The Official English Rugby Thread

[Paddington Bear]

* and terrible tackling technique
** and giving away loads of penalties

Happy to be corrected, but penalty count strikes me as less than previous seasons?

Correct, discipline is better this year.

Last year England gave away 67 penalties across the 6 nations, and led the penalty count in every game they played, with an average of 13.4 penalties a game. In the four games so far this year, England have been penalised 43 times, and have not led the penalty count in any game. Indeed, Ireland's penalty count was almost double England's last week (15 against 8). England's average this year is 10.75 penalties per game

Good stats, thanks

[sockwithaticket]

Three weeks is the norm. Assuming 6 week sanction with 50% off for a guilty plea and a record that's not terrible. Rona and Hendrickson got the same today.

The argument would better be framed in VDM's ban being harsh. Which I'd probably agree with agree with based on level of danger, but 'fucking up a hand off' is still a forearm to the face. Just as fucking up a tackle is a high shot.

The extent of the reduction for admitting to something there's usually pretty definitive video of is a whole different discussion I suppose.

Level of danger should've been used to reduce VDM to a yellow on field or rescind the red card, bu that ship has obviously long since sailed.

Letter of the law you are, of course, absolutely correct. It just doesn't feel right for the two incidents to produce the same outcome. Ewels' just seems much worse(and not only because I'm among those who don't particularly want him involved with England).

Bit surprised at this take. VDM's forearm smash looked a stone cold red to me.

That looks like the tackler making contact before he's able to fully extend the arm for a fend to me. Definitely not the same as other leading with the forearm incidents.

Fwiw I don't think you should be allowed to fend players in the face even with a straight arm, but that is currently permissable and this seems to be a case of failing to stiffen the arm in time rather than a deliberate forearm.

[Ovals]

Going back to the on-field sanction for a red card offence - how about reducing it to a 20 minute sin bin (with the guilty player unable to return) - and doubling the length of bans handed down. Are players also fined for red card offences ? If so make them much higher.

[Tichtheid]

The extent of the reduction for admitting to something there's usually pretty definitive video of is a whole different discussion I suppose.

Level of danger should've been used to reduce VDM to a yellow on field or rescind the red card, bu that ship has obviously long since sailed.

Letter of the law you are, of course, absolutely correct. It just doesn't feel right for the two incidents to produce the same outcome. Ewels' just seems much worse(and not only because I'm among those who don't particularly want him involved with England).

Bit surprised at this take. VDM's forearm smash looked a stone cold red to me.

That looks like the tackler making contact before he's able to fully extend the arm for a fend to me. Definitely not the same as other leading with the forearm incidents.

Fwiw I don't think you should be allowed to fend players in the face even with a straight arm, but that is currently permissable and this seems to be a case of failing to stiffen the arm in time rather than a deliberate forearm.

As I said elsewhere, if vdM had smacked Rowe square in the face on the end of a straight arm and broken his nose, sending him head first to the ground it would have been legal.

What happened there wasn't dangerous to the tackler, in fact it could be argued that Rowe is going too high.

Rowe was in line to replace vdM in the Scotland team after that, Ryan is under return to play protocols, having been literally knocked out of the game on Saturday.

[Hal Jordan]

Going back to the on-field sanction for a red card offence - how about reducing it to a 20 minute sin bin (with the guilty player unable to return) - and doubling the length of bans handed down. Are players also fined for red card offences ? If so make them much higher.

Nah, you fuck up badly enough to get a red card, your team should suffer permanently. Introducing an entirely new level of subjective assessment would be a nightmare.

[Ovals]

Going back to the on-field sanction for a red card offence - how about reducing it to a 20 minute sin bin (with the guilty player unable to return) - and doubling the length of bans handed down. Are players also fined for red card offences ? If so make them much higher.

Nah, you fuck up badly enough to get a red card, your team should suffer permanently. Introducing an entirely new level of subjective assessment would be a nightmare.

Trouble is that the red card sanction is a fairly arbitrary punishment of the team - depends entirly when the offence takes place - it can mean playing the enitire game with 14, or just a few minutes. And there wouldn't be another level of subjective assessment - it would be exactly as it is now - just the sanctions would be altered.

[JM2K6]

Bit surprised at this take. VDM's forearm smash looked a stone cold red to me.

That looks like the tackler making contact before he's able to fully extend the arm for a fend to me. Definitely not the same as other leading with the forearm incidents.

Fwiw I don't think you should be allowed to fend players in the face even with a straight arm, but that is currently permissable and this seems to be a case of failing to stiffen the arm in time rather than a deliberate forearm.

As I said elsewhere, if vdM had smacked Rowe square in the face on the end of a straight arm and broken his nose, sending him head first to the ground it would have been legal.

What happened there wasn't dangerous to the tackler, in fact it could be argued that Rowe is going too high.

Rowe was in line to replace vdM in the Scotland team after that, Ryan is under return to play protocols, having been literally knocked out of the game on Saturday.

Wasn't dangerous to the tackler???

Esterhuizen deservedly copped a red and a ban for less contact than that against London Irish

[Tichtheid]

Wasn't dangerous to the tackler???

