I accept that completely. The Laws do not refer to scrimmaging so why should I. Just like "touchdown" when "try" was intended and "try line" when it is "goal line" Unfortunately that part of the article was the editors. No doubt he just missed his own spelling error.
Sort Beale out first. He is alleged to be the source of the current woes. If his behaviour is found to be inappropriate, then sack him. If Ewan has been intimate with a member of the staff or lied about when he knew of the texts then sack him too. But do one thing at a time, do it exceptionally well, finish it and then move to the next.
That said, why should Ewan be under the spotlight for hiring Patston? He was brought in to change the face of the Wallabies. She worked well for him in 2011 at the Reds. Why not try it at a Wallaby level. After all his remit was to change things. If Beale has done these things, they have not been caused by Ewan, Pulver, Hawker or the ARU. Why hold them out to dry?
Eales is in a position of conflict when he appears on HQ. He is obliged to speak of matters which are the private knowledge of the ARU. Unless he speaks with its consent it is not appropriate. Even then I would have thought the consent should be withheld. Airing dirty linen in public never ends well
Agreed. Further the Wallabies got away with murder at the scrum as soon as Alexander came on. He packs with his head below the level of his hips each scrum. That was why there was so many resets in the last 15 minutes.