The Official English Rugby Thread

[Hal Jordan]

Ethan Roots over Ted Hill seems a stretch.

[Raggs]

I've seen Langdon was injured. Might not be correct.

Oghre is an attacking skillful hooker. I like the fact we're constantly bringing in attacking players.

Sleightholme is a good player, wondering if we try Freeman at 13, and really stack the attack.

[JM2K6]

That's my preference.

[geordie_6]

I've seen Langdon was injured. Might not be correct.

Oghre is an attacking skillful hooker. I like the fact we're constantly bringing in attacking players.

Sleightholme is a good player, wondering if we try Freeman at 13, and really stack the attack.

Certainly looked it on Saturday. Might have just been a stinger, but his arm was hanging useless for a couple minutes.

[geordie_6]

That's my preference.

With Lawrence at 12?

[Raggs]

That's my preference.

With Lawrence at 12?

If we have Furbank at 15, we can have less creative centres. Lawrence is easily good enough to keep a move going.

[inactionman]

Isn't it nice to feel like we have options.

I've still not watched all the game, gutted by the red but Obano has got it all wrong. We're still a long way away from getting this sorted - although anecdotally it seems we're seeing fewer reds ,they're still occurring far too frequently to think we're solving the issue of high shots just by putting players on the naughty step.

I'm inclined to think of reds in the same way I think of scrum penalties - the difference between 'that was great' and 'that is a penalty/red card' is too fine.

Still, some excellent performances and I'll watch the second half when I'm a little less sore.

[sockwithaticket]

Isn't it nice to feel like we have options.

I've still not watched all the game, gutted by the red but Obano has got it all wrong. We're still a long way away from getting this sorted - although anecdotally it seems we're seeing fewer reds ,they're still occurring far too frequently to think we're solving the issue of high shots just by putting players on the naughty step.

I'm inclined to think of reds in the same way I think of scrum penalties - the difference between 'that was great' and 'that is a penalty/red card' is too fine.

Still, some excellent performances and I'll watch the second half when I'm a little less sore.

I think we need to seriously address ban length if the aim is actually to change behaviour. Teams can accommodate a player missing on the pitch and not being in the squad for 2 - 3 week fairly easily. There's also a massive issue with consistency of application of the law. It feels like reds seem to have become rarer because even incidents that look, based on the standards from a couple of seasons prior, like cast iron sending offs get downgraded to a sin bin for the flimsiest mitigation. It seems that an awful lot still doesn't get checked live or cited. For so long as a player's chance of being sent off remain low, coaches are going to keep getting them to hit higher and harder to make dominant tackles and tie up arms to prevent offloads.

[Raggs]

The sternum height tackle at community level gives clear "grey" area, penalty, and card level degrees. A tackle that's gone wrong can still be relatively safe for the tackled player, and making a penalty an easy call.

[sockwithaticket]

That would make total sense to introduce, but the amount of noise and whinging around the community game announcement has probably made the powers that be gun shy.

[inactionman]

Isn't it nice to feel like we have options.

I've still not watched all the game, gutted by the red but Obano has got it all wrong. We're still a long way away from getting this sorted - although anecdotally it seems we're seeing fewer reds ,they're still occurring far too frequently to think we're solving the issue of high shots just by putting players on the naughty step.

I'm inclined to think of reds in the same way I think of scrum penalties - the difference between 'that was great' and 'that is a penalty/red card' is too fine.

Still, some excellent performances and I'll watch the second half when I'm a little less sore.

I think we need to seriously address ban length if the aim is actually to change behaviour. Teams can accommodate a player missing on the pitch and not being in the squad for 2 - 3 week fairly easily. There's also a massive issue with consistency of application of the law. It feels like reds seem to have become rarer because even incidents that look, based on the standards from a couple of seasons prior, like cast iron sending offs get downgraded to a sin bin for the flimsiest mitigation. It seems that an awful lot still doesn't get checked live or cited. For so long as a player's chance of being sent off remain low, coaches are going to keep getting them to hit higher and harder to make dominant tackles and tie up arms to prevent offloads.