Esterhuizen deservedly copped a red and a ban for less contact than that against London Irish

I didn’t see the other incident so I can’t compare, but the tackle there was certainly no more dangerous than a perfectly legal straight arm hand off, possibly less so.

[Paddington Bear]

Going back to the on-field sanction for a red card offence - how about reducing it to a 20 minute sin bin (with the guilty player unable to return) - and doubling the length of bans handed down. Are players also fined for red card offences ? If so make them much higher.

This is all still trying to excuse players for avoidable fuck ups IMO. The most simple solution is not to do it. Ewels had no reason to be going in at that height.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Wasn't dangerous to the tackler???

Esterhuizen deservedly copped a red and a ban for less contact than that against London Irish

I didn’t see the other incident so I can’t compare, but the tackle there was certainly no more dangerous than a perfectly legal straight arm hand off, possibly less so.

If you want to raise a forearm towards another's face there's an onus on you to get it right. So, either get it right, don't do it, or at the very least accept the ban without complaint!

If you want to make a different argument that handoffs should be precluded from the game in the name of safety so be it. In other news I look at the tackle that ended LCD's season and yet again wonder why on earth players are legally allowed to dive into each other's knees when the knee is only meant to bend in specific fashion and bad things happen when it bends in other ways

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Going back to the on-field sanction for a red card offence - how about reducing it to a 20 minute sin bin (with the guilty player unable to return) - and doubling the length of bans handed down. Are players also fined for red card offences ? If so make them much higher.

This is all still trying to excuse players for avoidable fuck ups IMO. The most simple solution is not to do it. Ewels had no reason to be going in at that height.

I don't think it's all just trying to find an excuse. I'd support the idea of an orange card for something like the Ewels tackle, he's off for 20 minutes and can then be replaced by someone from the bench. I'd probably want to keep red cards for things like eye gouging, but if it's a failure to execute rather than just an out and out assault it helps to present a better product imo if we can retain the 15 Vs 15

[Paddington Bear]

Going back to the on-field sanction for a red card offence - how about reducing it to a 20 minute sin bin (with the guilty player unable to return) - and doubling the length of bans handed down. Are players also fined for red card offences ? If so make them much higher.

This is all still trying to excuse players for avoidable fuck ups IMO. The most simple solution is not to do it. Ewels had no reason to be going in at that height.

I don't think it's all just trying to find an excuse. I'd support the idea of an orange card for something like the Ewels tackle, he's off for 20 minutes and can then be replaced by someone from the bench. I'd probably want to keep red cards for things like eye gouging, but if it's a failure to execute rather than just an out and out assault it helps to present a better product imo if we can retain the 15 Vs 15

The key question is - which of the two options makes it more likely Ewels won't do it again?

[ASMO]

This is all still trying to excuse players for avoidable fuck ups IMO. The most simple solution is not to do it. Ewels had no reason to be going in at that height.

I don't think it's all just trying to find an excuse. I'd support the idea of an orange card for something like the Ewels tackle, he's off for 20 minutes and can then be replaced by someone from the bench. I'd probably want to keep red cards for things like eye gouging, but if it's a failure to execute rather than just an out and out assault it helps to present a better product imo if we can retain the 15 Vs 15

The key question is - which of the two options makes it more likely Ewels won't do it again?

Option 3, don't select the useless donkey again?

[Kawazaki]

Going back to the on-field sanction for a red card offence - how about reducing it to a 20 minute sin bin (with the guilty player unable to return) - and doubling the length of bans handed down. Are players also fined for red card offences ? If so make them much higher.

This is all still trying to excuse players for avoidable fuck ups IMO. The most simple solution is not to do it. Ewels had no reason to be going in at that height.

I don't think it's all just trying to find an excuse. I'd support the idea of an orange card for something like the Ewels tackle, he's off for 20 minutes and can then be replaced by someone from the bench. I'd probably want to keep red cards for things like eye gouging, but if it's a failure to execute rather than just an out and out assault it helps to present a better product imo if we can retain the 15 Vs 15

The thing is, even punching is rarely seen nowadays, red cards work. Eventually.

Ewels was an idiot. The most disappointing thing for me was all his teammates patting him on the back as he went off and on the bench. They should have shunned him.

[inactionman]

This is all still trying to excuse players for avoidable fuck ups IMO. The most simple solution is not to do it. Ewels had no reason to be going in at that height.

I don't think it's all just trying to find an excuse. I'd support the idea of an orange card for something like the Ewels tackle, he's off for 20 minutes and can then be replaced by someone from the bench. I'd probably want to keep red cards for things like eye gouging, but if it's a failure to execute rather than just an out and out assault it helps to present a better product imo if we can retain the 15 Vs 15

The key question is - which of the two options makes it more likely Ewels won't do it again?

I'd say they're both as likely to.

I agree more with the idea that red should be reserved for offences with higher levels of culpability than a failure to execute.

It's a game of collisions and - like it or not - big hits are effective so they will remain part of the game. Getting it wrong needs to carry a sanction, but that sanction shouldn't really be 'that's the end of the game as a contest'.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

This is all still trying to excuse players for avoidable fuck ups IMO. The most simple solution is not to do it. Ewels had no reason to be going in at that height.

