2025 6N thread

[Paddington Bear]

It's Carley.

He's been so shit, for so long, and absolutely not up to international rugby in any way, that hanging out to dry is a very fair punishment.

People keep saying this but fact of the matter is that these are the best refs out there. It is a serious serious process to get to that level and any weaker refs are weeded out long beforehand.

I agree with this. I don’t think he is particularly bad at all, but this was a stinker.

They’ve put refs in a shit situation where they can duck big decisions but still get all the crap. There is a team of at least 5 who’s sole aim should be to help the ref make the right decision and be the sole arbiter and that doesn’t seem to be happening

Tend to agree with this. We shouldn’t conflate ref abuse, quibbling over technical decisions and asking for accountability from professionals. An equivalent mistake from a player would see them sent back to the club game for a bit

[Biffer]

Genuinely, if you don't think Carley is shit, you've not watched him much.

[Biffer]

Correct me. If I'm wrong. In 1990,punxhing someone was a red card. Is that right

Genuine question.

[topofthemoon]

3 match ban after admitting guilt. More than I expected, was waiting for WR to "circle the wagons".

What do they do with the ref and TMO here? I never want a ref hung out to dry but when it's such an outrageous error, using the same footage everyone else has seen, that had such a big impact on the game, you'd think something much happen

Nope. The most incriminating angle was only available after the game.

Not sure that's relevant. The information was all there to make the correct decision. After the whistle. Off the ball. Strike with the head. Contact with the head confirmed by the TMO. Straight red under Law 9.12.

Instead, Carley - with the rest of the 'Team of 4' complicit - wandered off down the Head Contact Process route. A process designed to assess in play actions under Laws 9.11 (ball carrier leading with forearm or elbow into head), 9.13 (dangerous tackle with head contact) and 9.20 (dangerous ruck entry with head contact).

It was a straightforward cock-up by all involved.

[Blackmac]

Correct me. If I'm wrong. In 1990,punxhing someone was a red card. Is that right

Genuine question.

Pretty much yes. Was it not Scott Murray who was sent off for swinging a boot at an opponents leg and barely made contact.

[Biffer]

Correct me. If I'm wrong. In 1990,punxhing someone was a red card. Is that right

Genuine question.

Pretty much yes. Was it not Scott Murray who was sent off for swinging a boot at an opponents leg and barely made contact.

just wondering, because in Carley's first ever game as a ref in 1990 he gave someone a yellow for punching another player. Start as you mean to continue, eh.

[Oxbow]

Correct me. If I'm wrong. In 1990,punxhing someone was a red card. Is that right

Genuine question.

Pretty much yes. Was it not Scott Murray who was sent off for swinging a boot at an opponents leg and barely made contact.

just wondering, because in Carley's first ever game as a ref in 1990 he gave someone a yellow for punching another player. Start as you mean to continue, eh.

Ah come on now, it must have been tough refereeing a game at just six years old.

[Torquemada 1420]

Genuinely, if you don't think Carley is shit, you've not watched him much.

He is certainly the worst competence wise in the NH. Brace is simply an outright cheat.

[Lobby]

Correct me. If I'm wrong. In 1990,punxhing someone was a red card. Is that right

Genuine question.

Pretty much yes. Was it not Scott Murray who was sent off for swinging a boot at an opponents leg and barely made contact.

Murray was sent off because he kicked Ian Gough's head. It was a glancing blow and almost certainly accidental, but in modern parlance, there was contact with the head. It was also in 2006, some 16 years after the time period queried by Biffer.

Back in the 90s a punch would generally result in a strict telling off by the referee but not much more. When Kobus Wiese knocked Derwyn Jones out cold with a blindside punch in 1995 he wasn't carded and played on for the rest of the match (although he did later receive a 30 day ban).

In the 80s it was even worse. Wade Dooley broke John Davies jaw with a punch in 1989. John Beattie took Dooley out with a punch in the opening seconds of a Calcutta Cup match in 1986 (and into the 2010s Beattie was still arguing that punching an opponent should only warrant a penalty and that sending players off for fighting was ridiculous).

Even into the 2000s a punch up would often only result in a yellow card. For example when Julian White punched Malcolm O'Kelly several times in a Leicester Leinster match in 2008 he was only shown a yellow card. This was despite him carrying on after the ref, Joel Jutge, telling him to stop.

