NPR

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 8:08 am

Big D wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 11:42 pm Edinburgh getting Nel, Sebastian, Young, Ritchie, Price, Healy and Paterson for the game this weekend.

Should be able to put out a very strong XV.

Goosen and Graham both had quad injuries, hopefully they are both fit and Graham his just being held back, Bennett, Boyle, Hodgson and Muncaster were all injured for the last game, worst case scenario if they are all still out;

Venter, Cherry, Nel, Young, Sykes, Ritchie, Watson, Mata,
Price, Healy, Dean(played on wing v Scarlets) Lang, Currie, Paterson, Boffelli
Harrison (I hope), de Bruin, Williams, Campbell, Dodd, Vellacott, Scott, McCann

I don't think Campbell has played yet this season and McCann may or may not be in the Edinburgh camp, so while the starting team is strong, we are a little stretched on the bench. de Bruin hasn't played this season, I don't think and I really don't relate him on the tighthead side, but he's listed on the team sheet as being solely a loosehead now

Jacob Henry is back in training too, so may be involved in some capacity.

There is a nice article on Harry Paterson's debut in TOL, I particularly liked this


“It was obviously bittersweet in a lot of ways today, but all the boys are saying to just make sure I take it all in and enjoy it. Jamie Ritchie said to me before: ‘When you get to Murrayfield, take your headphones off [while] walking out of the bus [and through] the crowd’. It was awesome. I’m glad he said that as I probably wouldn’t have, so that was a nice moment.

Begbie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:12 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68282213

Rightly so. I don't think they will admit McNeice (sp) was wrong though.

Begbie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:12 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68282213

I’m still angry as hell about it too. But what are we hoping to achieve? Having it confirmed that you were cheated after the fact is cold comfort - we know that from the Craig Joubert fiasco.

The only rationale I can see is that they share my suspicion that the try would have been awarded if it had been Ireland who scored it, and think they may address unconscious bias against us in match officials (or just make them less likely to screw us over). But that’s a risky path, TBH.

Yr Alban wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:22 pm

Begbie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:12 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68282213

I’m still angry as hell about it too. But what are we hoping to achieve? Having it confirmed that you were cheated after the fact is cold comfort - we know that from the Craig Joubert fiasco.

The only rationale I can see is that they share my suspicion that the try would have been awarded if it had been Ireland who scored it, and think they may address unconscious bias against us in match officials (or just make them less likely to screw us over). But that’s a risky path, TBH.

I'd hope it would result in a good, long hard look and review into the use of TMOs.

We can't have matches decided in such a scattergun way. If a different question had been asked or different phraseology used we may have had a different result. That's mental.

Yr Alban wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:22 pm

Begbie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:12 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68282213

I’m still angry as hell about it too. But what are we hoping to achieve? Having it confirmed that you were cheated after the fact is cold comfort - we know that from the Craig Joubert fiasco.

The only rationale I can see is that they share my suspicion that the try would have been awarded if it had been Ireland who scored it, and think they may address unconscious bias against us in match officials (or just make them less likely to screw us over). But that’s a risky path, TBH.

I'd like to see some sort of change to the process where the specific reason is used rather than the current wording used especially for disallowing a try. E,g "No try, ball held up on foot" then allows a bit of critical thinking for the ref to review the "picture" in front of them.

I'd also like it to be ref lead for the decision like it is with foul play.

Saturday is gone and we lost that's fine, but it got to the point the TMO was arguing against the laws of physics because there wasn't a nice pristine photo of it. Berry was ready to award the try based on what he saw.

I am still very annoyed by what happened but I am worried we are on the cusp of coming across as sore losers (again). We complained after the Joubert incident, it did us no good. We are still mocked for the Japanese incident (including by our own fans) even though the game only took place because of the threats made (I.e. it was a justified intervention IMO). We were roundly punished for that one by the unique interpretation of rankings for the World Cup groups draw. What will the outcome be this time? There certainly won’t be substantive change but we might find ourselves the wrong side of other decisions again to the wider detriment of the team.

I don't think there is that much wrong with the TMO protocol except for one thing.

When it the ref deciding if a try has been scored the TMO protocol allows for two option if they are unsure. The ref makes a try or no try decision on the field and wants it validated then it is referred to the TMO with a reason for the decision. Berry did this by saying the ball was held up.