That's always been the problem. There's a reason players are hitting at chest height, and unless chest high itself is illegal they'll keep doing it - asking people to not compete (if we accept that chest high hits have a competitive advantage) is not really viable. This retains the risk that they'll slip high and receive a red.

I don't really think increased bans is the way to go, as the legislation allows this knife-edge.

eta: I took a while to post this as I'm supposed to be working- missed Raggs' comments above. They're the only feasible way I see of addressing this.

[Biffer]

Isn't it nice to feel like we have options.

I've still not watched all the game, gutted by the red but Obano has got it all wrong. We're still a long way away from getting this sorted - although anecdotally it seems we're seeing fewer reds ,they're still occurring far too frequently to think we're solving the issue of high shots just by putting players on the naughty step.

I'm inclined to think of reds in the same way I think of scrum penalties - the difference between 'that was great' and 'that is a penalty/red card' is too fine.

Still, some excellent performances and I'll watch the second half when I'm a little less sore.

I think we need to seriously address ban length if the aim is actually to change behaviour. Teams can accommodate a player missing on the pitch and not being in the squad for 2 - 3 week fairly easily. There's also a massive issue with consistency of application of the law. It feels like reds seem to have become rarer because even incidents that look, based on the standards from a couple of seasons prior, like cast iron sending offs get downgraded to a sin bin for the flimsiest mitigation. It seems that an awful lot still doesn't get checked live or cited. For so long as a player's chance of being sent off remain low, coaches are going to keep getting them to hit higher and harder to make dominant tackles and tie up arms to prevent offloads.

That's always been the problem. There's a reason players are hitting at chest height, and unless chest high itself is illegal they'll keep doing it - asking people to not compete (if we accept that chest high hits have a competitive advantage) is not really viable. This retains the risk that they'll slip high and receive a red.

I don't really think increased bans is the way to go, as the legislation allows this knife-edge.

eta: I took a while to post this as I'm supposed to be working- missed Raggs' comments above. They're the only feasible way I see of addressing this.

All these dinosaurs who want red cards watered down should have to sit down with Ed Slater and explain that to his kids.

[inactionman]

I think we need to seriously address ban length if the aim is actually to change behaviour. Teams can accommodate a player missing on the pitch and not being in the squad for 2 - 3 week fairly easily. There's also a massive issue with consistency of application of the law. It feels like reds seem to have become rarer because even incidents that look, based on the standards from a couple of seasons prior, like cast iron sending offs get downgraded to a sin bin for the flimsiest mitigation. It seems that an awful lot still doesn't get checked live or cited. For so long as a player's chance of being sent off remain low, coaches are going to keep getting them to hit higher and harder to make dominant tackles and tie up arms to prevent offloads.

That's always been the problem. There's a reason players are hitting at chest height, and unless chest high itself is illegal they'll keep doing it - asking people to not compete (if we accept that chest high hits have a competitive advantage) is not really viable. This retains the risk that they'll slip high and receive a red.

I don't really think increased bans is the way to go, as the legislation allows this knife-edge.

eta: I took a while to post this as I'm supposed to be working- missed Raggs' comments above. They're the only feasible way I see of addressing this.

All these dinosaurs who want red cards watered down should have to sit down with Ed Slater and explain that to his kids.

Jesus wept, the sanctimony.

I want head shots gone, everyone with a ounce of sense and sensitivity wants head shots gone. I disagree with the way we're going about it. I don't think it's effective, and I don't think it will ever be effective unless we make chest high hits illegal. It's not cryptic.

[Biffer]

That's always been the problem. There's a reason players are hitting at chest height, and unless chest high itself is illegal they'll keep doing it - asking people to not compete (if we accept that chest high hits have a competitive advantage) is not really viable. This retains the risk that they'll slip high and receive a red.

I don't really think increased bans is the way to go, as the legislation allows this knife-edge.

eta: I took a while to post this as I'm supposed to be working- missed Raggs' comments above. They're the only feasible way I see of addressing this.

All these dinosaurs who want red cards watered down should have to sit down with Ed Slater and explain that to his kids.

Jesus wept, the sanctimony.

