RugbyRebels

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 09, 2025 10:27 am Kinghorn dropped a clanger 1st half and that's a norm for him now and absolutely terrible tackle on dmac

Feels harsh to blame Kinghorn for a world-class handoff by Mackenzie. I watched it live and thought he needed shooting, and then with every replay realised more and more that it was just an incredible display of ability from Mackenzie and you just had to applaud.

You lot have my sympathies. The entirety of my English rugby club was cheering you on in that second half, willing you to get over the line. Hard luck and hopefully you'll do them next time.

Puja

Cameo wrote: ↑Sat Nov 08, 2025 9:56 pm
Not sure I buy that Rae had De Groot on toast, but very pleased with how he went.

1st scrum, NZ run it round the TH, and get a pen, wrongly. Tried it again pen to us. Did it because De Groot wasn't coping so run the pressure away from him. De Groot then hinged 3 times IIRC, under pressure and NZ already sussed for the run around, we got one pen. Rae had him on toast

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 09, 2025 10:27 am Graham and Kinghorn can't be turning in 5/10 performances off the that good ball

Kinghorn dropped a clanger 1st half and that's a norm for him now and absolutely terrible tackle on dmac

Darcy having white line fever costly and just feel there was no real threat, at times hands would have been better than crossfield kicks which wasn't his decision obviously

The fella at sale could do better I think

both had poor days by their standards. The fella at Sale is an honest trier but next off the rank among the still fit is also at Glasgow. Kyle Rowe, also much better under the high ball than Graham or Duhan.

Any talk of dropping Graham is crazy. He didn't have his best game, but did look dangerous and almost scored an impossible try. He is simply much better than Rowe or Reed.

Cameo wrote: ↑Sun Nov 09, 2025 6:32 pm Any talk of dropping Graham is crazy. He didn't have his best game, but did look dangerous and almost scored an impossible try. He is simply much better than Rowe or Reed.

won't go so far as advocate that but it has to be considered. I watched Wales get hammered today by the Argies , not least because they peppered the Welsh back 3 with high balls. Which either Wales spilled or Argentina won, often very cleanly. It was targetted and they will target Graham if he plays

I suppose I just think we are a lot blunter without Graham and VDM. Without either of them there is a danger that we play pretty patterns and keep the ball, but don't score many points.

I know what you mean about the importance of the kicking game though. The England Australia game was another illustration of that. I just don't want us to kill a strength to fix a weakness (plus Graham isn't that bad under a high ball, nor Rowe that good).

septic 9 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 08, 2025 8:01 pm

Ashman's throwing was spot on, Huge improvement. But he was fast asleep for their 1st try, and in terms of momentum and morale it cost a lot more than 7 points. (that said I think Lord had a foot, maybe booth in front of the ball so maybe should have been penalised for handling in a ruck.

…

Ok so I’ve been back to look at Lord’s break, because I was wondering about that. The key point here is that this breakdown was not actually a ruck, it was merely a tackle. A ruck requires a player from each team, on their feet, in contact, over the ball. There were no Scotsman on their feet over that ball. So there was no reason Lord could not pick the ball up even though he had one foot in front of it, and the ball was not “out” of the “ruck”. His only obligation was to arrive at the tackle from the direction of his own tryline.

I might not want to hear the answer to this, but how do you feel about the NZ performance now?

At this point I’m still back and forth between being pleased we got so close and feeling completely defeated that we let another opportunity slip by. It’s hard to know what to make of this AB side in general though.

For decades, my measure of a good team has been one that wins even when playing poorly. So, they did that. But the opposition was ranked 8th in the world, so the result should never have been in question (from, like, an historical AB fan perspective).

But the ill discipline and inaccuracy is still unacceptably high for an All Blacks team.

This comparisons is unfair, but with McCaw’s All Blacks, you could watch the game and think, “OK, we’re 8 points behind the Springboks, there’s 20 to go. The plan will work. We got this.” Now, with the relatively recent (for my age) first ever losses against Ireland and Argentina, at 17-all, I’m on the sofa thinking “We are definitely going to lose this.”