[SaintK]

Pretty much yes. Was it not Scott Murray who was sent off for swinging a boot at an opponents leg and barely made contact.

just wondering, because in Carley's first ever game as a ref in 1990 he gave someone a yellow for punching another player. Start as you mean to continue, eh.

Ah come on now, it must have been tough refereeing a game at just six years old.

Quite!
Carley was given his first international match in 2016.

[dpedin]

I don't especially want to defend Mauvaka in this, if he gets an 8-16 week ban just for sheer stupidity so be it, but it does look more a head brush than but, granted more by luck than judgement. And then we get into what if you throw a punch that misses territory

I'm also not sure he launches himself at the head, me might be trying to collide the torso. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to tell the difference looking at the video. Mauvaka may know, but if he was being an utter git he's unlikely to come clean at this juncture

Again you cant judge his behavior on whether he injured White or if he hit his head or neck - he launched himself head first into another player's head area and made contact with his head or as damn as near it to make it difficult to tell. It is the act and the intention that is punishable here not whether he actually hit White's forehead, cheek or chin! It was not a tackle, it was a deliberate violent act after the whistle had gone and with White lying prone on the ground, you should not apply the dangerous tackle criteria to this act.

It is the similar debate about when Murray jumped into the tackle against Scotland and went on to score a 'try', he was punished for a dangerous jump into the tackle and not let off because he didn't make contact with anyone whilst making a dangerous and illegal act. The outcome is irrelevant if he has clearly jumped into the tackle, end of!

I wasn't applying a tackle situation, merely I was pondering to sanction a headbutt there being a butt wouldn't not be a thing.

If the standard is driving into dangerous space then fine, only it's not as we see with POM attempting to end the career of Dupont

Again you are confusing a dangerous tackle/clear out whilst the game was going on and ball was in the ruck being contested with a reckless and violent act after the whistle had been blown and the ball nowhere near either of them. See Topofthemoon post for detail on rules that apply.

[Yr Alban]

Irrespective of whether it should have been a straight red or not, I disagree with everyone who has said it wouldn’t have affected the outcome of the game. France v Scotland was very finely balanced at HT and the game only swung France’s way when they started flexing their bench. If they had been playing with 14 in the second half it could have made a huge difference.

[SaintK]

Genuinely, if you don't think Carley is shit, you've not watched him much.

He is certainly the worst competence wise in the NH. Brace is simply an outright cheat.

Brace doesn't deliberately cheat he is just hugely inconsistent as is Fank Murphy.
I don't think Carley is anywhere near the worst, Mike Adamson is the most incompetent referee I've noticed in the NH followed by several French refs including Brousset (sp)
T

[Tichtheid]

Irrespective of whether it should have been a straight red or not, I disagree with everyone who has said it wouldn’t have affected the outcome of the game. France v Scotland was very finely balanced at HT and the game only swung France’s way when they started flexing their bench. If they had been playing with 14 in the second half it could have made a huge difference.

I suppose it's the "sportsmanship" angle, but I agree, when Scotland's attack is based mainly around getting around the outside of a team rather than thumping it up through the middle, playing with 14 for an hour takes its toll on a defence.

[Lobby]

Genuinely, if you don't think Carley is shit, you've not watched him much.

He is certainly the worst competence wise in the NH. Brace is simply an outright cheat.

Brace doesn't deliberately cheat he is just hugely inconsistent as is Fank Murphy.
I don't think Carley is anywhere near the worst, Mike Adamson is the most incompetent referee I've noticed in the NH followed by several French refs including Brousset (sp)
T

Most incompetent refereeing performance I've ever seen was from Griffin Colby (SA) in the U20 match.

[Slick]

Genuinely, if you don't think Carley is shit, you've not watched him much.

He is certainly the worst competence wise in the NH. Brace is simply an outright cheat.

Brace doesn't deliberately cheat he is just hugely inconsistent as is Fank Murphy.
I don't think Carley is anywhere near the worst, Mike Adamson is the most incompetent referee I've noticed in the NH followed by several French refs including Brousset (sp)
T

No referee cheats, it's primary school level discussion.

[Tichtheid]

It's Carley.

He's been so shit, for so long, and absolutely not up to international rugby in any way, that hanging out to dry is a very fair punishment.

