Wallabies World Cup squad announced: Horwill misses out

From a Rebels supporter Great to see Toby Smith getting the nod, also McMahon I agree with Spiro re Stirzacker - better than Phipps who is past his best (head case sometimes) and Stirzy is only getting better. Higgs would get my nod over Palu any day of the week. Palu has not impressed for years now, certainly nothing this year. Are others (wingers) practising line out throws? TPN can be poor at times and this becomes so important in tight RWC matches. I still remember Anton Oliver in RWC loss, couldn't toss for nuts and got worse in the tight games And who is this other imposter K K K Ken? I am sure I was the only one :) Odd

Not sure why you keep pushing this Red Kev .. you are simply wrong. If a hooker did get injured in the 48 hours prior to a test, the reserve prop not originally picked for the matchday 23 would be included amongst the 3 front row replacements. This is allowed .. The relevant rugby law (Law 3.5) simply states that in the matchday squad there must be three front row replacements, one nominated to cover each front row position, and that a nominated player must be “suitably trained and experienced” in the position nominated. There is nothing about having to have played a prior test in that position. Im sure that scrum training at hooker with an international team like the Wallabies covers “suitably trained and experienced”. Regardless, Rule 3.5 (M) “It is not the responsibility of the referee to determine the suitability of trained front row replacements nor their availability, as this is a team responsibility.” So it is up to individual teams do decide who is a suitable front row replacement. In the case of this Wallabies squad, I assume that Scott Sio (who played hooker at under 20s level) and Toby Smith (uncapped) will have been doing scrum training as replacement hookers in a worst case scenario. If one Wallaby hooker is injured within the 48 hours before a match (and cant be replaced), and the other hooker, starting is then injured, a prop, nominated as hooker, will have to come on at hooker. If that causes problems in the scrum, and the referee thinks it is the replacements hooker´s fault, the referee can penalise the player and eventually give him a yellow card in the case of repeated infringements. If the replacement hooker (who in the wallabies case is someone who is normally a prop) is given a yellow card or otherwise is injured scrums would then go to uncontested (if the Wallabies captain said they had no other player that could play hooker). If all 3 front row replacements have come on, one of them is forced to leave the field, and none of the starting front rowers are able to come back on, the Wallabies will have to play one man down.

Regarding the Hooker issue it is all a bit of an exaggeration. For this world cup players can be replaced after 48 hours (as opposed to the 72 in the 2011 RWC). If a hooker did get injured in the 48 hours prior to a test, the reserve prop not originally picked for the matchday 23 would be included amongst the 3 front row replacements. This is allowed .. The relevant rugby law (Law 3.5) simply states that in the matchday squad there must be three front row replacements, one nominated to cover each front row position, and that a nominated player must be "suitably trained and experienced" in the position nominated. There is nothing about having to have played a prior test in that position. Im sure that scrum training at hooker with an international team like the Wallabies covers "suitably trained and experienced". Regardless, Rule 3.5 (M) "It is not the responsibility of the referee to determine the suitability of trained front row replacements nor their availability, as this is a team responsibility.” So it is up to individual teams do decide who is a suitable front row replacement. If one Wallaby hooker is injured within the 48 hours before a match (and cant be replaced), and the other hooker, starting is then injured, a prop, nominated as hooker, will have to come on at hooker. If that causes problems in the scrum, and the referee thinks it is the replacements hooker´s fault, the referee can penalise the player and eventually give him a yellow card in the case of repeated infringements. If the replacement hooker (who in the wallabies case is someone who is normally a prop) is given a yellow card or otherwise is injured scrums would then go to uncontested (if the Wallabies captain said they had no other player that could play hooker). If all 3 front row replacements have come on, one of them is forced to leave the field, and none of the starting front rowers are able to come back on, the Wallabies will have to play one man down.

Sio actually played hooker at Under 20s level ... and during a game a player on field is allowed to switch positions in the front row (if Sio for example Sio is starting) so there is experience of playing hooker among the props.

In reality the whole Hooker “issue” is being overstated. There is one rule difference in this tournament, that players can be replaced in 48 hours for this tournament, not 72 as it was in 2011 … However for the Doomsayers. this means that if Australia lose a hooker in the 48 hours before a match, we will have no reserve hooker left, and therefore not fulfil the front row replacement rule, that you have to nominate 3 front row replacments, and the Wallabies will have to forfeit the match! Shock! Horror! Actually, it isnt really like that. Before a game a team must nominate its starting team plus 3 front row replacements, with at least 1 replacement for each front row position. i.e. in the case of injury to a front row player, in the first instance there must be a replacement available who plays that position so scrums can continue. The point is the rules simply state that a player must be suitably trained and experienced for a front row position they are starting in or nominated as a replacement for, but the decision as to WHETHER someone is suitably trained or not is completely the decision of the team. The rules are VERY EXPLICIT about this. “3.5 M It is not the responsibility of the referee to determine the suitability of trained front row replacements nor their availability, as this is a team responsibility.” It is pretty obvious that somebody, most likely Toby Smith, is being trained as a hooker. What people might not realise is that if a front rower gets injured a front rower already on the field may also change positions to replace them, i.e. Scott Sio could go to hooker and a replacement prop come on. So probably what is really happening is that several props are training as hookers And in the case of a last minute injury, whoever the left out prop is in the squad will be nominated as the hooker replacement. In the unlikely event of Australia losing two hookers in the 48 hours before a test, we could be in trouble, but that is nlikely Just to clarify and restate the law in the case of a second injury in a front row position, if the team has no other front rower capable of playing that position, but still has front rowers capable of playing other positions on the bench, then the game will continue with uncontested scrums (as happened in the All Black Springbok game a few weeks ago) If a front rower on the field is injuerd, and a team has used all 3 of its front row replacements, and no front rower who left the field is capable of coming back on, the team must play a man down. Anyway, summary, Australia is sending 7 front rowers to the RWC, if an injury happens more than 48 hours before a game, that player can be replaced, if within 48 hours and the player is a hooker, the prop who would have missed out being in the match day squad will be the nominated replacement hooker, although an injury to the starting hooker could see a prop already on the field also switch to hooker. In reality I dont think there are any real worries about the issue, unless two front rowers go down in the 48 hours before a game. Argentina have chosen the same squad make up regarding only two hookers.