Alternatively if the ref is unsure then he ask the 'try or no try' question.

In both cases the test is 'clear and obvious'. Commentators witter on that a different conclusion would be reached if different questions were asked, but the TMO protocol is quite clear every decision must be clear and obvious.

In every case the ref is responsible for the decision. He can accept or reject the TMOs input, but one reason that is problematic is the different screens and level of detail each has access to even when looking at the same picture.

Personally I think the discussion should remain between the TMO and the ref until a decsion is made. They can explore different options, change their minds etc without all the hoo haa we have had about the TMO saying one thing then reversing based on a further look. At the end the ref gives the decision with the reasons. It may not be agreed with but a lot of the uproar has focussed on the discussion that took place as much as the outcome.

We will never get away from different opinions as long as humans are involved and that we just have to live with.

I often think our problems go back a little bit further than the Joubert thing with the appeal we called for Johnny Gray & Ross Ford’s suspension after their nonsense citing for the Samoa match in Newcastle.

As far as we were told we appealed the length of the ban and couldn’t actually appeal the fact they were found guilty in the first place.

The next thing we knew they were cleared to play Aus and no explanation (that I saw anyway) was given.

I do wonder if we got some sort of one upmanship gotcha type victory there and it’s done us no favours with the powers that be since !

Yr Alban wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:22 pm

Begbie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:12 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68282213

I’m still angry as hell about it too. But what are we hoping to achieve? Having it confirmed that you were cheated after the fact is cold comfort - we know that from the Craig Joubert fiasco.

The only rationale I can see is that they share my suspicion that the try would have been awarded if it had been Ireland who scored it, and think they may address unconscious bias against us in match officials (or just make them less likely to screw us over). But that’s a risky path, TBH.

I'm going to assume, given our previous experiences with World Rugby, that they'll decide we lost the Wales game as well.

Yr Alban wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:22 pm

Begbie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:12 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68282213

I’m still angry as hell about it too. But what are we hoping to achieve? Having it confirmed that you were cheated after the fact is cold comfort - we know that from the Craig Joubert fiasco.

The only rationale I can see is that they share my suspicion that the try would have been awarded if it had been Ireland who scored it, and think they may address unconscious bias against us in match officials (or just make them less likely to screw us over). But that’s a risky path, TBH.

Well Prize Money for one

Winner – £6m
Runner-up – £3.5m
Third – £2.5m
Fourth – £2m
Fifth – £1.5m
Sixth – £1m

I think there are specific questions to ask around - whether refs are becoming too reliant on TMOs to sweep things up for them; the TMO Protocol itself; and dialogue between ref / TMO. How can these all be improved upon? If nobody puts their head above the parapet, nothing evolves or gets better.

Whatever your stand point on whether or not the ball was down or even whether or not the TV provided adequate evidence of this, a combination of the ref's actions (or lack of), the TMO process and dialogue between officials has brought us back to a final decision of "held up...because the ball was on the foot" when the one thing that is known definitively (to used Brian MacNeice's required standard of proof) from the replays is that the ball did not finish up on the foot.

Had a very odd interaction on the SRU's Instagram after they created a post congratulating Holly Davidson on her appointment to Saturdays 6N. I replied that it was well deserved and felt she would cope admirably with the extra pressure. Astonishingly a female replied that the comment was sexist as Holly had already refereed many high profile ladies matches including a Women's WC Final so it should not be seen as a step up for her.
I responded that it was an incredible reaction to take issue with my comment which was clearly in good faith and very silly to suggest that the prestige of the 6N was not a step up in responsibility.

It's quite incredibly how there is always someone who can find offence in the most well meaning things.

Dogbert wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 4:15 pm

Yr Alban wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:22 pm

Begbie wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:12 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68282213

I’m still angry as hell about it too. But what are we hoping to achieve? Having it confirmed that you were cheated after the fact is cold comfort - we know that from the Craig Joubert fiasco.

The only rationale I can see is that they share my suspicion that the try would have been awarded if it had been Ireland who scored it, and think they may address unconscious bias against us in match officials (or just make them less likely to screw us over). But that’s a risky path, TBH.

Well Prize Money for one

Winner – £6m
Runner-up – £3.5m
Third – £2.5m
Fourth – £2m
Fifth – £1.5m
Sixth – £1m

They’re not going to award us the game now, are they? So it can’t make any difference to the position we finish in.