I’m less critical of Carley here than I am of Tempest.
Tempest doesn’t have the white heat of a test match to deal with, he should have said it wasn’t a tackle situation.
Then after failing that he should have upgraded yellow to red
He can call for all angles to be shown in the 8 minutes he has to deal with it

Yeah, I understand that, but Carlet has been below international standard for all his time as an international ref. Somehow went from just learning to too experienced to be called shit without anyone picking up the fact he wasn't up to it.

please tell me the French ending was deliberate rather than a fat finger typo

[SaintK]

He is certainly the worst competence wise in the NH. Brace is simply an outright cheat.

Brace doesn't deliberately cheat he is just hugely inconsistent as is Fank Murphy.
I don't think Carley is anywhere near the worst, Mike Adamson is the most incompetent referee I've noticed in the NH followed by several French refs including Brousset (sp)
T

Most incompetent refereeing performance I've ever seen was from Griffin Colby (SA) in the U20 match.

That was a truly astonishingly incompetent performance. You'd hope he has been stood down for that.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Again you cant judge his behavior on whether he injured White or if he hit his head or neck - he launched himself head first into another player's head area and made contact with his head or as damn as near it to make it difficult to tell. It is the act and the intention that is punishable here not whether he actually hit White's forehead, cheek or chin! It was not a tackle, it was a deliberate violent act after the whistle had gone and with White lying prone on the ground, you should not apply the dangerous tackle criteria to this act.

It is the similar debate about when Murray jumped into the tackle against Scotland and went on to score a 'try', he was punished for a dangerous jump into the tackle and not let off because he didn't make contact with anyone whilst making a dangerous and illegal act. The outcome is irrelevant if he has clearly jumped into the tackle, end of!

I wasn't applying a tackle situation, merely I was pondering to sanction a headbutt there being a butt wouldn't not be a thing.

If the standard is driving into dangerous space then fine, only it's not as we see with POM attempting to end the career of Dupont

Again you are confusing a dangerous tackle/clear out whilst the game was going on and ball was in the ruck being contested with a reckless and violent act after the whistle had been blown and the ball nowhere near either of them. See Topofthemoon post for detail on rules that apply.

I can reiterate no I'm not. I don't mind the view it's a headbutt worthy of a red card, I merely don't also mind the view it's minimal contact and a yellow card is sufficient and he was a lucky boy during the game because he could easily have planted one full on thespian at 9. In essence more than one thing can be true

I don't support it's the reason Scotland lost, that was being unable to deal with the physicality of France and Russell providing scoring opportunities the wrong way. Whether I'd have liked Scotland to have won and thus England to have won the championship I'm not sure about, it'd have been a bit of an embarrassing title to win after we got done over by Ireland, France and Scotland

[Tichtheid]

I wasn't applying a tackle situation, merely I was pondering to sanction a headbutt there being a butt wouldn't not be a thing.

If the standard is driving into dangerous space then fine, only it's not as we see with POM attempting to end the career of Dupont

Again you are confusing a dangerous tackle/clear out whilst the game was going on and ball was in the ruck being contested with a reckless and violent act after the whistle had been blown and the ball nowhere near either of them. See Topofthemoon post for detail on rules that apply.

I can reiterate no I'm not. I don't mind the view it's a headbutt worthy of a red card, I merely don't also mind the view it's minimal contact and a yellow card is sufficient and he was a lucky boy during the game because he could easily have planted one full on thespian at 9. In essence more than one thing can be true

I don't support it's the reason Scotland lost, that was being unable to deal with the physicality of France and Russell providing scoring opportunities the wrong way. Whether I'd have liked Scotland to have won and thus England to have won the championship I'm not sure about, it'd have been a bit of an embarrassing title to win after we got done over by Ireland, France and Scotland

I think you are wrong twice there. There is nothing in the law 9.12 or directives I have seen that talks about mitigation, that only applies to tackles. This is not a "view" it's a fact.

Saying the game would be very different with fourteen playing for an hour isn't too controversial - when Haouas got sent off against Scotland near HT France were leading, they went on to lose 28-17.
The fact that Scotland couldn't deal with the French power is true, but again it could well have been different story with seven forwards on the park instead of eight, that is a nuanced difference from saying outright that this was the sole reason Scotland lost.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Again you are confusing a dangerous tackle/clear out whilst the game was going on and ball was in the ruck being contested with a reckless and violent act after the whistle had been blown and the ball nowhere near either of them. See Topofthemoon post for detail on rules that apply.

