Tigers Vs Sarries

[FKAS]

Actually having seen the replay Kelly will do well not to cop a ban.

Yeah, I'm glad Ridley didn't have a good look at Kelly - that should've been penalty reversed.

Weird game - I don't know why both teams that have played Saracens have decided that the best thing to do is to try and out-Saracens them. Didn't work for Briz and it really shouldn't have worked for us. We looked very ropey and were lucky to win, although counter-intuitively, we shouldn't have left it to the last minute as we should have finished off those penalties near their line earlier in the half.

Chessum looked good - wasn't out of place at all and a nuisance on Saracens' lineout. Burns at 15 was a mistake, as was playing both Van Wyks and not having Genge and Scott. However, we did win, so selection vindicated, I guess. IBWT. Until we lose, then sack the bastard .

Puja

We only tried to out Sarries, Sarries in the first half though. Second half we used the bench to bring more impact and started playing a bit more. Conditions were always going to limit how much running rugby could be attempted.

First half was definitely more about getting the Sarries pack moving round the park and making them work than the score line.

Agree on Chessum, I think he's a contender to start again next week.

[Oakboy]

What will Mr Jones have concluded from Farrell v Ford? Was he at the previous match when Lozowski was at 10?

[fivepointer]

Cant comment much on the game as only saw the first 30 minutes (it was awful).

I have the seen the concluding penalty incident and am amazed that Kelly wasnt sanctioned for his hit on Davies. That penalty should have been reversed.

[Tigersman]

Personally I thought we could've out sarries, saracens fairly easily. Just Borthwick tried to do it with a backline that was just not it.
Add Steward, Potter and Scott to that backline + Genge to that front row and I think Tigers would've won fairly well.
Saracens never looked like scoring a try, there maul game was going nowhere generally.
In fact Saracens only scored 3 points once Steward, JVP and Genge came on.

[Scrumhead]

I more or less agree with that. With the exception of one that made about 10m near the half way line, Saracens maul didn’t offer much.

I don’t recall them threatening the Tigers’ try line at any point and I think their game plan was to take any opportunities for points within kicking range. I don’t remember them kicking to the corner even once if a shot for goal was on.

[FKAS]

What will Mr Jones have concluded from Farrell v Ford? Was he at the previous match when Lozowski was at 10?

I think Eddie will have probably given it as a draw. Farrell was very good in the tactical game but didn't do anything to get his side moving with the large possession they had in the first half. Ford was decent in the tactical display but hampered by the Tigers set up in the backfield. He created more, notably as the game wore on but nothing particularly telling.

Lozowski went to 10 when Farrell came off and did naff all for Sarries. Not really the game for him.

[FKAS]

I more or less agree with that. With the exception of one that made about 10m near the half way line, Saracens maul didn’t offer much.

I don’t recall them threatening the Tigers’ try line at any point and I think their game plan was to take any opportunities for points within kicking range. I don’t remember them kicking to the corner even once if a shot for goal was on.

Sarries kicking to the corner twice in the first half with Tigers forcing a knock on from Billy, giving a penalty away and then stealing the lineout after the penalty. That was as close as Sarries got.

With Sarries backline they really should have been able to fashion more than they did.

[Oakboy]

What will Mr Jones have concluded from Farrell v Ford? Was he at the previous match when Lozowski was at 10?

I think Eddie will have probably given it as a draw. Farrell was very good in the tactical game but didn't do anything to get his side moving with the large possession they had in the first half. Ford was decent in the tactical display but hampered by the Tigers set up in the backfield. He created more, notably as the game wore on but nothing particularly telling.

Lozowski went to 10 when Farrell came off and did naff all for Sarries. Not really the game for him.

Fair assessment. IF, Jones has concluded that only one of F/F is needed for the future, he will have seen nothing to change his mind about which, presumably. Reading too much into head-to-head encounters is tempting but I'd imagine Smith is well up for playing against either FH. With Simmonds out of form the path is looking clear.

[FKAS]

What will Mr Jones have concluded from Farrell v Ford? Was he at the previous match when Lozowski was at 10?

I think Eddie will have probably given it as a draw. Farrell was very good in the tactical game but didn't do anything to get his side moving with the large possession they had in the first half. Ford was decent in the tactical display but hampered by the Tigers set up in the backfield. He created more, notably as the game wore on but nothing particularly telling.

Lozowski went to 10 when Farrell came off and did naff all for Sarries. Not really the game for him.

Fair assessment. IF, Jones has concluded that only one of F/F is needed for the future, he will have seen nothing to change his mind about which, presumably. Reading too much into head-to-head encounters is tempting but I'd imagine Smith is well up for playing against either FH. With Simmonds out of form the path is looking clear.

If you are in the bracket of Smith/Ford/Farrell and you don't fancy your chances whilst playing one of the others you won't be in that bracket for long. Allan has started his Quins career well so Smith will have to come back firing. Bit of competition at his club will be new and probably help him push on.