I want head shots gone, everyone with a ounce of sense and sensitivity wants head shots gone. I disagree with the way we're going about it. I don't think it's effective, and I don't think it will ever be effective unless we make chest high hits illegal. It's not cryptic.

wasn't having a go at you, I don't think they way we're doing it is effective either. But I'd go down the route of bigger bans, or at least getting rid of all these nonsensical discounts.

[geordie_6]

That's my preference.

With Lawrence at 12?

If we have Furbank at 15, we can have less creative centres. Lawrence is easily good enough to keep a move going.

Aye that was my thinking as well, Furbank being an auxiliary 10 certainly fits with the "two playmakers" approach they want to take.

[Hal Jordan]

I've seen Langdon was injured. Might not be correct.

Oghre is an attacking skillful hooker. I like the fact we're constantly bringing in attacking players.

Sleightholme is a good player, wondering if we try Freeman at 13, and really stack the attack.

Daly Mk II alert!

[inactionman]

4 match ban for Obano.

Usual 1 game discount if he goes to detention or whatever the course is.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union ... kkj9n3m13o

[SaintK]

Hoobloodyray!!!!

Championship clubs have welcomed the approval of promotion to the Premiership as a “new era” for the professional game in England.
In addition, the RFU council voted at Friday’s meeting to relax the minimum operating standards for promotion, with the deadline for achieving those standards spread over four seasons. An independently chaired Tier 2 board is also to be set up, giving the Championship greater control over commercial deals.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/ar ... gby-union

[sockwithaticket]

I remain unconvinced that rugby union in this country is big enough to support anything more than the Premiership, but if we're going to bring back promotion and relegation then the playoff between bottom of the Prem and top of the Champis probably the best way to do it.

Can't see anyone other than Newcastle being at risk of the drop in the immediate future unless they actully do sign a deal with one of the Gulf oil monied types who they've reportedly been courting. If they were to go down I can't see anyone coming up being much of a challenge for any of the Prem teams.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I'd still go for straight promotion and relegation, but if the Championship clubs sign off on a playoff then so be it.

[geordie_6]

Team named to face Japan:

15. George Furbank
14. Immanuel Feyi-Waboso
13. Henry Slade - vice-captain
12. Ollie Lawrence
11. Tommy Freeman
10. Marcus Smith
9. Alex Mitchell

1. Bevan Rodd
2. Jamie George - captain
3. Dan Cole
4. Maro Itoje - vice-captain
5. George Martin
6. Chandler Cunningham-South
7. Sam Underhill
8. Ben Earl - vice-captain

Replacements

16. Theo Dan
17. Joe Marler - vice-captain
18. Will Stuart
19, Charlie Ewels
20. Tom Curry
21. Harry Randall
22. Fin Smith
23. Tom Roebuck

https://www.englandrugby.com/news/artic ... face-japan

[Oxbow]

Needs more vice-captains.

[ASMO]

I am just not seeing the love affair with Slade, he offers nothing, would rather see Freeman in the center and get Sleightholme in on the wing.

[SaintK]

Needs more vice-captains.

..............and less Marler! Would have been an ideal match to cap Baxter.

[Oxbow]

Needs more vice-captains.

..............and less Marler! Would have been an ideal match to cap Baxter.

And Sleightholme.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

In addition to looking at tackler height, whether reducing the legal target area and/or increasing bans it does rather feel like we need to do something about the carrier. With players braced for the tackle leaning forwards with the forearm presented there can be almost nowhere to tackle, and these are often carriers if you try to wait and get them from the side you'll struggle to hold them in a soak tackle.

It doesn't feel like the game knows what it wants, and in fairness it's not easy to see how to get there. The speed and power at the top level is just astounding, so that's another thing too, keeping it one game.

[inactionman]

In addition to looking at tackler height, whether reducing the legal target area and/or increasing bans it does rather feel like we need to do something about the carrier. With players braced for the tackle leaning forwards with the forearm presented there can be almost nowhere to tackle, and these are often carriers if you try to wait and get them from the side you'll struggle to hold them in a soak tackle.