I don't think it's all just trying to find an excuse. I'd support the idea of an orange card for something like the Ewels tackle, he's off for 20 minutes and can then be replaced by someone from the bench. I'd probably want to keep red cards for things like eye gouging, but if it's a failure to execute rather than just an out and out assault it helps to present a better product imo if we can retain the 15 Vs 15

The key question is - which of the two options makes it more likely Ewels won't do it again?

The players have improved in this area, we're seeing far fewer high tackles than just a few seasons back.

How much more improvement is there to be found with the current regs? That I don't know. How much improvement with better tackle techniques? That too I don't know, but certainly Ewels just gets his feet in the wrong position and it goes badly from there. We could lower the heights again on what's permitted, but that might just shift a concussion problem from the tackle target to the tackler

But I don't think given any of that a player is going to act/not act because they discern some value in 'only' incurring an orange card rather than a red

[Kawazaki]

I don't think it's all just trying to find an excuse. I'd support the idea of an orange card for something like the Ewels tackle, he's off for 20 minutes and can then be replaced by someone from the bench. I'd probably want to keep red cards for things like eye gouging, but if it's a failure to execute rather than just an out and out assault it helps to present a better product imo if we can retain the 15 Vs 15

The key question is - which of the two options makes it more likely Ewels won't do it again?

I'd say they're both as likely to.

I agree more with the idea that red should be reserved for offences with higher levels of culpability than a failure to execute.

It's a game of collisions and - like it or not - big hits are effective so they will remain part of the game. Getting it wrong needs to carry a sanction, but that sanction shouldn't really be 'that's the end of the game as a contest'.

Big hits are perfectly legal.

[Kawazaki]

I don't think it's all just trying to find an excuse. I'd support the idea of an orange card for something like the Ewels tackle, he's off for 20 minutes and can then be replaced by someone from the bench. I'd probably want to keep red cards for things like eye gouging, but if it's a failure to execute rather than just an out and out assault it helps to present a better product imo if we can retain the 15 Vs 15

The key question is - which of the two options makes it more likely Ewels won't do it again?

The players have improved in this area, we're seeing far fewer high tackles than just a few seasons back.

How much more improvement is there to be found with the current regs? That I don't know. How much improvement with better tackle techniques? That too I don't know, but certainly Ewels just gets his feet in the wrong position and it goes badly from there. We could lower the heights again on what's permitted, but that might just shift a concussion problem from the tackle target to the tackler

But I don't think given any of that a player is going to act/not act because they discern some value in 'only' incurring an orange card rather than a red

It had far more to do with the bend of Ewels's hips than the position of his feet. Just get lower, it's really not that technical.

[Paddington Bear]

Option 3, don't select the useless donkey again?

Sadly not in the remit of the referee

The thing is, even punching is rarely seen nowadays, red cards work. Eventually.

Ewels was an idiot. The most disappointing thing for me was all his teammates patting him on the back as he went off and on the bench. They should have shunned him.

Yes if you look at a game from 15 years ago or so it's pretty staggering how much it has moved on, and how many tip tackles, high shots and scuffles you see. Remember the outcry for a bit on taking men out in the air, how it ruined the game etc? Now it's pretty rare because teams have it coached out of them.

Disagree on shunning him, I thought they did the right thing at the time. Shoving a rocket up his arse at training is a different matter as he cost us the game, but at the time you have to support your man.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The key question is - which of the two options makes it more likely Ewels won't do it again?

The players have improved in this area, we're seeing far fewer high tackles than just a few seasons back.

How much more improvement is there to be found with the current regs? That I don't know. How much improvement with better tackle techniques? That too I don't know, but certainly Ewels just gets his feet in the wrong position and it goes badly from there. We could lower the heights again on what's permitted, but that might just shift a concussion problem from the tackle target to the tackler

But I don't think given any of that a player is going to act/not act because they discern some value in 'only' incurring an orange card rather than a red

It had far more to do with the bend of Ewels's hips than the position of his feet. Just get lower, it's really not that technical.

It is easier to get lower if you're not putting a different shoulder and foot forwards. Footwork is huge thing whether looking at height in the tackle, control in the tackle, head on the correct side...

[JM2K6]

I don't think it's all just trying to find an excuse. I'd support the idea of an orange card for something like the Ewels tackle, he's off for 20 minutes and can then be replaced by someone from the bench. I'd probably want to keep red cards for things like eye gouging, but if it's a failure to execute rather than just an out and out assault it helps to present a better product imo if we can retain the 15 Vs 15

The key question is - which of the two options makes it more likely Ewels won't do it again?

I'd say they're both as likely to.

I agree more with the idea that red should be reserved for offences with higher levels of culpability than a failure to execute.

It's a game of collisions and - like it or not - big hits are effective so they will remain part of the game. Getting it wrong needs to carry a sanction, but that sanction shouldn't really be 'that's the end of the game as a contest'.

Weird thing to be saying after a huge contest, tbh. And there's countless examples of early reds not resulting in a win for the team with the advantage.

I don't think it's outrageous to say that not giving people brain damage is more important than a 7% reduction in the players on the field for one team. Or even in a single result being affected, to be blunt. Ryan copped a serious injury from Ewels as a result of his illegal tackle and people are questioning whether he should start to consider retirement. Some things are bigger than an on-field sanction altering the balance of power slightly.