Blackmac wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 5:49 pm Had a very odd interaction on the SRU's Instagram after they created a post congratulating Holly Davidson on her appointment to Saturdays 6N. I replied that it was well deserved and felt she would cope admirably with the extra pressure. Astonishingly a female replied that the comment was sexist as Holly had already refereed many high profile ladies matches including a Women's WC Final so it should not be seen as a step up for her.
I responded that it was an incredible reaction to take issue with my comment which was clearly in good faith and very silly to suggest that the prestige of the 6N was not a step up in responsibility.

It's quite incredibly how there is always someone who can find offence in the most well meaning things.

Maybe it isn’t a step up per se, but it’s undeniably higher profile.

Yr Alban wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 7:20 pm

Dogbert wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 4:15 pm

Yr Alban wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 2:22 pm

I’m still angry as hell about it too. But what are we hoping to achieve? Having it confirmed that you were cheated after the fact is cold comfort - we know that from the Craig Joubert fiasco.

The only rationale I can see is that they share my suspicion that the try would have been awarded if it had been Ireland who scored it, and think they may address unconscious bias against us in match officials (or just make them less likely to screw us over). But that’s a risky path, TBH.

Well Prize Money for one

Winner – £6m
Runner-up – £3.5m
Third – £2.5m
Fourth – £2m
Fifth – £1.5m
Sixth – £1m

They’re not going to award us the game now, are they? So it can’t make any difference to the position we finish in.

The games gone, but if they did find that there was a serious mistake that would have changed the result of the game ( they obviously won't) , but if they did they could make a payment as recompense

Dogbert wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 9:04 pm

Yr Alban wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 7:20 pm

Dogbert wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 4:15 pm

Well Prize Money for one

Winner – £6m
Runner-up – £3.5m
Third – £2.5m
Fourth – £2m
Fifth – £1.5m
Sixth – £1m

They’re not going to award us the game now, are they? So it can’t make any difference to the position we finish in.

The games gone, but if they did find that there was a serious mistake that would have changed the result of the game ( they obviously won't) , but if they did they could make a payment as recompense

Bit of a slippery slope that one mate.

Improving the protocol for future can be the only legitimate goal.

Aye. WR love to pretend there's no issues, pressing them on the issue is the only way to force change.

Has taken me a couple days to settle down from that one.

I've got to hand it to rugby, and being Scottish. Those two things combined keep finding new, fresh and innovative ways to crush my soul.

On reflection, the excruciatingly dull kick tennis, I reckon I kind of get it. I'm not so sure that we were "playing not to lose". I reckon what was going through the heads of the team was something like "It's France that have to do something". My personal preference is that we would have backed ourselves to attack and score, but the flip side is that the team backed themselves to hold France out. They were wrong, as it turns out. It isn't always the outcome that mean that the decision was wrong. But the kick tennis wasn't how I see the DNA of this Scotland team, that does disappoint.

The try was a try. Honestly don't think I've seen a situation where the camera's shown the ball on the ground and a try hasn't been given. Think I remember other odd stuff, like a foot clearly in touch and a try still given, that sort of thing. But never a ball on the ground picture and a no try.

I don't want to be one of the referee bashing rugby fans, but they did get this wrong and had they have got it right we would be 2 from 2. Not disputing the point Finn made at the end that we need to be doing more so it isn't decided on a referee decision.

C T wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 10:32 am Has taken me a couple days to settle down from that one.

I've got to hand it to rugby, and being Scottish. Those two things combined keep finding new, fresh and innovative ways to crush my soul.

On reflection, the excruciatingly dull kick tennis, I reckon I kind of get it. I'm not so sure that we were "playing not to lose". I reckon what was going through the heads of the team was something like "It's France that have to do something". My personal preference is that we would have backed ourselves to attack and score, but the flip side is that the team backed themselves to hold France out. They were wrong, as it turns out. It isn't always the outcome that mean that the decision was wrong. But the kick tennis wasn't how I see the DNA of this Scotland team, that does disappoint.

The try was a try. Honestly don't think I've seen a situation where the camera's shown the ball on the ground and a try hasn't been given. Think I remember other odd stuff, like a foot clearly in touch and a try still given, that sort of thing. But never a ball on the ground picture and a no try.