It doesn't feel like the game knows what it wants, and in fairness it's not easy to see how to get there. The speed and power at the top level is just astounding, so that's another thing too, keeping it one game.

It's an interesting point - The ball carrier seems to have carte blanche about where they go and how high. I noticed in the final that Augustus routinely dropped his shoulder height immediately before being tackle - not nefariously, he was getting into a good position to drive through the tackle and keep hands free - but it did mean tackles would ride up as he essentially drove under the committed tackle. He also moaned to the ref a few times which did irk me, but in fairness he was being caught high.

I've also seen a few cards given where the ball carrier has run straight into the tackler, closing the gap before the tackler was ready and stopping the tackler getting low.

[Hal Jordan]

Steward looks like he's getting the Matt Perry treatment come selection time.

[sockwithaticket]

Other players are, frankly, just more rounded. His main asset being his aerial ability is only really a point of difference in games where there will be am awful lot of kicking.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

In addition to looking at tackler height, whether reducing the legal target area and/or increasing bans it does rather feel like we need to do something about the carrier. With players braced for the tackle leaning forwards with the forearm presented there can be almost nowhere to tackle, and these are often carriers if you try to wait and get them from the side you'll struggle to hold them in a soak tackle.

It doesn't feel like the game knows what it wants, and in fairness it's not easy to see how to get there. The speed and power at the top level is just astounding, so that's another thing too, keeping it one game.

It's an interesting point - The ball carrier seems to have carte blanche about where they go and how high. I noticed in the final that Augustus routinely dropped his shoulder height immediately before being tackle - not nefariously, he was getting into a good position to drive through the tackle and keep hands free - but it did mean tackles would ride up as he essentially drove under the committed tackle. He also moaned to the ref a few times which did irk me, but in fairness he was being caught high.

I've also seen a few cards given where the ball carrier has run straight into the tackler, closing the gap before the tackler was ready and stopping the tackler getting low.

We do seem to have rather wandered out into a problem without knowing what we want to do or how to do it.

And I confess in the whole I don't have a cunning plan myself, merely I do think we need further change, I'm open to dropping the allowed height further and I certainly think the bans should be much longer. But I am too a little sympathetic to the idea one does want to be able to defend/tackle, and when you get someone as powerful as say Augustus what are the reasonable options if we drop the tackle height further?

[JM2K6]

These guys do have waists with legs attached

[Raggs]

Other players are, frankly, just more rounded. His main asset being his aerial ability is only really a point of difference in games where there will be am awful lot of kicking.

He's also adept and smashing it back when he runs it back in.

Against a team with bigger boots than ours (like France), we do often lose the kick tennis than crashing it back over the defensive line is a genuinely good option (it's why we had Billy hang back and do it).

[inactionman]

Other players are, frankly, just more rounded. His main asset being his aerial ability is only really a point of difference in games where there will be am awful lot of kicking.

He's also adept and smashing it back when he runs it back in.

Against a team with bigger boots than ours (like France), we do often lose the kick tennis than crashing it back over the defensive line is a genuinely good option (it's why we had Billy hang back and do it).

There's something to be said for the Mike Brown school of fullbacking

It's useful to have options, although I'm not sure we'd be well advised to chop and change too much based upon perceived strengths of the opposition.

[Raggs]

Other players are, frankly, just more rounded. His main asset being his aerial ability is only really a point of difference in games where there will be am awful lot of kicking.

He's also adept and smashing it back when he runs it back in.

Against a team with bigger boots than ours (like France), we do often lose the kick tennis than crashing it back over the defensive line is a genuinely good option (it's why we had Billy hang back and do it).

There's something to be said for the Mike Brown school of fullbacking

It's useful to have options, although I'm not sure we'd be well advised to chop and change too much based upon perceived strengths of the opposition.

No argument from me, just wanted to point out that it's not just his aerial ability that made him a good option. He offered a good power option, and having that in the back comes with added perks.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Other players are, frankly, just more rounded. His main asset being his aerial ability is only really a point of difference in games where there will be am awful lot of kicking.

He's also adept and smashing it back when he runs it back in.