It's not like Ewels went in to make a legal tackle and was wrongfooted at the last second or didn't react to circumstances. He revved up for a huge hit on someone without bothering to even try to make it legal under the current laws, and it was pretty late as well. Fuck him.

[Kawazaki]

Being reported in The Times that Eddie Jones is going to pick Furbank at fullback.


And start Steward on the wing.

England have been experimenting with a new back line as Eddie Jones plans to expose France’s weakness under the high ball.
The Guinness Six Nations reaches its finale on Saturday night when England hope to deny the French a grand slam in Paris by outkicking their opponents.
England have been training with George Furbank at full back and Freddie Steward moving from No 15 to the wing. If Steward, the 6ft 5in high-ball expert, starts out wide it may indicate that Jones, the head coach, wants to target Gabin Villière, the 5ft 11in France wing.
Playing Steward on the wing could indicate that England are planning to target Villière under the high ball
Playing Steward on the wing could indicate that England are planning to target Villière under the high ball

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Well that makes very little sense if true. Even less sense with a bad kicker like Randall, so there might be more news people might not like

[JM2K6]

Steward's made a good fist of playing wing for Tigers but yeah, that does not help us at all.

[Ovals]

Being reported in The Times that Eddie Jones is going to pick Furbank at fullback.


And start Steward on the wing.

England have been experimenting with a new back line as Eddie Jones plans to expose France’s weakness under the high ball.
The Guinness Six Nations reaches its finale on Saturday night when England hope to deny the French a grand slam in Paris by outkicking their opponents.
England have been training with George Furbank at full back and Freddie Steward moving from No 15 to the wing. If Steward, the 6ft 5in high-ball expert, starts out wide it may indicate that Jones, the head coach, wants to target Gabin Villière, the 5ft 11in France wing.
Playing Steward on the wing could indicate that England are planning to target Villière under the high ball
Playing Steward on the wing could indicate that England are planning to target Villière under the high ball

Eddie really is just a chancer - well past his sell by date.

[inactionman]

The key question is - which of the two options makes it more likely Ewels won't do it again?

I'd say they're both as likely to.

I agree more with the idea that red should be reserved for offences with higher levels of culpability than a failure to execute.

It's a game of collisions and - like it or not - big hits are effective so they will remain part of the game. Getting it wrong needs to carry a sanction, but that sanction shouldn't really be 'that's the end of the game as a contest'.

Weird thing to be saying after a huge contest, tbh. And there's countless examples of early reds not resulting in a win for the team with the advantage.

I don't think it's outrageous to say that not giving people brain damage is more important than a 7% reduction in the players on the field for one team. Or even in a single result being affected, to be blunt. Ryan copped a serious injury from Ewels as a result of his illegal tackle and people are questioning whether he should start to consider retirement. Some things are bigger than an on-field sanction altering the balance of power slightly.

It's not like Ewels went in to make a legal tackle and was wrongfooted at the last second or didn't react to circumstances. He revved up for a huge hit on someone without bothering to even try to make it legal under the current laws, and it was pretty late as well. Fuck him.

Really? The result wasn't seriously in doubt, was it? Record score against England seems about right.

I don't doubt the need to reduce head injuries (no-one sane does), I think we need something separate to punishing someone for something they ultimately didn't intend to do in the first instance.

I go round in my head on this one. I get that red-carding taking people out in the air has had a good influence, but that was more around not even entering the competition for the ball if you're not set to do so. The tackle is so central that you can't 'opt out' in the same way and mistakes are still being made. What is it we need to do to keep tackle heights down, as there are still high shots despite the rules and sanctions being in place for a good long while now. I don't know.

[JM2K6]

I'd say they're both as likely to.

I agree more with the idea that red should be reserved for offences with higher levels of culpability than a failure to execute.

It's a game of collisions and - like it or not - big hits are effective so they will remain part of the game. Getting it wrong needs to carry a sanction, but that sanction shouldn't really be 'that's the end of the game as a contest'.

Weird thing to be saying after a huge contest, tbh. And there's countless examples of early reds not resulting in a win for the team with the advantage.

I don't think it's outrageous to say that not giving people brain damage is more important than a 7% reduction in the players on the field for one team. Or even in a single result being affected, to be blunt. Ryan copped a serious injury from Ewels as a result of his illegal tackle and people are questioning whether he should start to consider retirement. Some things are bigger than an on-field sanction altering the balance of power slightly.

It's not like Ewels went in to make a legal tackle and was wrongfooted at the last second or didn't react to circumstances. He revved up for a huge hit on someone without bothering to even try to make it legal under the current laws, and it was pretty late as well. Fuck him.

Really? The result wasn't seriously in doubt, was it? Record score against England seems about right.

Against a team most people - including me - expected to beat us fairly comfortably? A team that was 3 points ahead with less than 10 to go? We cannot point at the red card and say "oh, well there's the problem" without also acknowledging the difference in quality between the teams, England's lack of attacking success across this tournament, the early injury to Curry that left us with a number 8 playing at openside, and the early injury to Sinckler.

