**The OFFICIAL Rugby World Cup Thread**

[Groot]

Just had another thought, why did Parks take the drop goal chance he scored, we had the penalty advantage so we should have gone for the try with the fallback of a penalty in a decent position

[IMac]

Just had another thought, why did Parks take the drop goal chance he scored, we had the penalty advantage so we should have gone for the try with the fallback of a penalty in a decent position

 

I was yelling this at the TV

[kingantti1874]

Absolutely no doubt, and it looked like Scotland played for it, but the Ref wasn't even watch the Puma players.

[kingantti1874]

Absolutely no doubt, and it looked like Scotland played for it, but the Ref wasn't even watch the Puma players.

 

What worries me is if I can spot a blatant offside and I'm not that well versed in rugby rules all you can say is the ref is a dirty cheating barsteward.. Honestly though don't like the prospect of new Zealand in the quarters - that would have 50pt defeat written all over it

[neilnunb]

Just had another thought, why did Parks take the drop goal chance he scored, we had the penalty advantage so we should have gone for the try with the fallback of a penalty in a decent position

 

 

that did piss me off also. Parks probably saw the glory for himself.

[shaun.lawson]

I've a weird feeling that Argentina will beat Scotland... only for Scotland to then beat England.

 

One down, one to go. That was very unlucky - and Wayne Barnes was, as usual, poor. As I understand it now:

 

If Scotland beat England, score four tries in the process and win by more than seven points, Scotland will go through and England will go out.

 

If any of the above doesn't happen, Scotland will go out.

 

Four try win by more than seven points. That's unlikely - but hardly impossible. I'm a bit worried by how England might approach the game too.

[JamboJay]

that did piss me off also. Parks probably saw the glory for himself.

 

Or maybes because it was a 'free shot' and advantage was still being played.

 

He was in front of the posts, and all be it a scabby kick it went through and above.

 

The pen was offset a bit and unless the intention was to kick into the corner and get a try from the resultant line out.

 

Possibly tin hind sight that might have been the best option.

[Larry]

One down, one to go. That was very unlucky - and Wayne Barnes was, as usual, poor. As I understand it now:

 

If Scotland beat England, score four tries in the process and win by more than seven points, Scotland will go through and England will go out.

 

If any of the above doesn't happen, Scotland will go out.

 

Four try win by more than seven points. That's unlikely - but hardly impossible. I'm a bit worried by how England might approach the game too.

 

Would be interested to know the last time Scotland scored 4 tries against one of the top tier countries? Absolutely no chance of happening

[JamboJay]

One down, one to go. That was very unlucky - and Wayne Barnes was, as usual, poor. As I understand it now:

 

If Scotland beat England, score four tries in the process and win by more than seven points, Scotland will go through and England will go out.

 

If any of the above doesn't happen, Scotland will go out.

Four try win by more than seven points. That's unlikely - but hardly impossible. I'm a bit worried by how England might approach the game too.

 

That's our best, and probably only, option Shaun. 1990 anyone

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

More importantly, why did Robinson bring Parks on in the first place? Jackson had been excellent.

 

 

The guy is clueless and useless.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

Like in football, there really now has to be root and branch change in Scottish rugby.

 

The taint of amateurism still runs deep in our game,

 

We have not had a set of backs in nearly 20 years capable of scoring tries and our forwards are incapable of holding onto the ball.

 

I don't blame Andy Robinson, but today was awful. Nevermind conditions etc. The Argentine side are not great.

 

We may as well pack up and go home now as this was a disgrace today.

[southside1874]

Scotland beat England but still go out. Scotland come home to a champions reception for beating England. England go on to win the World Cup having only suffered one defeat to ............................Scotland.

[shaun.lawson]

Would be interested to know the last time Scotland scored 4 tries against one of the top tier countries? Absolutely no chance of happening

 

I'd almost alwaya agree - not under Andy Robinson, though. His whole purpose is to get Scotland playing free-flowing, try-scoring rugby.

 

I think there's a strong argument that Scotland playing as Scotland traditionally did under Hadden or McGeechan mioht have scraped through today, but your potential would've been very limited. As it is, Robinson should be commended for his ambition, which deserves better than narrow failure.

 

That's our best, and probably only, option Shaun. 1990 anyone

 

It's not just complacency that worries me. It's the mindset of knowing that narrow defeat would still be OK for England. I'm not sure if we'll know whether to stick or twist.