I can reiterate no I'm not. I don't mind the view it's a headbutt worthy of a red card, I merely don't also mind the view it's minimal contact and a yellow card is sufficient and he was a lucky boy during the game because he could easily have planted one full on thespian at 9. In essence more than one thing can be true

I don't support it's the reason Scotland lost, that was being unable to deal with the physicality of France and Russell providing scoring opportunities the wrong way. Whether I'd have liked Scotland to have won and thus England to have won the championship I'm not sure about, it'd have been a bit of an embarrassing title to win after we got done over by Ireland, France and Scotland

I think you are wrong twice there. There is nothing in the law 9.12 or directives I have seen that talks about mitigation, that only applies to tackles. This is not a "view" it's a fact.

Saying the game would be very different with fourteen playing for an hour isn't too controversial - when Haouas got sent off against Scotland near HT France were leading, they went on to lose 28-17.
The fact that Scotland couldn't deal with the French power is true, but again it could well have been different story with seven forwards on the park instead of eight, that is a nuanced difference from saying outright that this was the sole reason Scotland lost.

Meh, determining severity of outcome happens all the time. Applying a mandatory minimum in all instances would be nuts.

And I'm not saying the game wouldn't have been different, only it might have been, I don't take the view it absolutely would have been. And I'm trying not to allow to allow it might have meant an English championship for the first time in a while colour that thinking too much.

[Tichtheid]

I can reiterate no I'm not. I don't mind the view it's a headbutt worthy of a red card, I merely don't also mind the view it's minimal contact and a yellow card is sufficient and he was a lucky boy during the game because he could easily have planted one full on thespian at 9. In essence more than one thing can be true

I don't support it's the reason Scotland lost, that was being unable to deal with the physicality of France and Russell providing scoring opportunities the wrong way. Whether I'd have liked Scotland to have won and thus England to have won the championship I'm not sure about, it'd have been a bit of an embarrassing title to win after we got done over by Ireland, France and Scotland

I think you are wrong twice there. There is nothing in the law 9.12 or directives I have seen that talks about mitigation, that only applies to tackles. This is not a "view" it's a fact.

Saying the game would be very different with fourteen playing for an hour isn't too controversial - when Haouas got sent off against Scotland near HT France were leading, they went on to lose 28-17.
The fact that Scotland couldn't deal with the French power is true, but again it could well have been different story with seven forwards on the park instead of eight, that is a nuanced difference from saying outright that this was the sole reason Scotland lost.

Meh, determining severity of outcome happens all the time. Applying a mandatory minimum in all instances would be nuts.

There are three different "entry levels" when sanctions are applied, in this case the player got the low entry point of six weeks for striking with the head, halved to three. This is an assumption as I haven't seen the ruling yet, but low end is as I say six weeks, mid range 10 weeks and high end entry point is 16 weeks rising to a maximum of 104 weeks.

And I'm not saying the game wouldn't have been different, only it might have been, I don't take the view it absolutely would have been.

I don't think anyone can categorically say the game would have ended the same, but overall a sending off does have a big effect, especially when it means one team is playing a man short for an hour - this was the whole reason for the fudge around 20 minute cards, so as to "not ruin" the game, and fuck player safety

[Slick]

Again you are confusing a dangerous tackle/clear out whilst the game was going on and ball was in the ruck being contested with a reckless and violent act after the whistle had been blown and the ball nowhere near either of them. See Topofthemoon post for detail on rules that apply.

I can reiterate no I'm not. I don't mind the view it's a headbutt worthy of a red card, I merely don't also mind the view it's minimal contact and a yellow card is sufficient and he was a lucky boy during the game because he could easily have planted one full on thespian at 9. In essence more than one thing can be true

I don't support it's the reason Scotland lost, that was being unable to deal with the physicality of France and Russell providing scoring opportunities the wrong way. Whether I'd have liked Scotland to have won and thus England to have won the championship I'm not sure about, it'd have been a bit of an embarrassing title to win after we got done over by Ireland, France and Scotland

I think you are wrong twice there. There is nothing in the law 9.12 or directives I have seen that talks about mitigation, that only applies to tackles. This is not a "view" it's a fact.

Saying the game would be very different with fourteen playing for an hour isn't too controversial - when Haouas got sent off against Scotland near HT France were leading, they went on to lose 28-17.
The fact that Scotland couldn't deal with the French power is true, but again it could well have been different story with seven forwards on the park instead of eight, that is a nuanced difference from saying outright that this was the sole reason Scotland lost.

Wrong 3 times I think.