I don't want to be one of the referee bashing rugby fans, but they did get this wrong and had they have got it right we would be 2 from 2. Not disputing the point Finn made at the end that we need to be doing more so it isn't decided on a referee decision.

In addition to the total mess made by the Ref & TMO at the end there was the clear knock on by Penaud in the lead up to the French try. What should've been a scrum on the French 10m line became a scrum deep in our half. The ref brushed that away which led to a French try AND THEN denied a clear Scottish try a few minutes later. Two major errors that wrongly gave france the lead and then wrongly prevented Scotland from taking it back. It's the double whammy that I struggle with. I know they can't do this but I would love to see the ref explain himself and ideally apologise. It will be interesting to see if he is quietly dropped off of the list of refs taking major games going forward, by any standard he got the big decisions totally wrong and he's got to know that in the clear light of day.

Wylie Coyote wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 10:57 am

C T wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 10:32 am Has taken me a couple days to settle down from that one.

I've got to hand it to rugby, and being Scottish. Those two things combined keep finding new, fresh and innovative ways to crush my soul.

On reflection, the excruciatingly dull kick tennis, I reckon I kind of get it. I'm not so sure that we were "playing not to lose". I reckon what was going through the heads of the team was something like "It's France that have to do something". My personal preference is that we would have backed ourselves to attack and score, but the flip side is that the team backed themselves to hold France out. They were wrong, as it turns out. It isn't always the outcome that mean that the decision was wrong. But the kick tennis wasn't how I see the DNA of this Scotland team, that does disappoint.

The try was a try. Honestly don't think I've seen a situation where the camera's shown the ball on the ground and a try hasn't been given. Think I remember other odd stuff, like a foot clearly in touch and a try still given, that sort of thing. But never a ball on the ground picture and a no try.

I don't want to be one of the referee bashing rugby fans, but they did get this wrong and had they have got it right we would be 2 from 2. Not disputing the point Finn made at the end that we need to be doing more so it isn't decided on a referee decision.

In addition to the total mess made by the Ref & TMO at the end there was the clear knock on by Penaud in the lead up to the French try. What should've been a scrum on the French 10m line became a scrum deep in our half. The ref brushed that away which led to a French try AND THEN denied a clear Scottish try a few minutes later. Two major errors that wrongly gave france the lead and then wrongly prevented Scotland from taking it back. It's the double whammy that I struggle with. I know they can't do this but I would love to see the ref explain himself and ideally apologise. It will be interesting to see if he is quietly dropped off of the list of refs taking major games going forward, by any standard he got the big decisions totally wrong and he's got to know that in the clear light of day.

Yep, and I know some people will point to the VDM intercept and shout offside, yellow card, penalty try, to say that things went both ways, but there's genuine debate over that around whether or not a ruck was formed. Where it's referee interpretation, you've just got to suck it up. When it's clearly wrong, it should be stated. The biggies against us are an absolutely clear knock on and an absolutely clear try.

Harrison on the bench, Sweeney too

So it is true. Fuck me!

Super Series to be disbanded

https://www.theoffsideline.com/super-se ... disbanded/

weegie01 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:22 pm So it is true. Fuck me!

Super Series to be disbanded

https://www.theoffsideline.com/super-se ... disbanded/

Fucking clowns. What is happening instead? We have massive problems with player development, and this has had no time at all to have an effect.

weegie01 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:22 pm So it is true. Fuck me!

Super Series to be disbanded

https://www.theoffsideline.com/super-se ... disbanded/

FFS. Back to trying to make the amateur rugby -> URC playoffs pipeline work with no intervening steps.

WTAF!

So a project that could be argued as a decent success in discovering and developing future SQ URC and International caps, has been binned.

Is anything going to replace it? If so, What?

Or have the blazers finally managed to force Scottish Rugby into joining them in their colonic self examination.

The page isn't there anymore!

Word is that not all the clubs could afford it. Boroughmuir apparently are one. Clubs like Ayr, Watsons, Heriots (at least) are spitting because they had the funding (e.g. Watsonians had a six figure sponsorship with DHL) and were loving it. Another factor apparently is Dobson going. Rumour has it that Dodson wanted to keep it going but others were not willing.