So, on balance, to be relieved with an 8-point win over a team ranked way below us, thanks to 3 freakish plays by one dude off the bench, puts this performance in the “unsatisfactory” category.

And, yes, I know that this post reeks of All Black supporter arrogance, but you asked the question!

OK, for added context. Take a look at this post here. http://www.rugbyrebels.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 28#p225028

When I first became sort of cognizant of test rugby, say 8 years old, it had been over 30 years since any test team had recorded a maiden win over the All Blacks. We only ever lost to South Africa (who at that time were in the naughty corner anyway), Australia, England, France, and the Lions. (We used to lose to Wales but not since my Dad was a pre-schooler.) In 1992 we lost one of three to a World XV, but that aside, it took over another 30 years until Ireland broke their duck against us. 62 years it was, between France's first win and Irelands. Then it was only 4 years until the Argies did it.

Bloody embarrassing, that is.

Lizard wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 8:40 am

septic 9 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 08, 2025 8:01 pm

Ashman's throwing was spot on, Huge improvement. But he was fast asleep for their 1st try, and in terms of momentum and morale it cost a lot more than 7 points. (that said I think Lord had a foot, maybe booth in front of the ball so maybe should have been penalised for handling in a ruck.

…

Ok so I’ve been back to look at Lord’s break, because I was wondering about that. The key point here is that this breakdown was not actually a ruck, it was merely a tackle. A ruck requires a player from each team, on their feet, in contact, over the ball. There were no Scotsman on their feet over that ball. So there was no reason Lord could not pick the ball up even though he had one foot in front of it, and the ball was not “out” of the “ruck”. His only obligation was to arrive at the tackle from the direction of his own tryline.

watched it back, agree its not a ruck, it was a tackle. Where is the offside line created at that tackle, and where is Lord in relation to it?

septic 9 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 7:02 pm

Lizard wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 8:40 am

septic 9 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 08, 2025 8:01 pm

Ashman's throwing was spot on, Huge improvement. But he was fast asleep for their 1st try, and in terms of momentum and morale it cost a lot more than 7 points. (that said I think Lord had a foot, maybe booth in front of the ball so maybe should have been penalised for handling in a ruck.

…

Ok so I’ve been back to look at Lord’s break, because I was wondering about that. The key point here is that this breakdown was not actually a ruck, it was merely a tackle. A ruck requires a player from each team, on their feet, in contact, over the ball. There were no Scotsman on their feet over that ball. So there was no reason Lord could not pick the ball up even though he had one foot in front of it, and the ball was not “out” of the “ruck”. His only obligation was to arrive at the tackle from the direction of his own tryline.

watched it back, agree its not a ruck, it was a tackle. Where is the offside line created at that tackle, and where is Lord in relation to it?

In a shocking turn of events, Planetrugby actually wrote a good story about this: https://www.planetrugby.com/news/law-di ... al-actions

Tl;dr - the offside line at a tackle is the hindmost part of the hindmost player involved in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. In this case, that is Lord, and he cannot make himself offside, unless he was to be entirely in front of the ball (hence one foot behind being important). As it's not a ruck, there's no issue with him using his hands, so he's free to play.

If it were to be a ruck, then a player would need to be completely detached from the ruck to pick up the ball with his hands (otherwise he's handling in a ruck), so he would need to have both feet behind the ball to claim he's effectively playing scrum-half.

Puja

A bit of an odd one, but whatever quirks of the laws exist it doesn’t forgive Scotland having 2 forwards each stood a couple of metres either side of an unattended contact situation.

Lizard wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 9:15 am For decades, my measure of a good team has been one that wins even when playing poorly. So, they did that. But the opposition was ranked 8th in the world, so the result should never have been in question (from, like, an historical AB fan perspective).

But the ill discipline and inaccuracy is still unacceptably high for an All Blacks team.

This comparisons is unfair, but with McCaw’s All Blacks, you could watch the game and think, “OK, we’re 8 points behind the Springboks, there’s 20 to go. The plan will work. We got this.” Now, with the relatively recent (for my age) first ever losses against Ireland and Argentina, at 17-all, I’m on the sofa thinking “We are definitely going to lose this.”