Anyone who looks at Russell's performances during the 6N and thinks he hasn't performed or lost Scotland games needs to take a Dummies Guide To Rugby course.

[dpedin]

I can reiterate no I'm not. I don't mind the view it's a headbutt worthy of a red card, I merely don't also mind the view it's minimal contact and a yellow card is sufficient and he was a lucky boy during the game because he could easily have planted one full on thespian at 9. In essence more than one thing can be true

I don't support it's the reason Scotland lost, that was being unable to deal with the physicality of France and Russell providing scoring opportunities the wrong way. Whether I'd have liked Scotland to have won and thus England to have won the championship I'm not sure about, it'd have been a bit of an embarrassing title to win after we got done over by Ireland, France and Scotland

I think you are wrong twice there. There is nothing in the law 9.12 or directives I have seen that talks about mitigation, that only applies to tackles. This is not a "view" it's a fact.

Saying the game would be very different with fourteen playing for an hour isn't too controversial - when Haouas got sent off against Scotland near HT France were leading, they went on to lose 28-17.
The fact that Scotland couldn't deal with the French power is true, but again it could well have been different story with seven forwards on the park instead of eight, that is a nuanced difference from saying outright that this was the sole reason Scotland lost.

Wrong 3 times I think.

Anyone who looks at Russell's performances during the 6N and thinks he hasn't performed or lost Scotland games needs to take a Dummies Guide To Rugby course.

I think we are wasting our time here? Playing chess with pigeon time?

[SaintK]

I can reiterate no I'm not. I don't mind the view it's a headbutt worthy of a red card, I merely don't also mind the view it's minimal contact and a yellow card is sufficient and he was a lucky boy during the game because he could easily have planted one full on thespian at 9. In essence more than one thing can be true

I don't support it's the reason Scotland lost, that was being unable to deal with the physicality of France and Russell providing scoring opportunities the wrong way. Whether I'd have liked Scotland to have won and thus England to have won the championship I'm not sure about, it'd have been a bit of an embarrassing title to win after we got done over by Ireland, France and Scotland

I think you are wrong twice there. There is nothing in the law 9.12 or directives I have seen that talks about mitigation, that only applies to tackles. This is not a "view" it's a fact.

Saying the game would be very different with fourteen playing for an hour isn't too controversial - when Haouas got sent off against Scotland near HT France were leading, they went on to lose 28-17.
The fact that Scotland couldn't deal with the French power is true, but again it could well have been different story with seven forwards on the park instead of eight, that is a nuanced difference from saying outright that this was the sole reason Scotland lost.

Wrong 3 times I think.

Anyone who looks at Russell's performances during the 6N and thinks he hasn't performed or lost Scotland games needs to take a Dummies Guide To Rugby course.

Don't think he was at his all round best against France TBH

[Lobby]

I think you are wrong twice there. There is nothing in the law 9.12 or directives I have seen that talks about mitigation, that only applies to tackles. This is not a "view" it's a fact.

Saying the game would be very different with fourteen playing for an hour isn't too controversial - when Haouas got sent off against Scotland near HT France were leading, they went on to lose 28-17.
The fact that Scotland couldn't deal with the French power is true, but again it could well have been different story with seven forwards on the park instead of eight, that is a nuanced difference from saying outright that this was the sole reason Scotland lost.

Wrong 3 times I think.

Anyone who looks at Russell's performances during the 6N and thinks he hasn't performed or lost Scotland games needs to take a Dummies Guide To Rugby course.

Don't think he was at his all round best against France TBH

I saw a typically ludicrous Daily Express headline after the match fuming that an error by Russell had cost England the championship.

[Torquemada 1420]

Genuinely, if you don't think Carley is shit, you've not watched him much.

He is certainly the worst competence wise in the NH. Brace is simply an outright cheat.

Brace doesn't deliberately cheat he is just hugely inconsistent as is Fank Murphy.
I don't think Carley is anywhere near the worst, Mike Adamson is the most incompetent referee I've noticed in the NH followed by several French refs including Brousset (sp)
T

Free reffing has been uniformly dire for, well, forever.

[Torquemada 1420]

I saw a typically ludicrous Daily Express headline after the match fuming that an error by Russell had cost England the championship.

Completely ignoring that his poor performance against Eng (nowhere near as flake as against Fra) got Eng a shot at the title in the first place.

[Slick]

I saw a typically ludicrous Daily Express headline after the match fuming that an error by Russell had cost England the championship.