It is a shambles. Players are now dropping down a level from Super 6 knocking others down etc. If the SRU do not come up with a replacement then I think we are seeing the start of Scottish rugby's terminal decline. Whatever the issues in Wales, they have a full semi pro (and in some cases effectively pro) league beneath the regions that keeps the basic standard decent. One of my sons has played for both a Welsh and Scottish Premiership team and is quite clear the Scottish are not near the Welsh standard. Super Six addressed that.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:52 pm The page isn't there anymore!

Players have been told, so it's happening. I have just been speaking to my son whose flat mate is a Super 6 player. Apparently it has been known but confidential for two or three days. My son was through in Glasgow visiting a couple of his Glasgow pro mates who had come up through Super 6 and they all knew yesterday. And since neither think they'd be playing pro without Super 6 they are appalled.

weegie01 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:53 pm Word is that not all the clubs could afford it. Boroughmuir apparently are one. Clubs like Ayr, Watsons, Heriots (at least) are spitting because they had the funding (e.g. Watsonians had a six figure sponsorship with DHL) and were loving it. Another factor apparently is Dobson going. Rumour has it that Dodson wanted to keep it going but others were not willing.

It is a shambles. Players are now dropping down a level from Super 6 knocking others down etc. If the SRU do not come up with a replacement then I think we are seeing the start of Scottish rugby's terminal decline. Whatever the issues in Wales, they have a full semi pro (and in some cases effectively pro) league beneath the regions that keeps the basic standard decent. One of my sons has played for both a Welsh and Scottish Premiership team and is quite clear the Scottish are not near the Welsh standard. Super Six addressed that.

Surely the point of the franchise model was that if a club found they couldn't afford it, the franchise would be allocated elsewhere? There were ructions when Glasgow didn't get a team, if a side can't afford it, take it off them and put a franchise in Glasgow.

If anything it confirms the stupidity of putting three teams in Edinburgh, competing for the same local sponsorship and having an overpopulated market for deals with bigger names.

But I'm sure the offside line and the clubs will be popping the champagne and having a big ol circle jerk to celebrate as they try to take the sport back to the 70s.

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:30 pm

weegie01 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:53 pm Word is that not all the clubs could afford it. Boroughmuir apparently are one. Clubs like Ayr, Watsons, Heriots (at least) are spitting because they had the funding (e.g. Watsonians had a six figure sponsorship with DHL) and were loving it. Another factor apparently is Dobson going. Rumour has it that Dodson wanted to keep it going but others were not willing.

It is a shambles. Players are now dropping down a level from Super 6 knocking others down etc. If the SRU do not come up with a replacement then I think we are seeing the start of Scottish rugby's terminal decline. Whatever the issues in Wales, they have a full semi pro (and in some cases effectively pro) league beneath the regions that keeps the basic standard decent. One of my sons has played for both a Welsh and Scottish Premiership team and is quite clear the Scottish are not near the Welsh standard. Super Six addressed that.

Surely the point of the franchise model was that if a club found they couldn't afford it, the franchise would be allocated elsewhere? There were ructions when Glasgow didn't get a team, if a side can't afford it, take it off them and put a franchise in Glasgow.

If anything it confirms the stupidity of putting three teams in Edinburgh, competing for the same local sponsorship and having an overpopulated market for deals with bigger names.

But I'm sure the offside line and the clubs will be popping the champagne and having a big ol circle jerk to celebrate as they try to take the sport back to the 70s.

The problem is that four of the best funded clubs were in Edinburgh. On merit / funding there should have been four Edinburgh franchises plus Ayr and Melrose.

There was debate about putting a franchise in Glasgow and giving them extra funding compared to other franchises. As the pot was limited this would reduce the funding for everyone else to prop up a weaker club, so the decision was that it was better to put the money into clubs that are likely to make a go of it.

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:30 pm
Surely the point of the franchise model was that if a club found they couldn't afford it, the franchise would be allocated elsewhere? There were ructions when Glasgow didn't get a team, if a side can't afford it, take it off them and put a franchise in Glasgow.

Indeed, or try a franchise somewhere north of Stirling where you might one day want a third pro team.

This is a disaster. And I'm sure some will be delighted which is very sad.

weegie01 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:50 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 1:30 pm

weegie01 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:53 pm Word is that not all the clubs could afford it. Boroughmuir apparently are one. Clubs like Ayr, Watsons, Heriots (at least) are spitting because they had the funding (e.g. Watsonians had a six figure sponsorship with DHL) and were loving it. Another factor apparently is Dobson going. Rumour has it that Dodson wanted to keep it going but others were not willing.