 

 

We may as well pack up and go home now as this was a disgrace today.

 

Er, why? Are you incapable of writing a post which doesn't feature constant hyperbole?

 

Anyhoo, a prediction: Scotland beat England next weekend, but not with the try count required. Argentina beat Georgia, but not with the try count required either... meaning Scotland exit on points difference.

[kingantti1874]

I would say England have no chance of winning the world cup... The Ireland result threw a. Spanner in the works though now the final looks a possibility...

[shaun.lawson]

I would say England have no chance of winning the world cup... The Ireland result threw a. Spanner in the works though now the final looks a possibility...

 

If it's an England-Ireland semi, Ireland will win. If it's a France-Wales semi, which I anticipate, Wales will win.

[kingantti1874]

If it's an England-Ireland semi, Ireland will win. If it's a France-Wales semi, which I anticipate, Wales will win.

 

I honestly don't think any of the northern hemisphere teams are any great shakes... Ireland did well but caught the Aussies off guard... It won't happen again IMO... the all blacks looked different class yesterday... I predict and new Zealand vs England final purely because of the way the draw has shaped up and a 25pt win for the all blacks in the final

[shaun.lawson]

I honestly don't think any of the northern hemisphere teams are any great shakes... Ireland did well but caught the Aussies off guard... It won't happen again IMO... the all blacks looked different class yesterday... I predict and new Zealand vs England final purely because of the way the draw has shaped up and a 25pt win for the all blacks in the final

 

You're right: none of them are. The ABs big test will come in the semi against SA or Aus (I've no clue who'll win their quarter-final, btw); but in the bottom half, I think it's all about style match-ups:

 

- France's free flowing style is almost always far too good for Ireland

 

- Ireland's forward-oriented style is almost always far too good for England

 

- England's forward-oriented style is almost always far too good for France

 

- Wales' free flowing style will probably be too much for Ireland; could be too much for France (Wales-France would be a fabulous semi, like no other all-NH contest ever seen at the RWC); and I think will be too much for England.

 

The other factor to consider is that either England or France would go into the semi fully expected to win, and defeat would be viewed as a disaster. I don't think either would be able to handle that pressure: and either will probably get their mental approach wrong against dangerous opponents with nothing to lose, and a fantastic, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

[billco98]

I was annoyed that an English referee was handling the game. Aside from his prema-dona antics he made several dubious decisions around the scrum, knock-ons and offsides which the commentator and Scott Hastings mentioned in commentary and which helped give the momentum to the Argies at vital points in the game. It may be going too far too suggest that he might want to help weaken Scotland's position in the group given that a win would have put us in a strong position in the the run-up to the game against England and a defeat would effectively put us out of the tournament, but there you go.

 

His error in not picking up the Argie offside at the Parks drop-goal attempt was at the very least incompetent.....

 

Also given the history between The UK (England)and the Argies he probably didn't want to be seen in anyway to be helping Scotland so if anything he went the other way.

 

Bitter and twisted, me? Aye, probably but there you go.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

I'd almost alwaya agree - not under Andy Robinson, though. His whole purpose is to get Scotland playing free-flowing, try-scoring rugby.

 

I think there's a strong argument that Scotland playing as Scotland traditionally did under Hadden or McGeechan mioht have scraped through today, but your potential would've been very limited. As it is, Robinson should be commended for his ambition, which deserves better than narrow failure.

 

 

 

It's not just complacency that worries me. It's the mindset of knowing that narrow defeat would still be OK for England. I'm not sure if we'll know whether to stick or twist.

 

 

 

Er, why? Are you incapable of writing a post which doesn't feature constant hyperbole?

 

Anyhoo, a prediction: Scotland beat England next weekend, but not with the try count required. Argentina beat Georgia, but not with the try count required either... meaning Scotland exit on points difference.

 

 

 

Why do you involve yourself in posts about another country's rugby team?

 

Scotland might pull of a win next week but FOUR tries?

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

I was annoyed that an English referee was handling the game. Aside from his prema-dona antics he made several dubious decisions around the scrum, knock-ons and offsides which the commentator and Scott Hastings mentioned in commentary and which helped give the momentum to the Argies at vital points in the game. It may be going too far too suggest that he might want to help weaken Scotland's position in the group given that a win would have put us in a strong position in the the run-up to the game against England and a defeat would effectively put us out of the tournament, but there you go.