Completely ignoring that his poor performance against Eng (nowhere near as flake as against Fra) got Eng a shot at the title in the first place.

He was brilliant against England apart from the kicks

[Tichtheid]

I saw a typically ludicrous Daily Express headline after the match fuming that an error by Russell had cost England the championship.

Completely ignoring that his poor performance against Eng (nowhere near as flake as against Fra) got Eng a shot at the title in the first place.

He was brilliant against England apart from the kicks

You're pretty much pissing directly into a gale there, Slick.

edit, and I've just seen TOTM state that Finn has been 15/15 for kicks at goal since that Calcutta Cup game, including for Bath today

[Torquemada 1420]

I saw a typically ludicrous Daily Express headline after the match fuming that an error by Russell had cost England the championship.

Completely ignoring that his poor performance against Eng (nowhere near as flake as against Fra) got Eng a shot at the title in the first place.

He was brilliant against England apart from the kicks

So basically cost his side the game?

[Slick]

Completely ignoring that his poor performance against Eng (nowhere near as flake as against Fra) got Eng a shot at the title in the first place.

He was brilliant against England apart from the kicks

So basically cost his side the game?

Is a child’s way of looking at it

[Torquemada 1420]

edit, and I've just seen TOTM state that Finn has been 15/15 for kicks at goal since that Calcutta Cup game, including for Bath today

Ramos syndrome. Okay looking great with those sorts of stats when it doesn't really matter but when it come to it really counting...
- Ramos v SA RWC
- Russell v Eng 6N

Hey, he's yours and so knock yourselves out and he's out of France but I really hope he's nowhere near a Lions jersey.

[Tichtheid]

edit, and I've just seen TOTM state that Finn has been 15/15 for kicks at goal since that Calcutta Cup game, including for Bath today

Ramos syndrome. Okay looking great with those sorts of stats when it doesn't really matter but when it come to it really counting...
- Ramos v SA RWC
- Russell v Eng 6N

Hey, he's yours and so knock yourselves out and he's out of France but I really hope he's nowhere near a Lions jersey.

It’s quite funny, when I was pointing to the stats that showed Finn was the top goal kicker in France you did cartwheels trying to dismiss the importance of it.

Russell played two internationals and a league game since the Calcutta Cup, saying those don’t really matter is one of two things, either someone is desperately floundering around trying to justify their dislike of a player, or it’s someone who isn’t actually interested in rugby and doesn’t watch the game, only referees and incidents that can justify their own prejudices.

Either way, I know you’re going to continue to knock yourself out on the Finn and others hate, as well as the referees.

[Sandstorm]

edit, and I've just seen TOTM state that Finn has been 15/15 for kicks at goal since that Calcutta Cup game, including for Bath today

Ramos syndrome. Okay looking great with those sorts of stats when it doesn't really matter but when it come to it really counting...
- Ramos v SA RWC
- Russell v Eng 6N

Hey, he's yours and so knock yourselves out and he's out of France but I really hope he's nowhere near a Lions jersey.

It’s quite funny, when I was pointing to the stats that showed Finn was the top goal kicker in France you did cartwheels trying to dismiss the importance of it.

Russell played two internationals and a league game since the Calcutta Cup, saying those don’t really matter is one of two things, either someone is desperately floundering around trying to justify their dislike of a player, or it’s someone who isn’t actually interested in rugby and doesn’t watch the game, only referees and incidents that can justify their own prejudices.

Either way, I know you’re going to continue to knock yourself out on the Finn and others hate, as well as the referees.

I don't think there's a single country in the World who wouldn't bite your hand off to poach Russel as their staring 10. He's that good.

Odd also that Torq shits his pants every week about how crap the French Test 10s are....but Russell !!!

[Yr Alban]

Completely ignoring that his poor performance against Eng (nowhere near as flake as against Fra) got Eng a shot at the title in the first place.

He was brilliant against England apart from the kicks

So basically cost his side the game?

You seriously have a problem, Torq. You should seek professional help.

[Slick]

edit, and I've just seen TOTM state that Finn has been 15/15 for kicks at goal since that Calcutta Cup game, including for Bath today

Ramos syndrome. Okay looking great with those sorts of stats when it doesn't really matter but when it come to it really counting...
- Ramos v SA RWC
- Russell v Eng 6N

Hey, he's yours and so knock yourselves out and he's out of France but I really hope he's nowhere near a Lions jersey.