Ford has played pretty well so far this season, bit meh Vs Glaws after half time but rallied to finish strong. Excellent Vs Chiefs in week 1. Did alright on Saturday. Farrell played like Farrell so you'd assume the return to the 12 jersey is penned in.

I'm still expecting Eddie to name all three in his EPS. I doubt all three will make the match day squad but I'd guess the AIs will be the time of experimentation.

As an aside I think the second half battle of the 15s will have been of more interest to Eddie. Malins and Steward made one knock on error each, Steward diving for a ball to stop a 50/22 and Malins dropping one under little pressure from a slightly iffy pass that the officials somehow missed. Malins looked very solid at the back for Sarries as did Steward after his second half introduction which is a good indication of their skill levels in filthy conditions.

[Mikey Brown]

I didn’t see the incident but knocking the ball on to prevent a 50/22 doesn’t actually sound like a bad gamble.

[Puja]

I didn’t see the incident but knocking the ball on to prevent a 50/22 doesn’t actually sound like a bad gamble.

You're not wrong, although that one was definitely not deliberate - full length dive to reach a ball and it just bobbled out of his grasp.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

I didn’t see the incident but knocking the ball on to prevent a 50/22 doesn’t actually sound like a bad gamble.

You're not wrong, although that one was definitely not deliberate - full length dive to reach a ball and it just bobbled out of his grasp.

If it's an unrealistic attempt to get the ball, then it's a bad gamble. Really not worth giving away a penalty inside your 22 on a 10% chance of preventing a line-out in your 22. You'll either be facing the same line-out back on your 5m line, or watching 3 points sail over.

Ultimately, we'll see how it comes out in the wash of Refs' interpretations - I would imaging they'd be rather forgiving though.

FTR, I also haven't seen the incident, and from the sounds of things, that is NOT a game I'll be hunting down to spend 90 minutes of my life on.

[FKAS]

I didn’t see the incident but knocking the ball on to prevent a 50/22 doesn’t actually sound like a bad gamble.

You're not wrong, although that one was definitely not deliberate - full length dive to reach a ball and it just bobbled out of his grasp.

If it's an unrealistic attempt to get the ball, then it's a bad gamble. Really not worth giving away a penalty inside your 22 on a 10% chance of preventing a line-out in your 22. You'll either be facing the same line-out back on your 5m line, or watching 3 points sail over.

Ultimately, we'll see how it comes out in the wash of Refs' interpretations - I would imaging they'd be rather forgiving though.

FTR, I also haven't seen the incident, and from the sounds of things, that is NOT a game I'll be hunting down to spend 90 minutes of my life on.

Steward goes full length dive like he's in the slips at cricket. He's running forward onto it always trying to make a catch with both hands. Just slides away from him in the conditions. Would have had to been an official with a grudge to give that as a penalty. He knocked on into touch so Sarries got a lineout 5m from the 22 instead of 5m inside.

Incidentally Malins pulled off a really nice sliding catch in the first half though that was less of a reach. Judged the kick and slid into position so it dropped right into the bread basket.

[Digby]

The problem if that's not a penalty is the players will know that for the future, and then they've undermined their own 50/22 adaptation.

[Puja]

The problem if that's not a penalty is the players will know that for the future, and then they've undermined their own 50/22 adaptation.

I think you're making a problem where there isn't one. It's a dropped catch - clearly the best result is to catch the catch, so I don't think there's going to be a spate of deliberately dropped catches so that a team has a scrum just outside the 22 rather than a lineout just inside.

Puja

[Digby]

If I'm covering at the back I now know I can go for the catch and ideally yes take it, but worst case knock it out for a lineout further up the field than not going for the catch would see. This is a bit like the Lawes tackle on Plisson, I just need to get close enough I can pretend it's a vlid attempt

I'm not as it happens perturbed by this as I'm not sold on the 50/22, I'm waiting to see, but it's an odd thing to allow if you want to bring in the 50/22, and seeing as they did bring it in they must see virtue in it. Entirely possible it never replicates, still as a means of enforcing any law never mind a brand new one it's illogical in construct

[Puja]

If I'm covering at the back I now know I can go for the catch and ideally yes take it, but worst case knock it out for a lineout further up the field than not going for the catch would see. This is a bit like the Lawes tackle on Plisson, I just need to get close enough I can pretend it's a vlid attempt

I'm not as it happens perturbed by this as I'm not sold on the 50/22, I'm waiting to see, but it's an odd thing to allow if you want to bring in the 50/22, and seeing as they did bring it in they must see virtue in it. Entirely possible it never replicates, still as a means of enforcing any law never mind a brand new one it's illogical in construct

In what situation, when you're covering at the back, would you not go for the catch? I don't get the scenario that you're painting here - when would it be a good idea for a player not to try and catch a ball that would otherwise bounce in their 22?

Puja

[Mikey Brown]

I really wasn't meaning to suggest Malins just knocked it on to get a lineout, as I say I didn't see it, just that it's potentially more worth the risk to gamble on a catch you might not necessarily make. Hard to imagine it's going to be a common enough scenario that anyone can plan for it though.