 

His error in not picking up the Argie offside at the Parks drop-goal attempt was at the very least incompetent.....

 

Also given the history between The UK (England)and the Argies he probably didn't want to be seen in anyway to be helping Scotland so if anything he went the other way.

 

Bitter and twisted, me? Aye, probably but there you go.

 

He seemed to never take into account the slippery conditions re the scrums and did miss a lot.

 

He was poor but Scotland were infuriating again in losing turnover ball and failing to take chances.

 

That ball should have been whipped back to Parks immediatetly at the end for a drop goal attempt. Any other team with a spark of professionalism would have done that.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

More importantly, why did Robinson bring Parks on in the first place? Jackson had been excellent.

 

 

The guy is clueless and useless.

 

You should be asking why the forwards did not whip the ball back to Parks at the end for a drop goal. They never looked like scoring themselves and they dicked about and lost momentum. Any decent side in a similar predicament would have had the drop goal option used without hesitation. Sheer amateurism.

[shaun.lawson]

He seemed to never take into account the slippery conditions re the scrums and did miss a lot.

 

He was poor but Scotland were infuriating again in losing turnover ball and failing to take chances.

 

That ball should have been whipped back to Parks immediatetly at the end for a drop goal attempt. Any other team with a spark of professionalism would have done that.

 

You should be asking why the forwards did not whip the ball back to Parks at the end for a drop goal. They never looked like scoring themselves and they dicked about and lost momentum. Any decent side in a similar predicament would have had the drop goal option used without hesitation. Sheer amateurism.

 

New Zealand 2007. Apart from being runaway World Cup favourites and the number one team in the world, were they a decent side, FWJ?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

This has got glorious defeat written all over it

 

Meh

[shaun.lawson]

Meh

 

Y'know, you're awfully good at this sort of thing. What's your record like with the bookies?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Y'know, you're awfully good at this sort of thing. What's your record like with the bookies?

 

Sensational.

 

Coupon came in yesterday for about the first time in seven years

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

New Zealand 2007. Apart from being runaway World Cup favourites and the number one team in the world, were they a decent side, FWJ?

 

So? Scotland have shown their incapability at scoring tries and in such a position the drop goal was the only realistic option.

 

Remember Jeremy Guscott, second test Lions V Bokke 1997?

[shaun.lawson]

So? Scotland have shown their incapability at scoring tries and in such a position the drop goal was the only realistic option.

 

Remember Jeremy Guscott, second test Lions V Bokke 1997?

 

'Course I do. But you act as though scoring a DG late on to win a game of this magnitude is some piece of piss which all decent international sides manage all the time. My point is: it isn't, and they don't.

 

Today, Parks scored one and missed one. That's actually pretty normal. Had he converted the late chance, no-one on here would be moaning; everyone would be celebrating. The idea that, because he missed, there should therefore be "root and branch change throughout Scottish rugby" and it renders today "a disgrace" is completely risible.

 

I think you should read post 229 on page 6, and pay close heed to it. As other, much more informed posters than me have pointed out, on their resources, Scotland do remarkably well most of the time.

[Denny Crane]

Just had another thought, why did Parks take the drop goal chance he scored, we had the penalty advantage so we should have gone for the try with the fallback of a penalty in a decent position

 

Are you sure it was a penalty advantage? Because if so, Barnes would have made an error in not bring play back for the penalty to be taken. If it was a scrum advantage then Barnes would be within his right to say advantage over.

[AWM]

Like in football, there really now has to be root and branch change in Scottish rugby.

 

The taint of amateurism still runs deep in our game,

 

We have not had a set of backs in nearly 20 years capable of scoring tries and our forwards are incapable of holding onto the ball.

 

I don't blame Andy Robinson, but today was awful. Nevermind conditions etc. The Argentine side are not great.

 

We may as well pack up and go home now as this was a disgrace today.

 

1999 was the last time we had a decent set of backs capable of scoring tries. We scored 16 tries in the 5 nations, unthinkable these days.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

1999 was the last time we had a decent set of backs capable of scoring tries. We scored 16 tries in the 5 nations, unthinkable these days.

 

 

Bring back Alan Tait..

 

But before that season and after it the paucity of tries was and has been alarming. We had two good wins over Argentina on that tour and have went down hill since.