So, on balance, to be relieved with an 8-point win over a team ranked way below us, thanks to 3 freakish plays by one dude off the bench, puts this performance in the “unsatisfactory” category.

And, yes, I know that this post reeks of All Black supporter arrogance, but you asked the question!

That’s fairly measured I’d say. Cheers.

I suppose the thing I always imagine with the All Blacks is they’ll be saying that if they simply do their jobs they’ll win, regardless of opposition. Scotland maybe pose more of a threat now, but even with a series of close results it’s hard to imagine NZ being concerned about anything other than their own game.

If we played you again next week I wonder how different it might look.

Sutherland drops out having failed an HIA. Bhatti has been brought in, as has Hurd who appears to have recovered from his injury. Walker has been released. Townsend being coy about both Russell and Fagerson but it looks like the earliest Fagerson will be considered is the Tonga match.

Arron Reed also out with a quadricep injury. He probably only had an outside shout of getting a game against Tonga.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 10:41 am A bit of an odd one, but whatever quirks of the laws exist it doesn’t forgive Scotland having 2 forwards each stood a couple of metres either side of an unattended contact situation.

caught sleeping

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 9:31 am

septic 9 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 7:02 pm

Lizard wrote: ↑Mon Nov 10, 2025 8:40 am

Ok so I’ve been back to look at Lord’s break, because I was wondering about that. The key point here is that this breakdown was not actually a ruck, it was merely a tackle. A ruck requires a player from each team, on their feet, in contact, over the ball. There were no Scotsman on their feet over that ball. So there was no reason Lord could not pick the ball up even though he had one foot in front of it, and the ball was not “out” of the “ruck”. His only obligation was to arrive at the tackle from the direction of his own tryline.

watched it back, agree its not a ruck, it was a tackle. Where is the offside line created at that tackle, and where is Lord in relation to it?

In a shocking turn of events, Planetrugby actually wrote a good story about this: https://www.planetrugby.com/news/law-di ... al-actions

Tl;dr - the offside line at a tackle is the hindmost part of the hindmost player involved in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. In this case, that is Lord, and he cannot make himself offside, unless he was to be entirely in front of the ball (hence one foot behind being important). As it's not a ruck, there's no issue with him using his hands, so he's free to play.

If it were to be a ruck, then a player would need to be completely detached from the ruck to pick up the ball with his hands (otherwise he's handling in a ruck), so he would need to have both feet behind the ball to claim he's effectively playing scrum-half.

Puja

tks Puja
all very reasoned.
Its very tight. The ball does not appear to be under Lord, but under and between the feet of the NZ player on the far side, Lord picks the ball from there. I'm not sure either whether that makes a difference. This would not have been an issue if it had not been for English players not understanding the laws. I am sure you will recall the laws being changed after the Italians worked out that no ruck meant they could go round the back - Romain Poite "I am not your coach"

Fair play to Lord, good awareness and nice acceleration. And its only cheating if the ref penalises you

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Tue Nov 11, 2025 10:41 am A bit of an odd one, but whatever quirks of the laws exist it doesn’t forgive Scotland having 2 forwards each stood a couple of metres either side of an unattended contact situation.

Especially since you’d presume it was a deliberate choice to not compete and form a ruck, which would have prevented Lord from legally breaking. It seems fairly rudimentary that if you’re not going to contest for the ball, you should be ready to tackle the players you are allowing to have uncontested possession.

Thoughts on team against Argentina.

I would go largely the same except:

- If Finn's not fit, probably Jordan. Will be a worry re placekicking and kicking from hand and Burke might be more solid, but from what I saw of the Wales Argentina game, there is scope for a running 10 to do some damage. Jordan is also good in the backfield which might be key.

- In the backrow, I would replace Fagerson with Onyeama-Christie. I suspect it will be Darge and I would be tempted by Ritchie (especially since he's our best player at picking around scraps around high balls), but I would like to see if Onyeama-Christie can combine breakdown threat and oomph.

- If Russell is fit, I'd like to see Dobie come in.

- Usual questions re second row, but can't be bothered with that discussion.