Claiming it wasn't a contest is insane, and I say this as someone who thinks the tight scoreline was flattering to England until it wasn't. But this isn't a case where England wins without the red card.

I don't doubt the need to reduce head injuries (no-one sane does), I think we need something separate to punishing someone for something they ultimately didn't intend to do in the first instance.

I go round in my head on this one. I get that red-carding taking people out in the air has had a good influence, but that was more around not even entering the competition for the ball if you're not set to do so. The tackle is so central that you can't 'opt out' in the same way and mistakes are still being made. What is it we need to do to keep tackle heights down, as there are still high shots despite the rules and sanctions being in place for a good long while now. I don't know.

You can opt out in a similar way. You can make a soak tackle. You can opt to lasso instead of smash. You can opt to not fly in in situations where you just don't know what's going to happen. And you can very fucking definitely bend at the waist particularly when you have time and distance in your favour.

There's always going to be these "ah, it's a rugby incident" scenarios where a combination of events ends up in a headshot and there's sympathy for the player being penalised. But this wasn't one of them. Go back to the world cup and see how we smashed teams in the tackle - legally. Low, hard, driving tackles. It murdered sides.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Really? The result wasn't seriously in doubt, was it? Record score against England seems about right.

Pretty much, everything England was doing in terms of entry points, basically maul and scrum, was just setting up an implosion late on in the game. That we weren't ripped a new one earlier in the game is down to what it's hard to label as anything but something of a panic attack by the Irish decision makers, I thought after HT the coaches would have got into the Irish halves and we'd see a very different 2nd half, but they just continued failing to see the wood for the trees

What would have happened with 15 Vs 15 can only ever be a game of if

[inactionman]

Weird thing to be saying after a huge contest, tbh. And there's countless examples of early reds not resulting in a win for the team with the advantage.

I don't think it's outrageous to say that not giving people brain damage is more important than a 7% reduction in the players on the field for one team. Or even in a single result being affected, to be blunt. Ryan copped a serious injury from Ewels as a result of his illegal tackle and people are questioning whether he should start to consider retirement. Some things are bigger than an on-field sanction altering the balance of power slightly.

It's not like Ewels went in to make a legal tackle and was wrongfooted at the last second or didn't react to circumstances. He revved up for a huge hit on someone without bothering to even try to make it legal under the current laws, and it was pretty late as well. Fuck him.

Really? The result wasn't seriously in doubt, was it? Record score against England seems about right.

Against a team most people - including me - expected to beat us fairly comfortably? A team that was 3 points ahead with less than 10 to go? We cannot point at the red card and say "oh, well there's the problem" without also acknowledging the difference in quality between the teams, England's lack of attacking success across this tournament, the early injury to Curry that left us with a number 8 playing at openside, and the early injury to Sinckler.

Claiming it wasn't a contest is insane, and I say this as someone who thinks the tight scoreline was flattering to England until it wasn't. But this isn't a case where England wins without the red card.

I don't doubt the need to reduce head injuries (no-one sane does), I think we need something separate to punishing someone for something they ultimately didn't intend to do in the first instance.

I go round in my head on this one. I get that red-carding taking people out in the air has had a good influence, but that was more around not even entering the competition for the ball if you're not set to do so. The tackle is so central that you can't 'opt out' in the same way and mistakes are still being made. What is it we need to do to keep tackle heights down, as there are still high shots despite the rules and sanctions being in place for a good long while now. I don't know.

You can opt out in a similar way. You can make a soak tackle. You can opt to lasso instead of smash. You can opt to not fly in in situations where you just don't know what's going to happen. And you can very fucking definitely bend at the waist particularly when you have time and distance in your favour.

There's always going to be these "ah, it's a rugby incident" scenarios where a combination of events ends up in a headshot and there's sympathy for the player being penalised. But this wasn't one of them. Go back to the world cup and see how we smashed teams in the tackle - legally. Low, hard, driving tackles. It murdered sides.

I'm not the pools expert, I'm not going to predict what scores would be, but everyone pretty much universally thought 'there's the game gone' when Ewels did what he did. That Ireland greased their hands and wore rollerskates in the scrum kept us in sight for a while. (eta: I'm being a bit harsh, I thought the application by England was excellent but that's not realistically going to be sustainable for 80 mins)

My question remains - these sanctions have been in place for a while now but players at all levels, including international, are still getting red cards for it. Does this need something beyond red carding players? And I'll dodge my own question by saying I've no idea. I just question whether red cards for unintentional acts is having the effect we wanted. Dos contact need to be waist level or lower, such that head contact is massively egregious? (I just throw this out as it's been mentioned in other dispatches)

[JM2K6]

I'm not the pools expert, I'm not going to predict what scores would be, but everyone pretty much universally thought 'there's the game gone' when Ewels did what he did. That Ireland greased their hands and wore rollerskates in the scrum kept us in sight for a while.

Did you think the same when Daly got sent off against Argentina? There is just no way that the loss of Charlie fucking Ewels of all players turned it from a game England were going to win into one they were definitely going to lose.For the first time in a very long time, Ireland were favourites at HQ - England were likely to lose anyway and the loss of the empty shirt was at least in part mitigated by the insane performance put in by Itoje and by their loss of Ryan, who had to be replaced with a penalty magnate(sic).