 

Ireland were able to pull themselves up after years of being even worse than us. And Wales had a resurgence, but we are going nowhere and it all stems from the top. The devastation done to the clubs since these superclubs came on that cannot give away tickets for their matches. Who wants to support Edinburgh or Glasgow? And the South has disappeared, the heart of Scottish rugby. An absolute disgrace. I remember Currie RFC putting out 5 teams every week in the early 90's now they can just put out three. Other smaller clubs can barely find a second team these days.

[grumpy rebus]

Are you sure it was a penalty advantage? Because if so, Barnes would have made an error in not bring play back for the penalty to be taken. If it was a scrum advantage then Barnes would be within his right to say advantage over.

It was definitely penalty advantage. Parks just made an error of judgement. My gripe with him is that in our multitude of phases at the end, he never once challenged the gain line. He continually ran sideways, squeezing his backs and then giving them static ball, well behind the gain line. You could have O'Driscoll, SonnyBill Williams, Tualangi or most centres outside, but if they get the ball when the defence is organised and they are 10 yards behind the gain line, they'll struggle.

[Denny Crane]

It was definitely penalty advantage. Parks just made an error of judgement. My gripe with him is that in our multitude of phases at the end, he never once challenged the gain line. He continually ran sideways, squeezing his backs and then giving them static ball, well behind the gain line. You could have O'Driscoll, SonnyBill Williams, Tualangi or most centres outside, but if they get the ball when the defence is organised and they are 10 yards behind the gain line, they'll struggle.

 

Your gripe on Parks aside, are you definitely sure is was a penalty advantage (was ref's arm raised high - penalty - or to the side - scrum?) because this sounds like a howler from the referee.

[Ryan Gosling]

Bring back Roger Baird.

 

He played rugby right?

[Chris Benoit]

Your gripe on Parks aside, are you definitely sure is was a penalty advantage (was ref's arm raised high - penalty - or to the side - scrum?) because this sounds like a howler from the referee.

 

 

Their talking about when Parks did score the drop goal, we had the opportunity to go for a try which would have put the game beyond Argentina knowing we would still have the pen to fall back on

[Denny Crane]

Their talking about when Parks did score the drop goal, we had the opportunity to go for a try which would have put the game beyond Argentina knowing we would still have the pen to fall back on

 

 

Ahh... now I'm with you.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

What's the deal with Melrose, Gala, Hawick etc these days? When I was young, they were top of the pile up north. Are they now just parochial, no-mark clubs or to they still have some influence on the Scottish game and the national team?

 

It's years since Scotland had any flair to speak of. The players are so bang average

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

What's the deal with Melrose, Gala, Hawick etc these days? When I was young, they were top of the pile up north. Are they now just parochial, no-mark clubs or to they still have some influence on the Scottish game and the national team?

 

It's years since Scotland had any flair to speak of. The players are so bang average

 

The Great Jim Telfer helped to sign them and the South of Scotland rugby side to oblivion when the 'super-teams' where created in the mid 1990's. The thriving club scene in Scotland has never recovered becuase clubs especially the life blood of the game, the smaller clubs, were completely sidelined by the SRU and ignored.

 

Professionalism was a disaster for Scottish rugby as we were just not prepared for it.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

The Great Jim Telfer helped to sign them and the South of Scotland rugby side to oblivion when the 'super-teams' where created in the mid 1990's. The thriving club scene in Scotland has never recovered becuase clubs especially the life blood of the game, the smaller clubs, were completely sidelined by the SRU.

 

What I don't understand is why. How could three super clubs ever be enough to supply a national team whose regular opposition is England, France, Ireland, Wales? And weren't the established clubs in the best position to grow in strength most quickly?

 

Excuse my ignorance, but is there a single current Scotland player who plays for what we would call one of the old bread and butter clubs?

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

What I don't understand is why. How could three super clubs ever be enough to supply a national team whose regular opposition is England, France, Ireland, Wales? And weren't the established clubs in the best position to grow in strength most quickly?

 

Excuse my ignorance, but is there a single current Scotland player who plays for what we would call one of the old bread and butter clubs?

 

Not in Scotland.

 

I think the SRU paniced in the 1990's and believed that clubs like Melrose, Gala etc would not have big enough infrastructures to take on European sides but they forgot that at least these clubs have a SUPPORT base and that is what I think they should have built on.