Against a team with bigger boots than ours (like France), we do often lose the kick tennis than crashing it back over the defensive line is a genuinely good option (it's why we had Billy hang back and do it).

He also works really hard off the ball on attack and defence. it doesn't mean the bad will come his way, but he certainly puts in a shift. one might contend he's not working at the same pace as some others, but his work ethic is decent

[Rhubarb & Custard]

These guys do have waists with legs attached

Not easy to get at if a player is dipping into contact, perhaps leaning forwards and with a raised forearm. In many instances anyway. And we might end up encouraging tacklers to plant their faces into a hip which isn't in all ways an ideal outcome.

Anyway, for myself I hope they're thinking on this in the round. I want carriers to be safe(r) but the point of the game is there's a contest, and that's very tricky to manage at the top end of the game

[Happyhooker]

These guys do have waists with legs attached

Not easy to get at if a player is dipping into contact, perhaps leaning forwards and with a raised forearm. In many instances anyway. And we might end up encouraging tacklers to plant their faces into a hip which isn't in all ways an ideal outcome.

Anyway, for myself I hope they're thinking on this in the round. I want carriers to be safe(r) but the point of the game is there's a contest, and that's very tricky to manage at the top end of the game

I've been off work for a while with a few depression issues. Recently I found out that my nephew who's in the larger academy squad for a premiership team was being coached by someone I used to play with. I've spent the most uplifting few weeks of my life helping out in training sessions. My expertise is not tackling, but observing how they're training the kids at the top level so as they won't tackle high is quite affirming.

Basically, if you tackle with the shoulder that matches your front foot, you'll stay on the pitch. That and drills on timing tackles which are light years above what I was taught 30+ years ago.

Maybe there's some hope for the game

[Raggs]

These guys do have waists with legs attached

Not easy to get at if a player is dipping into contact, perhaps leaning forwards and with a raised forearm. In many instances anyway. And we might end up encouraging tacklers to plant their faces into a hip which isn't in all ways an ideal outcome.

Anyway, for myself I hope they're thinking on this in the round. I want carriers to be safe(r) but the point of the game is there's a contest, and that's very tricky to manage at the top end of the game

I've been off work for a while with a few depression issues. Recently I found out that my nephew who's in the larger academy squad for a premiership team was being coached by someone I used to play with. I've spent the most uplifting few weeks of my life helping out in training sessions. My expertise is not tackling, but observing how they're training the kids at the top level so as they won't tackle high is quite affirming.

Basically, if you tackle with the shoulder that matches your front foot, you'll stay on the pitch. That and drills on timing tackles which are light years above what I was taught 30+ years ago.

Maybe there's some hope for the game

Upto and including u20s is sternum and below I believe. So those guys absolutely have to be sure of it. The pro game may survive by the simple process that the upcoming players have all been hitting at sternum and below in their formative years.

[Happyhooker]

Not easy to get at if a player is dipping into contact, perhaps leaning forwards and with a raised forearm. In many instances anyway. And we might end up encouraging tacklers to plant their faces into a hip which isn't in all ways an ideal outcome.

Anyway, for myself I hope they're thinking on this in the round. I want carriers to be safe(r) but the point of the game is there's a contest, and that's very tricky to manage at the top end of the game

I've been off work for a while with a few depression issues. Recently I found out that my nephew who's in the larger academy squad for a premiership team was being coached by someone I used to play with. I've spent the most uplifting few weeks of my life helping out in training sessions. My expertise is not tackling, but observing how they're training the kids at the top level so as they won't tackle high is quite affirming.

Basically, if you tackle with the shoulder that matches your front foot, you'll stay on the pitch. That and drills on timing tackles which are light years above what I was taught 30+ years ago.

Maybe there's some hope for the game

Upto and including u20s is sternum and below I believe. So those guys absolutely have to be sure of it. The pro game may survive by the simple process that the upcoming players have all been hitting at sternum and below in their formative years.

They get 'punished' for tackles anywhere above basically the belly button.

The thinking is that they can easily shift higher, much harder to reduce height

[geordie_6]

Torygraph has it that Earl is doing some drills at centre so they can potentially look at a 6/2 split...