Scots pip England to retain Calcutta Cup

Cheers, I had thought the RFU were limited with power in that respect. Although sounds similar to what we have here, regarding weeks off etc. trying to balance enough games to be in form and ready without hurting themselves. It leads into the need to have ever increasing squad sizes, which is a challenge. Cheers, thanks for the insights.

The RFU don't have as direct a control over the players as they do in NZ. However, they've reached an agreement with the clubs about the number of games an England squad player can play and there are mandated 'weeks off.' They still play more rugby than is ideal, though. The Irish probably have the best system in terms of international preparation. Sexton, for example, plays relatively little rugby for his Province. They'll wheel him out for the big European games.

Thanks for that. That’s tough having so many out through injury. Maybe Jones needs to see about increasing squad size and some serious man management to make sure he has the right players on deck when he needs them. In NZ the ABs have mandated rest prescribed to the provinces, do they do that in England or France? I think your boys over there play far more games too don’t you?

I'd be very uncomfortable betting any sizeable amount on who got to the SFs in 2023, let alone final. But, I presume, you have very carefully, and in depth, analysed the England squad, those on the cusp of breaking into it, the group/knockout trajectory, and come to a reasoned conclusion.

Yep, on current trajectory it should be a cracker, and more unpredictable than normal.

All injured. The Vunipola brothers weren't selected, so I didn't include them.

I've no idea what you're trying to say. From what I can make out, it seems to be that if England had scored 7 more points in the 1991 RWC final, they would do much better in the 2023 RWC.

26 Laws? How many discussions? By the time we finished the last one, they will have re-interpreted the first one and we go back to the start lol Completely agree ‘foul play’ infers something physically done to another player. I think even standing offside is considered foul play these days. It makes the ruling that TMOs can only go back to check ‘foul play’ so ubiquitous as to be meaningless.

Thanks again Paulo. Nicely put. My next problem is the use of the term “foul”. These have been, to me, punching, stomping, eye-gouging etc, anything designed to deliberately inflict physical harm. The sort of infringements we’ve been talking about are unsportsman like or against the spirit of the game. Perhaps another reason for my standing on the strength of penalty. 26 Laws, how many discussions could we have?

I can see your point about double punishment. I guess they have weighed the punishment that heavy as they have, to really disincentivize foul play. If you’re really stuck and only option is to infringe to stop a try, if there is no auto YC - why not give it a go? 1- Best case scenario, try is stopped and ref doesn’t call pen try. That’s a win. 2- Your infringement doesn’t stop the try and it’s scored. Typically you wouldn’t get pinged for the foul in this instance. Opposition get a try. 3- You stop the try and get penalised, pen try awarded. Opposition get a try, same result as 2. 4- you stop try, get a YC. Opposition get the ball back and have to try and engineer a try all over again. Opposition does not automatically get a try, you get to reset and organise a 14 man defence. That’s kind of a win for your team. Without the pen try and auto YC in combination, the risk/reward favours the defending/infringing team. Especially if you are down to the closing stages of a tight contest. It may take a few minutes for the attacking team to work the one-man advantage and get in a try-scoring position. So could be a very savvy tactic in the right circumstance. The interpretation has changed over time. But it is more applied now to reward the attacking side.

“Scotland kicking it dead deliberately to end the game” You can kick it out. You can’t bat it out with your hand. That’s why they kick it at the end of every game instead of just throwing it out. “I just have difficulty erasing that person from the situation, and the thought behind why he/she has to be erased altogether.” They get removed, partly because we don’t know what they would have done had they not infringed. So its the most parsimonious approach to remove them from the situation. By infringing they have forfeited their right to be given the benefit of the doubt on what they might have otherwise done.

Thanks Paulo. I do understand the wording of today’s Law. I was trying to say how it has changed over the years and does not seem to be as rigorous as it was in the past. Call me old school but I have a small problem with the offending team being penalised twice, a try being awarded and a player being sent off. There was a player there, the try was not scored. Bin the offender. If the attacking team is good enough, they probably score with a man advantage, the defender is no longer there. Or Penalty Try and the match recommences, 15-a-side. Just a few thoughts. What do you reckon?

Well, he reckons he didn't know he was committing a foul... again, I find that strange... but there are many different reasons over time where a try is prevented from being scored, some by cynical manner, others accidental foul play... To a point I agree with you, but I just have difficulty erasing that person from the situation, and the thought behind why he/she has to be erased altogether. Scotland kicking it dead deliberately to end the game... isn't that a professional foul? Penalty to England?

A terrific and genuinely interesting match. Also a case study about how the scoreboard numbers are more important than all the other statistics. Scotland deserve credit for their rapier-sharp counter-attack. The English defence were just a quarter-second behind in their thinking when Scotland scored their two tries. The ability of the Scots to catch and pass in a 5-metre wide rapier cut through a defence is world-class. Part of it is that there's a large number of players flooding that narrow band and they all know what to expect. The penalty try is an example. Finally (finally!) the Scots get the ball at a set piece. Fast movement up to the left-hand 22 England, fast delivery, fast kick-pass to the right wing where it's wing vs hooker. England were left gasping for air. In that aspect of the game, the English were out-thought.

Bookmarked this comment as a masterclass in fact-free posting. I mean, wow!

"In 2023, England will be fine." - yes, as proof with all of the RWC winners trophies in their trophy cabinet

There are instances where a player is all by himself, about to put the ball down for a try, and fumbles the ball. Nothing is ever certain, it’s all about probabilities. As a ref, you need to weigh things up. Removing the offending player in this instance. Ask - is he likely to catch the ball? For most players, you would say ‘yes’. And his position especially, you would say it’s a core skill, so yea, he is likely to catch it. Ask - is the cover defence? None that would reach him. Ask - how far is the line? It’s right there. This one is pretty clear cut. The law doesn’t ask it to be beyond a shadow of a doubt, just that it probably would have happened. If this seems to favour the attacking team, then the defending needs to do one simple thing. Do not deliberately infringe in a try scoring situation. The law is really designed, not to reward the attacking side, but to punish the defending side for infringing.

Why were they missing so many players? Are they all injured or did Jones rest them?

Jones will be there in 2023, but England will not make the final. I'm ok to money on it

Very impressive fast ‘guillotine’ attack. Scotland did well to contain it. Good game by both sides. We are heading for a tasty World Cup. Bench depth will decide it.