 

It's all a bit academic now. Scottish rugby was thriving in the early 1990's on the back of 1990 and a good World Cup in 1991 then it all went sour. The Hastings' Chalmers, Armstrongs etc all played for clubs in Scotland and were able to compete with the worlds best but maybe the SRU felt that professionalism would bring foreigners to England/ Wales rather than Scotland and Scottish clubs didn't have the cash to compete, totally forgetting the then example of Scottish football where small clubs could still provide players who went on to bigger things. It was a mistake as far as I am concened and the clubs have never forgiven the SRU for it. Many clubs are dying slow deaths and some can barfely put out two teams in the lower leagues some weeks which is a crying shame as that type of rugby is the heart and soul of the game.

 

Teams like Melrose, Hawick etc get bigger crowds that Edinburgh or Glasgow still. But something has to be done because today's result to me is a watershed moment. We are looking to go out of the World Cup for the first time ever in group stages.

 

Its been coming.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Interesting post, thanks. It makes me wonder why the clubs didn't resign from the SRU en masse. Melrose, as an example, were by far the most successful club when I was a kid. Wouldn't they have looked at the SRU's plans and said 'this is going to sideline us'?

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

Interesting post, thanks. It makes me wonder why the clubs didn't resign from the SRU en masse. Melrose, as an example, were by far the most successful club when I was a kid. Wouldn't they have looked at the SRU's plans and said 'this is going to sideline us'?

 

 

I've forgotten most of the details, mate, but there was a big row at the time about it. Telfer played a big part and he was Mr Melrose remember.

 

The bottom line is, we weren't prepared for professionalism and many believe we took the wrong path to deal with it back then. The clubs you speak about are really now just glorified feeder teams for Edinburgh and Glasgow. Melrose, Gala, Hawick, etc survived, but smaller clubs suffered the most as they were no longer on the SRU's list of priorities. Thus undoubtedly loads of talented youngsters have probably slipped through the net.

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union_in_Scotland#Changes_for_the_professional_era

 

@Freewheelin'

 

Do you have any links to attendance figures regarding Melrose and Hawick over the last five years?

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_union_in_Scotland#Changes_for_the_professional_era

 

@Freewheelin'

 

Do you have any links to attendance figures regarding Melrose and Hawick over the last five years?

 

I'll have a look but I was also concerned to note recently the recent chronic take up of season tickets for Edinburgh Rugby.

[Bert Le Clos]

First chance I've had to post about the game, was absolutely gutted this morning and I've been out all day.

 

Positives? Jim Hamilton had a good game. And our line-out and scrum worked resonably well against a good pack. If we're honest though, that was about it.

 

Regardless of what the Parks haters will say, the half-backs were poor today. Lawson's distribution was very poor, Jackson had to take several passes behind, in front, or sometimes above him. He also struggled when we needed quick ball, he was too indecisive; more than once he had the option of hitting a forward tight or shipping it wide early and he hesitated, giving the defence chance to re-organise. And he blew an excellent chance of a try in the 2nd half when he went blind on his own and got turned over.

 

That said, Jackson was also pretty poor. Kicking from hand was shocking, and he simply shuffled some of the shite he got from Lawson along the line and the midfield players had to collect ball from the ground well behind the gain line giving the Argies chances to counter-ruck when we were on the back foot. He's also not the creative maestro with ball in hand people make him out to be. Yes hes takes the ball to the gain line, but nothing much happens after this. Partly due to poor runners outside him, but on more than one occasion he tried to go on his own and got turned over.

 

Outside backs had chances of overlaps and blew them. Someone needed to come into the line straight and either carry ball, or fix a defender and have the ball put behind them to the man outside. Instead the backs all drifted and made the defences job easy.

 

Forwards were 2nd best at the breakdown all game, again sometimes it was a bad decision by the ball carrier to go on their own, but Barclay and Brown are meant to be breakdown specialist and were found wanting too often.

 

Ross Ford again seems to be living off performances from two or three years ago. And I'd have started with Blair instead of Lawson who I've never thought was up to standard. Same old, same old for Scotland as usual though, we've gone backwards while other teams have made huge strides forwards. And if teams like Italy, Georgia and Samoa keep improving some serious dark times could be ahead.