I definitely thought we were going to get thumped. I also said that before Ewels got sent off.

My question remains - these sanctions have been in place for a while now but players at all levels, including international, are still getting red cards for it. Does this need something beyond red carding players? And I'll dodge my own question by saying I've no idea. I just question whether red cards for unintentional acts is having the effect we wanted. Dos contact need to be waist level or lower, such that head contact is massively egregious? (I just throw this out as it's been mentioned in other dispatches)

Why are we talking about unintentional acts? Did Ewels slip upright? I feel like you're making one argument (an entirely valid one re: how well sanctioning alone is impacting things) and tying in Ewel's inexcusable failure to even try to tackle legally .

We're trying to undo 10-15 years of rugby league style chest smashes, made worse by a huge spike in the size and weight of players. It's going to take time. It may be that the current laws are not strong enough and we would need to drop the height even further, and focus even more on tackle technique to protect the tackler.

[sockwithaticket]

Really? The result wasn't seriously in doubt, was it? Record score against England seems about right.

Against a team most people - including me - expected to beat us fairly comfortably? A team that was 3 points ahead with less than 10 to go? We cannot point at the red card and say "oh, well there's the problem" without also acknowledging the difference in quality between the teams, England's lack of attacking success across this tournament, the early injury to Curry that left us with a number 8 playing at openside, and the early injury to Sinckler.

Claiming it wasn't a contest is insane, and I say this as someone who thinks the tight scoreline was flattering to England until it wasn't. But this isn't a case where England wins without the red card.

I don't doubt the need to reduce head injuries (no-one sane does), I think we need something separate to punishing someone for something they ultimately didn't intend to do in the first instance.

I go round in my head on this one. I get that red-carding taking people out in the air has had a good influence, but that was more around not even entering the competition for the ball if you're not set to do so. The tackle is so central that you can't 'opt out' in the same way and mistakes are still being made. What is it we need to do to keep tackle heights down, as there are still high shots despite the rules and sanctions being in place for a good long while now. I don't know.

You can opt out in a similar way. You can make a soak tackle. You can opt to lasso instead of smash. You can opt to not fly in in situations where you just don't know what's going to happen. And you can very fucking definitely bend at the waist particularly when you have time and distance in your favour.

There's always going to be these "ah, it's a rugby incident" scenarios where a combination of events ends up in a headshot and there's sympathy for the player being penalised. But this wasn't one of them. Go back to the world cup and see how we smashed teams in the tackle - legally. Low, hard, driving tackles. It murdered sides.

I'm not the pools expert, I'm not going to predict what scores would be, but everyone pretty much universally thought 'there's the game gone' when Ewels did what he did. That Ireland greased their hands and wore rollerskates in the scrum kept us in sight for a while.

My question remains - these sanctions have been in place for a while now but players at all levels, including international, are still getting red cards for it. Does this need something beyond red carding players? And I'll dodge my own question by saying I've no idea. I just question whether red cards for unintentional acts is having the effect we wanted. Dos contact need to be waist level or lower, such that head contact is massively egregious? (I just throw this out as it's been mentioned in other dispatches)

Because the consensus before the game was that Ireland would likely win given the teams' respective form. In games where the sides are evenly matched a red card does not instantly spell defeat.

The issue as I see it, and this is borne out by the excuses and whinges proferred by current and recent ex-pros when a microphone is stuck in their direction on this issue, is that coaches and players still view making a big hit and/or going high enough to stop the offload as more important than not risking smacking opposition players in the head and ceding some ground. I'm not entirely sure how we change that mindset, but it certainly doesn't happen by not red carding when that cavalier attitude results in a player being carted off.

I wouldn't be averse to trialling and idea that's surfaced in the past of lowering the acceptable tackle height to nipple/armpit with lines on the jerseys to denote it.

[Ovals]

Weird thing to be saying after a huge contest, tbh. And there's countless examples of early reds not resulting in a win for the team with the advantage.

I don't think it's outrageous to say that not giving people brain damage is more important than a 7% reduction in the players on the field for one team. Or even in a single result being affected, to be blunt. Ryan copped a serious injury from Ewels as a result of his illegal tackle and people are questioning whether he should start to consider retirement. Some things are bigger than an on-field sanction altering the balance of power slightly.

It's not like Ewels went in to make a legal tackle and was wrongfooted at the last second or didn't react to circumstances. He revved up for a huge hit on someone without bothering to even try to make it legal under the current laws, and it was pretty late as well. Fuck him.

Really? The result wasn't seriously in doubt, was it? Record score against England seems about right.

Against a team most people - including me - expected to beat us fairly comfortably? A team that was 3 points ahead with less than 10 to go? We cannot point at the red card and say "oh, well there's the problem" without also acknowledging the difference in quality between the teams, England's lack of attacking success across this tournament, the early injury to Curry that left us with a number 8 playing at openside, and the early injury to Sinckler.

Claiming it wasn't a contest is insane, and I say this as someone who thinks the tight scoreline was flattering to England until it wasn't. But this isn't a case where England wins without the red card.

I don't doubt the need to reduce head injuries (no-one sane does), I think we need something separate to punishing someone for something they ultimately didn't intend to do in the first instance.