Cameo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 12:08 am
- If Finn's not fit, probably Jordan. Will be a worry re placekicking and kicking from hand and Burke might be more solid, but from what I saw of the Wales Argentina game, there is scope for a running 10 to do some damage. Jordan is also good in the backfield which might be key.

Kinghorn has been kicking for Toulouse when Ramos isn’t playing and looks to have been making his kicks so he could kick if Jordan plays. He certainly seems to have improved his kicking (along with the rest of his game) since he moved to Toulouse.

BaldiePete wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 9:35 am

Cameo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 12:08 am
- If Finn's not fit, probably Jordan. Will be a worry re placekicking and kicking from hand and Burke might be more solid, but from what I saw of the Wales Argentina game, there is scope for a running 10 to do some damage. Jordan is also good in the backfield which might be key.

Kinghorn has been kicking for Toulouse when Ramos isn’t playing and looks to have been making his kicks so he could kick if Jordan plays. He certainly seems to have improved his kicking (along with the rest of his game) since he moved to Toulouse.

Yeah, actually forgot about thqt when posting. Kicking will be fine.

Argentina team is out.

Matera has been dropped to the bench. Presumably they want him as an impact player in the last 20/30 minutes.

Juan Cruz Mallia, Rodrigo Isgro, Matias Moroni, Santiago Chocobares, Mateo Carreras, Geronimi Prisciantelli, Simon Benitez Cruz; Mayco Vivas, Julian Montoya (captain), Pedro Delgado, Guido Petti, Pedro Rubiolo, Santiago Grondona, Juan Martin Gonzalez, Joaquin Oviedo

Replacements: Ignacio Ruiz, Thomas Gallo, Francisco Coria Marchetti, Efrain Elias, Pablo Matera, Agustin Moyano, Santiago Carreras, Justo Piccardo

Scotland team. Darge in for Fagerson otherwise it’s the same starters. 5:3 on the bench with no 2nd row cover, so Brown will be covering from 6. VDM on bench

15. Blair Kinghorn – Toulouse (61)
14. Darcy Graham – Edinburgh Rugby (49)
13. Rory Hutchinson – Northampton Saints (10)
12. Sione Tuipulotu – Glasgow Warriors (31) – Captain
11. Kyle Steyn – Glasgow Warriors (26)
10. Finn Russell – Bath Rugby (88) – Vice-Captain
9. Ben White – Toulon (30)

1. Pierre Schoeman – Edinburgh Rugby (43)
2. Ewan Ashman – Edinburgh Rugby (30)
3. D’arcy Rae – Edinburgh Rugby (4)
4. Scott Cummings – Glasgow Warriors (44)
5. Grant Gilchrist – Edinburgh Rugby (83)
6. Gregor Brown – Glasgow Warriors (11)
7. Rory Darge – Glasgow Warriors (33) Vice-Captain
8. Jack Dempsey – Glasgow Warriors (28)

Replacements

16. George Turner – Harlequins (48)
17. Nathan McBeth – Glasgow Warriors (4)
18. Elliot Millar Mills – Northampton Saints (10)
19. Josh Bayliss – Bath Rugby (12)
20. Matt Fagerson – Glasgow Warriors (58)
21. Jamie Dobie – Glasgow Warriors (16)
22. Tom Jordan – Bristol Bears (10)
23. Duhan van der Merwe – Edinburgh Rugby (50)

Slightly mixed feelings about this. Starting team is good (though not quite what I would have picked). Bench looks a bit funny. If we are going to have two backrow, are Bayliss and Fagerson really the best combo. I struggle slightly to see Bayliss in our top 23 to be honest, though that might be a bit of a blindspot for me. Onyeama-Christie would have offered something a little different. Funny too how Ritchie is now completely on the outside when he was possibly our beat player in the 6 Nations.

Seems a bit of a luxury to have a straight wing on the bench too but I can be on board with that as long as he comes on with plenty of time to go. He's not the kind of player to come on and get 10 carries in 10 minutes.

Interesting changes from Argentina. I suspect they'll be looking to shore up their midfield defence.