[FKAS]

If I'm covering at the back I now know I can go for the catch and ideally yes take it, but worst case knock it out for a lineout further up the field than not going for the catch would see. This is a bit like the Lawes tackle on Plisson, I just need to get close enough I can pretend it's a vlid attempt

I'm not as it happens perturbed by this as I'm not sold on the 50/22, I'm waiting to see, but it's an odd thing to allow if you want to bring in the 50/22, and seeing as they did bring it in they must see virtue in it. Entirely possible it never replicates, still as a means of enforcing any law never mind a brand new one it's illogical in construct

In what situation, when you're covering at the back, would you not go for the catch? I don't get the scenario that you're painting here - when would it be a good idea for a player not to try and catch a ball that would otherwise bounce in their 22?

Puja

I'm pretty sure that if you're the fullback and you watch a kick go for a 50/22 because you didn't want to risk knocking it on that you won't be the fullback much longer. Can't imagine many coaches taking that as an excuse.

[Cameo]

If I'm covering at the back I now know I can go for the catch and ideally yes take it, but worst case knock it out for a lineout further up the field than not going for the catch would see. This is a bit like the Lawes tackle on Plisson, I just need to get close enough I can pretend it's a vlid attempt

I'm not as it happens perturbed by this as I'm not sold on the 50/22, I'm waiting to see, but it's an odd thing to allow if you want to bring in the 50/22, and seeing as they did bring it in they must see virtue in it. Entirely possible it never replicates, still as a means of enforcing any law never mind a brand new one it's illogical in construct

In what situation, when you're covering at the back, would you not go for the catch? I don't get the scenario that you're painting here - when would it be a good idea for a player not to try and catch a ball that would otherwise bounce in their 22?

Puja

Yeah, encouraging full backs to try and catch the ball and keep it in play is not some unintended unwanted side effect of this rule change. It's not the primary purpose but it's good that the rule encourages full backs to try and stop the ball going out. If there are a few knock ins in the process so be it (though I imagine the attempts will normally be when scrambling backwards).

[Digby]

I think if you were marginal for making the catch the idea you'd concede a penalty for a variant on an intentional knock-on would be a disincentive to risking a catch you weren't sure of. Yes it's not going to replicate over and over, 50/22 attempts aren't happening every couple of minutes, then you'd need someone covering in the right (or wrong) place such a catch was iffy, and then you'd need them to go for it and mess it up

This seems somewhat similar to what's judged an intentional knock on when a defender gets a hand to ball that's being passed by the attacking side and fumbles it forwards, that sometimes doesn't happen for matches at a time, but the defenders know if they go for it and don't take it clean there's a sanction.

And again I'm not sold there's a need for a 50/22, but if I was and I brought in the law for it I'd have given some thought to not allowing it to be subverted

[Oakboy]

If catching the ball before it bounces is iffy, surely the answer is to try to kick it into touch on the volley - just to move the opposition's line-out further upfield?

[Mikey Brown]

I think if you volley an incoming 50/22 kick on the full it should be your team's lineout wherever it goes out.

[Cameo]

I think if you were marginal for making the catch the idea you'd concede a penalty for a variant on an intentional knock-on would be a disincentive to risking a catch you weren't sure of. Yes it's not going to replicate over and over, 50/22 attempts aren't happening every couple of minutes, then you'd need someone covering in the right (or wrong) place such a catch was iffy, and then you'd need them to go for it and mess it up

This seems somewhat similar to what's judged an intentional knock on when a defender gets a hand to ball that's being passed by the attacking side and fumbles it forwards, that sometimes doesn't happen for matches at a time, but the defenders know if they go for it and don't take it clean there's a sanction.

And again I'm not sold there's a need for a 50/22, but if I was and I brought in the law for it I'd have given some thought to not allowing it to be subverted

I think we're going round in circles, but I think most of us just don't see someone diving to try and make a catch as subverting the rule. Sure if someone diving and punches it forward (quite why is hard to know), give a penalty. Where someone has dived to make a catch then let's just applaud them for the effort.

If you take your logic further, surely you give a penalty anytime someone goes for a difficult catch? Crossfield kick going just too high for you to be sure, leave it for the opposition player behind you. Bad pass from your team mate that you don't want to let bounce, leave it in case you knock on. Kickoff you can't get to comfortably, leave it as you wouldn't want to be seen to be deliberately knocking on to avoid the risk of a bad bounce and the opposition benefiting.

The harsh treatment of 'deliberate' knock ons in tackles stops people from doing something pretty cynical that they could do all the time (some people can't resist doing it every few minutes playing touch for example). None of these other scenarios are problems, or likely to become problems.

Oh, and I'm all for the volleying idea. Some additional bonus for headers?

[Puja]

Meanwhile, Dan Kelly has copped a 3 match ban (effectively 2, as he'll do the training course to knock a week off) for shouldering Davies in the head. Seems like a fair result.

Puja