I go round in my head on this one. I get that red-carding taking people out in the air has had a good influence, but that was more around not even entering the competition for the ball if you're not set to do so. The tackle is so central that you can't 'opt out' in the same way and mistakes are still being made. What is it we need to do to keep tackle heights down, as there are still high shots despite the rules and sanctions being in place for a good long while now. I don't know.

You can opt out in a similar way. You can make a soak tackle. You can opt to lasso instead of smash. You can opt to not fly in in situations where you just don't know what's going to happen. And you can very fucking definitely bend at the waist particularly when you have time and distance in your favour.

There's always going to be these "ah, it's a rugby incident" scenarios where a combination of events ends up in a headshot and there's sympathy for the player being penalised. But this wasn't one of them. Go back to the world cup and see how we smashed teams in the tackle - legally. Low, hard, driving tackles. It murdered sides.

In a game where Ireland were already favourites, for us to have to play the game with 14 men was always going to end up in defeat. That we managed to stay in touch, for so long, was largely due to a totally unexpected mullering we gave them at the scrum. We lost 4 tries to zero and with a record margin at home to Ireland. Whilst we put up a brave effort, the game was effectively a forgeone conclusion once Ewels was sent off. With 15 we'd have had a chance, with 14 - nah, no chance.

[inactionman]

I'm not the pools expert, I'm not going to predict what scores would be, but everyone pretty much universally thought 'there's the game gone' when Ewels did what he did. That Ireland greased their hands and wore rollerskates in the scrum kept us in sight for a while.

Did you think the same when Daly got sent off against Argentina? There is just no way that the loss of Charlie fucking Ewels of all players turned it from a game England were going to win into one they were definitely going to lose.For the first time in a very long time, Ireland were favourites at HQ - England were likely to lose anyway and the loss of the empty shirt was at least in part mitigated by the insane performance put in by Itoje and by their loss of Ryan, who had to be replaced with a penalty magnate(sic).

I definitely thought we were going to get thumped. I also said that before Ewels got sent off.

My question remains - these sanctions have been in place for a while now but players at all levels, including international, are still getting red cards for it. Does this need something beyond red carding players? And I'll dodge my own question by saying I've no idea. I just question whether red cards for unintentional acts is having the effect we wanted. Dos contact need to be waist level or lower, such that head contact is massively egregious? (I just throw this out as it's been mentioned in other dispatches)

Why are we talking about unintentional acts? Did Ewels slip upright? I feel like you're making one argument (an entirely valid one re: how well sanctioning alone is impacting things) and tying in Ewel's inexcusable failure to even try to tackle legally .

We're trying to undo 10-15 years of rugby league style chest smashes, made worse by a huge spike in the size and weight of players. It's going to take time. It may be that the current laws are not strong enough and we would need to drop the height even further, and focus even more on tackle technique to protect the tackler.

Are you implying Ewels meant to commit a red card offence?

Players know the offence, they know the sanction, it still occurs. It's not working. Arguably because they don't actually set out to do it. Yes, crap technique, yes, laziness, yes a number of other things.

I'm not going into the scope of your clairvoyance, going to 14 ruins a contest. Yes, there's some fun to bee had seeing how well one side can do damage limitation, but that's it. England beating Argentina was in a set of series where they routinely and relatively comfortably beat Argentina, it's an outlier.

Particularly that bloody 50/22 rule. How do you manage that if you're a man down already?

[Kawazaki]

Does contact need to be waist level or lower, such that head contact is massively egregious? (I just throw this out as it's been mentioned in other dispatches)

Simply tackle no higher that the nipple line across the chest. That's the target area, plant a shoulder anywhere from that line down and the tackler will avoid accidental head contact. Simple.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Did you think the same when Daly got sent off against Argentina? There is just no way that the loss of Charlie fucking Ewels of all players turned it from a game England were going to win into one they were definitely going to lose.For the first time in a very long time, Ireland were favourites at HQ -

Nobody I've seen is arguing England were going to win had it remained 15 vs 15. Only it ended a contest for a possible win given England were going to blow up at some point.

Also you might not like Ewels, and certainly he's no world beater, but he does a lot of basics to a good standard and you cannot just skip past even if you're set strongly against his inclusion not just in the XV but the EPS

[JM2K6]

Are you implying Ewels meant to commit a red card offence?

Players know the offence, they know the sanction, it still occurs. It's not working. Arguably because they don't actually set out to do it. Yes, crap technique, yes, laziness, yes a number of other things.

Ewels had every opportunity to tackle legally and didn't bother. I'm not claiming he deliberately nutted Ryan in the face. I'm saying he didn't actively try and make a legal tackle, and there was no element of luck or misfortune. It's not an accident, it's something that is quite likely to happen if you do what Ewels did and priortise the big hit over even the slightest attempt to make it safer. He intentionally tackled upright, as an athlete in control of his own body.

I think you're getting close to the point, though - they are still going for the big smash uber alles. That's as much of a problem as anything else. Players CAN be coached to not tackle like that, but it's endemic in the sport that you have to try and smash someone for the tiniest advantage (e.g. when they're already in the act of scoring) and it's going to take time for that to sink in. Players and teams not doing that deserve to be punished because they're a danger to others at this stage.