It’s quite funny, when I was pointing to the stats that showed Finn was the top goal kicker in France you did cartwheels trying to dismiss the importance of it.

Russell played two internationals and a league game since the Calcutta Cup, saying those don’t really matter is one of two things, either someone is desperately floundering around trying to justify their dislike of a player, or it’s someone who isn’t actually interested in rugby and doesn’t watch the game, only referees and incidents that can justify their own prejudices.

Either way, I know you’re going to continue to knock yourself out on the Finn and others hate, as well as the referees.

Zing.

[Yeeb]

He is certainly the worst competence wise in the NH. Brace is simply an outright cheat.

Brace doesn't deliberately cheat he is just hugely inconsistent as is Fank Murphy.
I don't think Carley is anywhere near the worst, Mike Adamson is the most incompetent referee I've noticed in the NH followed by several French refs including Brousset (sp)
T

Most incompetent refereeing performance I've ever seen was from Griffin Colby (SA) in the U20 match.

The worst one was I think Bryce Lawrence or the bald okeefe one, in a super rugby game sharks v I think crusaders - was around 2010 iirc, and in Nz. Was the most hilariously one sided reffed game ever, with the beast getting penalised for dangerous play at the scrum, even though he was not moving or touching opposition (was just as they were setting up for a scrum). Half time whistle went and as the teams trudged off, John smidt was laughing at the ref and just said this was a silly game. The pundits were just shaking their heads in disbelief , and in second half there were a couple of dodgy decisions made up that went the other way, seemingly to balance the game up (sharks were already a man down and 30 points by then)

[Torquemada 1420]

edit, and I've just seen TOTM state that Finn has been 15/15 for kicks at goal since that Calcutta Cup game, including for Bath today

Ramos syndrome. Okay looking great with those sorts of stats when it doesn't really matter but when it come to it really counting...
- Ramos v SA RWC
- Russell v Eng 6N

Hey, he's yours and so knock yourselves out and he's out of France but I really hope he's nowhere near a Lions jersey.

It’s quite funny, when I was pointing to the stats that showed Finn was the top goal kicker in France you did cartwheels trying to dismiss the importance of it.

Russell played two internationals and a league game since the Calcutta Cup, saying those don’t really matter is one of two things, either someone is desperately floundering around trying to justify their dislike of a player, or it’s someone who isn’t actually interested in rugby and doesn’t watch the game, only referees and incidents that can justify their own prejudices.

Either way, I know you’re going to continue to knock yourself out on the Finn and others hate, as well as the referees.

I seriously don't remember any such stats and equally, think them unlikely: unless you were talking % of conversions. And I say that because the combo of
- Russell being an intl. and so would have less club playing game time (although I acknowledge that I can't recall where his fall out with Townsend occurred)
- and the amount of points scored by Racing and hence the opportunities for a kicker to rack up points
means I cannot believe he would have been at the top of points total. Regardless, I find it hard to believe % wise either given how accurate the likes of Ramos are but then, % rates are often skewed by factors like difficulty/range.

Fact remains that throughout his entire career, Russell has gone from one extreme to another. Brilliant when trying some flash stuff to clusterf**k when doing the same. Often in the same game. I can't get stats for this but I'd bet my house no other FH threw more intercept passes in T14 during his tenure there (no-one else would have even been close). Much as I hate to quote PR (but they are no way alone: if I could be arsed, I'd dig up the Midol article on "same old Russell"), this sums him up

Finn Russell: Yet again this Six Nations, he blew incredibly hot and cold. Came up with some truly spectacular flashes, but compounded that with some rookie errors at pivotal times in the match. Frustrating is probably the best way to describe it, and it’s left the head coach wondering what might have been. 4

He really is closer to "just a naughty boy" than he ever has been to "the messiah".

[Torquemada 1420]

I don't think there's a single country in the World who wouldn't bite your hand off to poach Russel as their staring 10. He's that good.

But his Fre club was quite happy to off him and given the amount of money sloshing around in T14, no other Fre club picked up his contract?

Hey, as a safa, I can see why you'd lean that way because the one glaring positional weakness for you for a very long time has been FH. You'd take Farrell if he was on offer.
But maybe not all safas............

Former South Africa and Italy head coach Nick Mallett would not pick Scotland co-captain Finn Russell for the British and Irish Lions later this year, insisting the fly-half “makes too many mistakes”.