It is a shambles. Players are now dropping down a level from Super 6 knocking others down etc. If the SRU do not come up with a replacement then I think we are seeing the start of Scottish rugby's terminal decline. Whatever the issues in Wales, they have a full semi pro (and in some cases effectively pro) league beneath the regions that keeps the basic standard decent. One of my sons has played for both a Welsh and Scottish Premiership team and is quite clear the Scottish are not near the Welsh standard. Super Six addressed that.

Surely the point of the franchise model was that if a club found they couldn't afford it, the franchise would be allocated elsewhere? There were ructions when Glasgow didn't get a team, if a side can't afford it, take it off them and put a franchise in Glasgow.

If anything it confirms the stupidity of putting three teams in Edinburgh, competing for the same local sponsorship and having an overpopulated market for deals with bigger names.

But I'm sure the offside line and the clubs will be popping the champagne and having a big ol circle jerk to celebrate as they try to take the sport back to the 70s.

The problem is that four of the best funded clubs were in Edinburgh. On merit / funding there should have been four Edinburgh franchises plus Ayr and Melrose.

There was debate about putting a franchise in Glasgow and giving them extra funding compared to other franchises. As the pot was limited this would reduce the funding for everyone else to prop up a weaker club, so the decision was that it was better to put the money into clubs that are likely to make a go of it.

Exactly, there isn't anyone in Glasgow or Aberdeen/Dundee willing to bankroll a semi pro rugby club.

It is a disaster the super6 has failed. But it's a symptom of rugby's lack of popularity in the country.

weegie01 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:54 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:52 pm The page isn't there anymore!

Players have been told, so it's happening. I have just been speaking to my son whose flat mate is a Super 6 player. Apparently it has been known but confidential for two or three days. My son was through in Glasgow visiting a couple of his Glasgow pro mates who had come up through Super 6 and they all knew yesterday. And since neither think they'd be playing pro without Super 6 they are appalled.

That's a fucking disgrace. Genuinely gutted at that.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:17 pm

Good to see Harrison and Sweeney in. Is this Boyles first game this season?

weegie01 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:53 pm Word is that not all the clubs could afford it. Boroughmuir apparently are one. Clubs like Ayr, Watsons, Heriots (at least) are spitting because they had the funding (e.g. Watsonians had a six figure sponsorship with DHL) and were loving it. Another factor apparently is Dobson going. Rumour has it that Dodson wanted to keep it going but others were not willing.

It is a shambles. Players are now dropping down a level from Super 6 knocking others down etc. If the SRU do not come up with a replacement then I think we are seeing the start of Scottish rugby's terminal decline. Whatever the issues in Wales, they have a full semi pro (and in some cases effectively pro) league beneath the regions that keeps the basic standard decent. One of my sons has played for both a Welsh and Scottish Premiership team and is quite clear the Scottish are not near the Welsh standard. Super Six addressed that.

And they've got a new domestic comp starting: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68279041

Begbie wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 3:20 pm

weegie01 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:53 pm Word is that not all the clubs could afford it. Boroughmuir apparently are one. Clubs like Ayr, Watsons, Heriots (at least) are spitting because they had the funding (e.g. Watsonians had a six figure sponsorship with DHL) and were loving it. Another factor apparently is Dobson going. Rumour has it that Dodson wanted to keep it going but others were not willing.

It is a shambles. Players are now dropping down a level from Super 6 knocking others down etc. If the SRU do not come up with a replacement then I think we are seeing the start of Scottish rugby's terminal decline. Whatever the issues in Wales, they have a full semi pro (and in some cases effectively pro) league beneath the regions that keeps the basic standard decent. One of my sons has played for both a Welsh and Scottish Premiership team and is quite clear the Scottish are not near the Welsh standard. Super Six addressed that.

And they've got a new domestic comp starting: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68279041

You have to bear in mind this is why Welsh rugby is a bit fucked - they are paying players in their semi pro / elite league around the same level we're paying for squad players in the pro teams - so their wages for players in pro squads need to be higher at the bottom end, and they're spending that across four pro teams plus the much higher financial commitment to their semi pro stuff.