I'm not going into the scope of your clairvoyance, going to 14 ruins a contest. Yes, there's some fun to bee had seeing how well one side can do damage limitation, but that's it. England beating Argentina was in a set of series where they routinely and relatively comfortably beat Argentina, it's an outlier.

Particularly that bloody 50/22 rule. How do you manage that if you're a man down already?

It's not an outlier. It's an example. A stronger team beat a relatively weaker team despite being down to 14 for almost the whole game. It's almost like other factors determine the result. And we've seen many many examples of top level games where red cards have not led to a loss for the team seeing red. It's a running joke on here at times, every time it happens people mock the idea that "red cards ruin games". Only now because England lost a game they were expected to lose, it's being said seriously again.

50/22 is garbage law-making and I hate it with a passion, but I don't think Charlie Ewels would've had much impact on it. Losing a back though...

[JM2K6]

Did you think the same when Daly got sent off against Argentina? There is just no way that the loss of Charlie fucking Ewels of all players turned it from a game England were going to win into one they were definitely going to lose.For the first time in a very long time, Ireland were favourites at HQ -

Nobody I've seen is arguing England were going to win had it remained 15 vs 15. Only it ended a contest for a possible win given England were going to blow up at some point.

Also you might not like Ewels, and certainly he's no world beater, but he does a lot of basics to a good standard and you cannot just skip past even if you're set strongly against his inclusion not just in the XV but the EPS

The point is that you can't point at England losing handily at home after being in the contest for the first 71 minutes and then just blame the red, when it's a game England were expected to lose even by those who set the odds. England's "bravery" doesn't hide the fact that coaching of the attack is practically non-existent, that the midfield is horribly unbalanced, that the back row cover was insane, etc etc.

As for Ewels - he's one player, one of the the worst in the side. It's unlikely his presence or otherwise alters the balance of play that much. Ewels doesn't alter our attack in a significant way. Ewels doesn't make our scrum more successful (how much more do you need?). It does mean our tactics at the lineout & mauls were impacted, and it does mean we lacked a big body in other areas, but Ireland were also impacted by his actions and lost out a bit themselves. His removal did not make the match any more of a foregone conclusion than it was already.

[Sinkers]

I believe there’s an experimental law thingy (yes another one) in Aus age grade comps this year of no tackle above the sternum.

Can’t remember what the sanction is tho

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Did you think the same when Daly got sent off against Argentina? There is just no way that the loss of Charlie fucking Ewels of all players turned it from a game England were going to win into one they were definitely going to lose.For the first time in a very long time, Ireland were favourites at HQ -

Nobody I've seen is arguing England were going to win had it remained 15 vs 15. Only it ended a contest for a possible win given England were going to blow up at some point.

Also you might not like Ewels, and certainly he's no world beater, but he does a lot of basics to a good standard and you cannot just skip past even if you're set strongly against his inclusion not just in the XV but the EPS

The point is that you can't point at England losing handily at home after being in the contest for the first 71 minutes and then just blame the red, when it's a game England were expected to lose even by those who set the odds. England's "bravery" doesn't hide the fact that coaching of the attack is practically non-existent, that the midfield is horribly unbalanced, that the back row cover was insane, etc etc.

As for Ewels - he's one player, one of the the worst in the side. It's unlikely his presence or otherwise alters the balance of play that much. Ewels doesn't alter our attack in a significant way. Ewels doesn't make our scrum more successful (how much more do you need?). It does mean our tactics at the lineout & mauls were impacted, and it does mean we lacked a big body in other areas, but Ireland were also impacted by his actions and lost out a bit themselves. His removal did not make the match any more of a foregone conclusion than it was already.

I think largely you can cite the red and losing a lock who performs the basics as well as Ewels for 78 minutes is a huge thing. Losing him changes resourcing across the game.

Yes on another day Ireland could have been much better and won with/without the red being issued, but on the day there was a red and Ireland lacked cohesion.

I don't like all our selection all that said, nor that Lawes showed again he's an excellent lock which will perhaps be overlooked. I don't think what we're doing in attack is invisible, ignoring we eschewed attack against Ireland because we only had 14 players (something some oddly seem to think isn't especially relevant) but in other games the shape of what they want to do is there, it lacks the decision making and accuracy you'd want, I agree the backrow needs more back rows, it would have been nice to have Willis and Curry and then probably Dombrandt, and it'd be nice to have some pace in the back three.

It'd also be nice if Randall didn't start like a player somewhat worse than your opinion of Ewels, he should of course stay imo, but his opening trio of contributions would not have made pleasant watching on review

[JM2K6]

Ewels performs the basics well? He's a fucking donkey, and that's when he's actually doing anything. Bad hands, not a particularly effective tackler, not particularly good at the breakdown, a poor carrier. Yes, I'm sure he can shift some bodies.

As for Ireland lacking cohesion - well, they looked pretty cohesive in the first 20 minutes when they threatened to run riot. The red card if anything made them a bit casual for a while.

Can't agree that the lack of attack is just down to being down to 14. It doesn't take all 15 players to mount an effective attack, especially on turnover ball. And when you look at how it's been malfunctioning the rest of the tournament...