Rugby World Cup 2007 - Twiddling Our Thumbs!

[Havak]

Ashton's card is now marked for retirement - I suspect he will be gone right after the RWC.

The problem is England put in a significantly worse performance than last week - and you really are not supposed to get progressively worse in your warm up games.

The main problem for me is he sounds just like his predecessor - still talking about a positive attitude amongst the players and how he thinks they will cause an upset at the RWC. How exactly will they do that Brian - by scoring a try perhaps?

France won't have taken much from that either - they were hardly impressive. It looks very much like we need to rely on the other SH sides to give NZ a challenge.

And how annoying that the Pumas blew it in the first half - they were clearly the better side throughout the second. I suppose France should stuff Wales next weekend - but I'm not sure they will.

[finbar]

Dearie dearie me.

"The first thing we need to do is get our strongest side out onto the field, we have not done that yet," Ashton added on BBC Radio 5live's Sportsweek.

"That's largely because our World Cup campaign didn't start until seven or eight weeks ago."

No, it's because you insist on picking people like A. Farrell, who aren't up to it against top sides, and omitting from the squad young attacking players who might, just might add some potency to the team.

"And we also need to be more ruthless. We have created opportunities in all three games but some of the more clear-cut ones we have not executed."

Same old excuse. See immediately above.

"We outplayed France last week ... "

No you didn't.

...and they outplayed us on Saturday."

For the second week in a row.

Does that mean we should be more worried than they should be? I am not quite sure.

Dolt. Take the retirement option, Brian. See my earlier post.

[LDiCesare]

France won't have taken much from that either - they were hardly impressive.

Their pack was better, but Laporte is still dreaming of having Marconnet fit for the World Cup, despite every hint that the Parisian prop won't. I hope he's right, but this seems very unlikely. Pelous had a good match, which is nice since he was my biggest doubt in the second row.
Still, our full back is uninspired, and Harinordoquy botched a try by not giving him the ball. I suppose Laporte will have shouted his ears off after the match.
How Ashton finds positives in this match I can't think. Maybe Wilko's defense preventing Nyanga from scoring impressed him? But then how did the French player manage to get near the score line in the first place, with three English on the back?
France is not showing great stuff, but at least they're improving. Next week match won't teach much: It's likely to be a second team match. Furthermore, Wales are not that much of a threat if the French can deprive them from the ball, which they should.

[finbar]

Just to rub salt into the proverbial, the Australian U18s defeated England U18 11-3 in Brisbane over the weekend. I'm sure the England U18 coach commented afterwards that morale in the camp remains high.

[Andydog]

Originally posted by Havak
And how annoying that the Pumas blew it in the first half - they were clearly the better side throughout the second. I suppose France should stuff Wales next weekend - but I'm not sure they will.

I thought Argentina looked rusty and scrappy in the first half, lack of training and familiarity definite factors. If Wales had been a bit more clinical they'd have scored more tries.

In the second half Argentina came together a bit more and really put Wales on the back foot. The Argies hoarded possession and made Wales to look vulnerable.

I don't know what this match tells us. Wales are better at pace, have some class players (Hook gets better each time I see him, goal kicking aside). Argentina punch well above their weight for team with the issues they have. Neither side were on their top form, both should get a bit better before the start of the World Cup.

As for the England France game - a big problem England have at the moment (apart from all their other big problems ) is the speed with which decisions are made. They really don't trust themselves and consequently the ball comes out slowly from the rucks and extra forwards are committed due to counter rucking. Even if England were robotic and went drive - ruck - drive - ruck - drive - ruck - spin it wide, then they might at least look like they know what they are doing. At the moment it is always slow and the defending team is always on the front foot.

Also, the French knew who was likely to be a problem and they defended them heavily, they also knew exactly what any of the others were likely to do, there were no surprises for them.

Ashton seems to be aiming squarely at a semi-final berth. Firstly because that is the uppermost limit of his expectation, secondly because it will allow him to keep his job, and thirdly because he thinks that anything can happen in a semi-final.

[Havak]

So he is only 66% wrong there then?

[finbar]

Yep. A 33% improvement on the norm is certainly something.

They seem to be trialling the "Stellenbosch" rules in the new ARC comp in Australia, their version of the NPC. Not sure what they entail exactly, but, apparently, you can use your hands in a ruck situation providing you enter through the "gate".

[LDiCesare]

use your hands in a ruck situation providing you enter through the "gate"

Do you mean hands or fists? One would soon lead to the other, since most players won't understand the change in the law and try to punish an offender. I'm not sure it's a very good idea, because I know I could lunge into the ruck in order to put my hands on the ball just in order to prevent it from being played by the other side. I'd obviously do that only if it was legal, in case you wonder.

[finbar]

Your reputation for purity of intention and commitment to fair play, not to mention your lifelong devotion to the upholding of the spirit of the laws of the game, precede you.

Apparently, for the first week, the rucks were a sh*tfight. As you suggest.

EDIT. Here are the aforementioned rules, or the main ones anyway:

1. At the breakdown, players can use their hands at all times. They must come into the breakdown "through the gate". No foul play is allowed. Otherwise, anything goes. The side that takes the ball into the breakdown and can't release it is penalised.

2. Either side can use as many players as they like in the lineout, at any time, providing they fit inside the 15-metre line.