:D Pretty sure Cake would pay not to pack it!

Cheika has a luxury that Shag doesn't in that he has Mumm who can play lock and backrow. Hansen wouldn't have a problem if Luatua or Tuipolotu were in the mix. Meanwhile Cheika has taken six backrow plus Mumm, it's overkill and caused us to leave necessary cover at home elsewhere.

Although a logical statement, WR would have had to have made that prerequisite as part of the tournament rules. Before the squad announcement. Cheika's taken a risk and has to live with the consequences should it hit the fan.

a deserved selection? He hasn't played a test yet so how does he deserve to play against Wales, Uruguay and England serious scrummaging packs in a RWC...

Fiji game is on a Wednesday and Uruguay the Sunday, given that a team sheet would have to be lodged in a day or so before that game it's debatable that replacement would be selected.

He isn't in. They've picked it. Nalaga and Nagusa weren't selected in the squad either but they are named as fringe players.

'World Rugby isn’t the KGB. They can’t stop a player having a holiday in England.' Naiyavaro, Horwill, White all have clubs to go to in Europe so they might as well go play for them. There are three days gap between the Fiji and Uruguay game so if a player is called up it's unlikely they will play. Uruguay are one team you would want a good scrum against as it is their strength.

It changed the course as the quarter would have been against Wales, semi against France and the Final against the shaggers or the Boks

Oh how much angst and red mist! I've read comments from some that now we won't make it out of the first phase because this or that favourite player wasn't picked! How ridiculous. We all have opinions, but so does the coach and hopefully he will prove some of us wrong. Although I'm a Kane fan, I agree he hasn't shown enough to justify his selection over Horwill. I'll bet we will still see Horwill in the UK, as injuries always happen. The lack of a third hooker is worrisome only because TPN and SM have a history of injury. To be safe I'd have dropped one of the (very good) wingers. But agree that Hanson wouldn't likely have seen the green. Law says suitable player, have seen props go in for hooker at professional level, don't think it's the legal disaster some make it out to be. I'm a critic of QC's current form, but don't see who could have been picked over him. I wish CLL had been given a go, but see him more as inside centre than ten. Overall it is a very strong squad. It will be a tough one, with three big games right up front, but I think we are up for it. GO WALLABIES!

David Pocock- third hooker???

well, that came out bad. Uploaded as an image here:

As a benchmark, the 2011 squad composition, something I put together during Chris / NY break last year Cent Flanker Fly Fullb Hook Lock 8 Prop Scr Wing Grand Total Argent 3 4 2 2 2 4 2 5 2 4 30 Canada 4 4 2 2 2 3 2 5 3 3 30 England 3 4 2 1 3 4 2 4 3 4 30 Fiji 4 4 2 2 3 4 2 4 2 3 30 France 4 4 2 2 3 4 2 4 2 3 30 Georgia 3 4 3 2 2 4 2 5 2 3 30 Ireland 4 3 2 2 3 4 2 4 3 3 30 Italy 4 4 2 2 3 4 1 4 3 3 30 Japan 4 3 2 2 3 4 2 4 3 3 30 Namibia 4 4 2 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 30 NZ 4 3 2 2 3 4 2 4 3 3 30 Oz 4 4 2 1 3 4 2 4 3 3 30 Romania 3 3 2 2 2 4 2 5 3 4 30 Russia 3 3 2 1 3 4 2 4 3 4 29 Samoa 4 4 2 2 3 4 1 4 3 3 30 Scotla 3 4 2 2 3 4 1 5 3 3 30 SthAfr 3 4 2 2 3 4 1 4 3 4 30 Tonga 4 3 1 2 3 4 2 5 3 3 30 USA 4 4 2 2 3 3 2 4 2 4 30 Wales 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 5 3 3 30

agreed RK. but that would require: 1. moore/TPN to go down within 72 hours of a match. 2. whoever remains from moore/tpn not being able to play 80mins. The likelihood of those things are slim at best

Cheika apologists? That's a bit strong, he has nothing to apologise about. His record with a team selected by him is pretty good.

I'd rather have Radike Samo in the squad than Kane Douglas. Dead Serious. Hope he proves me wrong, but can't see it happening.