned up 10 minutes late, and theirs was on time. (You know it will; you can hear Catrin's squawking already, can't you? "Wehl, JON-u-thurn!")

I thought there were loads of positives - and thanks to bloody bonus points, and actual, tangible one - but we were edged pretty much everywhere. The wafer-thinness of that edge is one of the aforementioned positives, too. We were on for a battering today, and we dodged it. A decent shift, a point that may yet be useful in the shakedown, and a couple of options revealed to be actual options rather than desperate sticking-plasters. I know the 6N is the top table and it's win-or-bust and all that, but I can't help feeling quietly satisfied with today.

When you look at the players missing, I’m not too upset. After 15 mins I thought we were going to get pasted, but we started to shore up the defence. Sadly, the English pack dominated for th first half and initially during the second which made life difficult.

The non try was a bad call. But thats not the reason we lost. We made too many errors with ball in hand, and we played th game in the wrong areas too much and kicked dreadfully. I do admit by being confused at the odd penalty for going off th feet at rucks when it happened continually.

That's tough to take. We played very well, matched England in most areas. I think the only serious failing was our hopeless effort (if you can call it that) to compete for high ball. We seriously missed Liam Williams - world class under high ball.

Ross. S wrote:So TMO screwed us out of that one then

If we're going by the strictest interpretation of law 21.1, then no, the TMO got it right. The amount of downward pressure applied on the ball is negligible, and it was pretty clear the Welsh player had little to no control of the ball.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:That's tough to take. We played very well, matched England in most areas. I think the only serious failing was our hopeless effort (if you can call it that) to compete for high ball. We seriously missed Liam Williams - world class under high ball.

Dan Biggar, too. He is brilliant under the high ball.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:That's tough to take. We played very well, matched England in most areas. I think the only serious failing was our hopeless effort (if you can call it that) to compete for high ball. We seriously missed Liam Williams - world class under high ball.

I thought the Welsh attack was quite pedestrian. Far too much reliance on one-off runners, poor awareness at some stages (like Shingler's run which amounted to nothing because no one was there with him other than Webb, I think, whom he didn't even see), and being forced into ill-planned box kicks that went straight to Mike Brown. Any defence that's coached even half-decently could read that attack, and when the Welsh tried to take it wide, it was a case of just shovelling the ball on.

The attacks did start to gain some traction in the final quarter, where they really should have scored, but I'd argue that's got more to do with England clearly being exhausted, than with Welsh tactics working. Besides, it's not like they even manage a try there anyway.

Sourdust wrote:I'd love to erase that TMO call - not to change the result, but to stop it completely obscuring the reasons for this defeat; principally that our defence turned up 10 minutes late, and theirs was on time. (You know it will; you can hear Catrin's squawking already, can't you? "Wehl, JON-u-thurn!")

I thought there were loads of positives - and thanks to bloody bonus points, and actual, tangible one - but we were edged pretty much everywhere. The wafer-thinness of that edge is one of the aforementioned positives, too. We were on for a battering today, and we dodged it. A decent shift, a point that may yet be useful in the shakedown, and a couple of options revealed to be actual options rather than desperate sticking-plasters. I know the 6N is the top table and it's win-or-bust and all that, but I can't help feeling quietly satisfied with today.

Aye. Maybe it’s not a coincidence you’ve made both Scotland and England look like garbage. That really isn’t meant to sound so backhanded.

Shingler is impressive.

Here's the "try." Make your own call. Can't say I'm convinced the TMO got it wrong.

cashead wrote:

Ross. S wrote:So TMO screwed us out of that one then

If we're going by the strictest interpretation of law 21.1, then no, the TMO got it right. The amount of downward pressure applied on the ball is negligible, and it was pretty clear the Welsh player had little to no control of the ball.

Where in law 21.1b is the degree of downward pressure defined? My latest laws pdf (yes, I am a nerd) simply says "by pressing down on it". Which is what Anscombe did.

Also, "control" isn't nor has it ever been in the laws. It was something refs used to use as a yardstick in the days when they had to make a call with the naked eye. After all, how can a player scoring with his belly button be described as "being in control"?

Lord Llandaff wrote:

cashead wrote:

Ross. S wrote:So TMO screwed us out of that one then

If we're going by the strictest interpretation of law 21.1, then no, the TMO got it right. The amount of downward pressure applied on the ball is negligible, and it was pretty clear the Welsh player had little to no control of the ball.

Where in law 21.1b is the degree of downward pressure defined? My latest laws pdf (yes, I am a nerd) simply says "by pressing down on it". Which is what Anscombe did.

Also, "control" isn't nor has it ever been in the laws. It was something refs used to use as a yardstick in the days when they had to make a call with the naked eye. After all, how can a player scoring with his belly button be described as "being in control"?

Well, if the ball is being held against the ground by a player's torso, then that indicates control. When Anscombe attempted to press down on the ball, it is pushed forwards from that pressure and I'm not convinced his hand does anything more than just brush the ball, albeit with some force from his forward momentum, rather than press downwards properly in a satisfactory manner.

cashead wrote:

Lord Llandaff wrote:

cashead wrote: If we're going by the strictest interpretation of law 21.1, then no, the TMO got it right. The amount of downward pressure applied on the ball is negligible, and it was pretty clear the Welsh player had little to no control of the ball.

Where in law 21.1b is the degree of downward pressure defined? My latest laws pdf (yes, I am a nerd) simply says "by pressing down on it". Which is what Anscombe did.

Also, "control" isn't nor has it ever been in the laws. It was something refs used to use as a yardstick in the days when they had to make a call with the naked eye. After all, how can a player scoring with his belly button be described as "being in control"?

Well, if the ball is being held against the ground by a player's torso, then that indicates control. When Anscombe attempted to press down on the ball, it is pushed forwards from that pressure and I'm not convinced his hand does anything more than just brush the ball, albeit with some force from his forward momentum, rather than press downwards properly in a satisfactory manner.

All of that is conjecture and none of it is in the laws. The still image of his hand, ball and ground in contact simultaneously is enough to satisfy the laws of the game, assuming you believe in the laws of physics.