3. If the ball is passed or run back into the 22 and then kicked out, the lineout is taken from where the kick was made.

4. Long-arm penalties are to be given only for offside and foul play. All other penalties are short-arm penalties (free kicks).

5. The maul can be collapsed by defending sides.

6. Touch judges are to become "flag referees" with a primary responsibility, like a football touch judge, of policing the offside lines.

[Havak]

Number 5 is is likely to be hugely controversial in Europe I would say. Who the heck comes up with these new laws?

[LDiCesare]

I jumped too when I read number 5.
A friend of mine will be so nostalgic. He used to be an expert at collapsing mauls. If he could still play, I wonder if he'd still do it considering it's become legal.
This law 5 should never pass. It's killing forwards play as you'd always collapse the maul before it's got time to run and organize well.

[finbar]

It's a stupid idea. The maul is one of rugby's great sights.

Who the heck comes up with these new laws?

Who convened the conference to hatch the new laws? Your friend and ours ...

Paddy O'Brien!

[Havak]

Oh. Not that surprising then.

How broadly consultative was that conference? I'm intrigued who has put their names to these trial laws and where those consenting delegates came from?

Amendment 3 is the only one I would like to see tested I think. It strikes me that 1,2 and 5 will favour certain sides far more than certain others. As I don't want a bun fight with anyone over my opinions on that I leave you all to decide what nations benefit most from them.

Although I will say Wales would benefit from the line out change - the whole team in the line might let their highly accurate hookers actually find someone for once.

[finbar]

Former Test match referee Paddy O'Brien - now the IRB's referee manager - is one of the brains behind the changes, along with former international coaches Rod Macqueen, Ian MacIntosh, Richie Dixon and Pierre Villepreux.

Who are Ian MacIntosh and Richie Dixon?

I found a breakdown of Paddy's reasoning for the changes but can't find a way to post a link. Suffice to say that his justification for allowing a maul to be pulled down is that it's too hard to stop a maul legally.

I like #6. Long overdue.

EDIT. Here's a cobbled-together cut and paste of some of the official reasoning:

CREATING SPACE:

Concerned by an increasingly over-populated midfield area, the Stellenbosch
laws require the backs to be at least 5m behind - rather than level with - the hindmost foot of the scrum.

"At scrums, all non-participating players - except scrum-halves - must be at least 5m behind the number eight's feet," said O'Brien. "This gives much more room for the back lines and helps make for a more skilful handling game."

THE BREAKDOWN:

With more than 30 offences to consider, the referee's job at the breakdown (the battle for possession after a player is tackled) is extremely difficult.
So the new laws propose the removal of many pages from the law book by allowing players to handle the ball in the ruck.

"Everyone accepts it's a mess at the moment," said O'Brien. "Players - so long as they're onside, have entered from the back and are on their feet - can play the ball with their hands. With these laws, players fight for the ball and the best man wins."

COLLAPSING THE MAUL:

A certain type of rugby fan gets very excited by the rolling maul, and for years collapsing it has led to an automatic penalty. But the Stellenbosch laws allow the defending team to stop the maul's progress by dragging the whole thing to the floor.

"Some people will be horrified to hear this, but studies show it's not dangerous," said O'Brien. "Although the maul is a great part of the game, one of the problems is how to stop it legally. So we're saying the defending side can collapse it."

DEFENSIVE KICKING:

Being able to kick the ball out on the full - i.e. without bouncing - from inside your own 22m area is a long-standing rule and there is no change to this. But the Stellenbosch laws remove the option of a player passing the ball back inside the 22 for a team-mate to kick out on the full.

"If you do kick the ball out without it bouncing in the field of play first, the line-out will be from where you kicked it with the other team throwing in," said O'Brien. "We just felt that this was a negative in the game and could be done any with."

PENALTIES:

Players can be punished by having a penalty awarded against them for numerous offences. The IRB wants to change the balance, so most 'technical'
kicks which are invariably run rather than kicked to touch. Players cannot go for goal from free-kicks.

"With the exception of foul play (including deliberate/repetitive infringements), all penalties will be free-kicks," said O'Brien. "If, for example, a player breaks off the scrum, rather than a penalty that decides the match, it's a free-kick - we want players, not referees, deciding matches."

CORNER FLAGS:

Corner flags are located at the four corners of the pitch, where the touchline meets the try line. If a player knocks into the flag in the process of putting the ball down, the try is disallowed even if the player's feet and body are not in touch. So the new laws have removed the flag from the equation.

"At the moment tries are being disallowed when the corner flag gets taken out, so we're saying just get rid of it," said O'Brien.

LOOKING AHEAD:

Following the Stellenbosch trial, the IRB are keen to take the experiment onto the next level. With a target of introducing the laws to the whole sport in 2008, the experiment will continue in Scotland's Super Cup competition - for Premiership teams like Boroughmuir and Watsonians - from January next year.

"Ultimately, we want the game to be easier to play, coach, and referee - and easier for fans to watch," said O'Brien.

[finbar]

He's at it again:

After a promising first-half performance, England fell away in the second half against the French in Marseille and Ashton said fatigue was partly to blame.

"We've been training twice a day between Tests and the players' energy levels clearly dipped in the second half," he said.

"They need a rest and will be off this week, rejoining the squad on 29 August."