[Bert Le Clos]

Just had another thought, why did Parks take the drop goal chance he scored, we had the penalty advantage so we should have gone for the try with the fallback of a penalty in a decent position

 

I didn't notice this actually, did we have a penalty advantage?

 

As far as I was aware, you can't kick away penalty advantage? If it's a scrum or free kick advantage and you kick the ball advantage is automatically over but I've definitely seen refs go back for a penalty after a drop goal is missed.

 

Incidentally, I also thought Argentina were offside from the ruck when Parks attempted the final drop goal.

[Guest Freewheelin' Jambo]

First chance I've had to post about the game, was absolutely gutted this morning and I've been out all day.

 

Positives? Jim Hamilton had a good game. And our line-out and scrum worked resonably well against a good pack. If we're honest though, that was about it.

L

Regardless of what the Parks haters will say, the half-backs were poor today. Lawson's distribution was very poor, Jackson had to take several passes behind, in front, or sometimes above him. He also struggled when we needed quick ball, he was too indecisive; more than once he had the option of hitting a forward tight or shipping it wide early and he hesitated, giving the defence chance to re-organise. And he blew an excellent chance of a try in the 2nd half when he went blind on his own and got turned over.

 

That said, Jackson was also pretty poor. Kicking from hand was shocking, and he simply shuffled some of the shite he got from Lawson along the line and the midfield players had to collect ball from the ground well behind the gain line giving the Argies chances to counter-ruck when we were on the back foot. He's also not the creative maestro with ball in hand people make him out to be. Yes hes takes the ball to the gain line, but nothing much happens after this. Partly due to poor runners outside him, but on more than one occasion he tried to go on his own and got turned over.

 

Outside backs had chances of overlaps and blew them. Someone needed to come into the line straight and either carry ball, or fix a defender and have the ball put behind them to the man outside. Instead the backs all drifted and made the defences job easy.

 

Forwards were 2nd best at the breakdown all game, again sometimes it was a bad decision by the ball carrier to go on their own, but Barclay and Brown are meant to be breakdown specialist and were found wanting too often.

 

Ross Ford again seems to be living off performances from two or three years ago. And I'd have started with Blair instead of Lawson who I've never thought was up to standard. Same old, same old for Scotland as usual though, we've gone backwards while other teams have made huge strides forwards. And if teams like Italy, Georgia and Samoa keep improving some serious dark times could be ahead.

 

Sums it all up.

 

Hard to work out how we went from winning a tour to Argentina with what has happened today and if truth be told, this World Cup and our 6 nations performaces over the last couple of years.

 

If only we could eradicate at least half of these awful turnovers which for me are the most unfuriating aspect of our game.

[Coco]

The Great Jim Telfer helped to sign them and the South of Scotland rugby side to oblivion when the 'super-teams' where created in the mid 1990's. The thriving club scene in Scotland has never recovered becuase clubs especially the life blood of the game, the smaller clubs, were completely sidelined by the SRU and ignored.

 

Professionalism was a disaster for Scottish rugby as we were just not prepared for it.

 

Jim Telfer did some good things as a coach but his impact on Scottish rugby will be counted as unbelievably negative for railroading through the emasculation of the clubs.

 

On a wider view, once again 3 ways to make the game better:

1) allow fewer substitutions - one of the best bits of a rugby game was the bit when the poorer/less fit side tired towards the end of a game and the backs scored tries. With half the sides replaced this does not happen anymore.

2) get rid of the wetsuits - the scrummages are a complete nonsense with props penalised for not binding onto a surface which is almost impossible to bind onto.

3) time to take a penalty to be reduced to 15 seconds. Who wants to watch 15 minutes of every game wasted with Jonny Wilkinson psyching himself up?

[magicTs]

Not that I am expecting either to happen but can somebody please clarify if Scotland are required to score 4 tries in a victory over England on Saturday or simply beat England by more than 8pts ? The info I just heard on the radio was about as clear as mud !!!!!!!!!! Ta.

 

 

[Larry]

Not that I am expecting either to happen but can somebody please clarify if Scotland are required to score 4 tries in a victory over England on Saturday or simply beat England by more than 8pts ? The info I just heard on the radio was about as clear as mud !!!!!!!!!! Ta.

 

They need to do both. No chance

[The White Cockade]

I think an 8 point win would do it and we would go through for winning the head to head

can't see it happening though