TMO decisions

There is little doubt that the TMO and getting decisions right more often is a blessing most of the time.

Wayne Barnes, for all I don't like his letter of the law above the flow and spirit of the game, demonstrated pretty well just how to use the TMO. He had possible infringements checked on fly and played on when they were OK.

That said, I wouldn't mind him going back and having them checked at the next break-down, or explaining - the crowd and viewers at home deserve to know questionable moments have been checked and reviewed as much as the players do. But a quick 10s "We looked at a possible high tackle back there and there's nothing in it," with maybe the best replay should suffice.

Then we had the England v Fiji game.

Jaco Peyper is NOT a bad referee. But, in all honesty he should never have awarded the try to the Fiji scrum-half. There were no officials near and the decision should have been "lets check, we couldn't see" and no one could have objected. A quick check, no try, no criticism. Once he has made the decision to award the try, (or to deny it) that decision should stand even if he sees a replay that shows he made a mistake as clearly as he did. Joubert did the same too (although that was the TMO's fault for not checking the whole of the try-scoring action).

The laws need to change. The referee should have three clear choices. Award a try, restart the game some other way, or call a time-out and consult with the assistants and/or TMO before making one of those two decisions. Once a try or a restart (scrum 5, 22 drop out, penalty etc.) is awarded, even if they are shown to be wrong, it is a referee error and the decision stands. Some lee-way - the referee can put his arm up (as if signalling a try) or signal some other choice (held up say) and then immediately call for advice to indicate their belief but their need to check.

On the flip-side, although it's not his fault, the recommendation from the assistant referee to check the Nadolo try was an cowardly one. Peyper, quite reasonably, couldn't see. He was close to the ruck, more than half the width of the pitch away. But that was quite clearly a try, why did we need to check? There was no hint of foul play either. Peyper wanted to award the try but the assistant recommended he check. The assistant is 2m away and has a clear view of the action. Peyper was more like 25m away and had 2 bodies in the way. Of course he's going to take that recommendation - he did exactly the right thing and should be commended, not pilloried for it. The muppet that made the recommendation should be pilloried though - what did he think he saw?

Ben Kay is of the opinion on neck rolls and the like that the public and the players will accept the referees and their assistants getting it wrong on borderline cases rather than going to the TMO on every case. While I have sympathy for this and in the long run this will be what it settles down to, I think for the first couple of weeks of the RWC we're not going to see it. Neck rolls are possibly more dangerous than most high tackles that we see these days. With a neck roll you grab someone around the neck and use that hold to roll them out of the ruck - which I imagine is as painful as it sounds, and it means it's a forward who is probably off balance and ends up with another forward landing on his head/neck. Most high tackles these days are an arm out in reflex with relatively little power or and arm which impacts high but is angled down - a lot of the power is not to the head/neck, it's spread over the chest/shoulders/arms still. It's undoubtedly more dangerous than being hit lower but the real old-fashioned head-high smacks are met by cards, often red cards straight away, and consequently have disappeared. The officials are keen to prove they're being really hot on this, and they're keen to prove they're going to be hot in terms of penalties and cards. I suspect they're also going to use the TMO a lot to drive that point home to everyone. Name and publicly shame to make sure all the players and coaches really get the message.

But will the actual TMO is a good thing, the process needs to be looked at and improved. And soon please!

Changing Northern Hemisphere Rugby to make it work

It's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that the Southern Hemisphere sides punch above their weight, have punched above their weight for years, in terms of their population compared to their world rankings.

Since the advent of professional rugby they've been the dominant sides in terms of Rugby World Cups, IRB world rankings and so on.

Although there are lots of things, one thing that I think really makes a big difference, and the recent rebranding of the Heineken Cup won't change, is the structure of their rugby competitions.

Obviously their internationals play test matches, in June against touring Northern Hemisphere sides, in August/September against each other and in November they tour the Northern Hemisphere. This is roughly the same as the reciprocal tours and the Six Nations. So lets assume that doesn't need to change. You can argue that home and away tests between South Africa, New Zealand and Australia (and Argentina now) are more of a challenge than Italy and Scotland in recent years but there are still a number of tough matches each year too.

Under that, though, the contests are very different.

In the Southern Hemisphere they have Super Rugby which runs roughly from February until June (or just after the June test window now, although this will probably change again next year) in which a smallish number of franchises (currently 5 in each of the SANZAR nations) plays. All the test players who are healthy play, along with a wider pool (about 4x as many others) who are mostly test hopefuls, rising potential stars. Then, while the Rugby Championship and November tours are going on, the next level down contest takes place. None of the test players are available, but there are (in New Zealand and South Africa at least) about 12 clubs in this contest. The non-test players and the really young up-and-coming stars mix and play for their provinces or similar. (There are levels under this too, called club rugby.)

In the Northern Hemisphere, although the fine details vary, there are large national (or super-national for Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Italy) leagues that play long seasons and play through the internationals as their time to play younger players as well. Then, although the new competition will change this slightly, there are bursts of 2 weekends back to back taken out several times through the year where the best sides from last season play against each other for 'European glory.'

Now, rugby is very much a sport where you learn the basics yes - how to pass, tackle, kick etc. - how to scrummage, perform in the line out and so on. But a lot of what makes the difference between a good player and a great player is doing the right thing, brilliantly, when under pressure in the right way. Some of that comes from within, certainly. But some of that comes from talking to people who have done it and are willing to share their experience with you and help you get it.

The Southern Hemisphere system gives you a system where the best players play against the best, but spread their experience somewhat. 50 or so test players dilute their experience to 5 franchises and 200 extra players, supporting the others who play reserve in their position. Those 200 people then take their experience to about another 400 or so players. Plus, of course, most of the time you won't have the test player and their sub playing for the same franchise so the test experience is spread out to two or sometimes three franchises.

In the Northern Hemisphere it stays very tightly within the silo of the club.

There are other differences. Particularly the New Zealand sides (and they're always the gold standard when it comes to rugby) tend to play very similar styles. Why not? It works nicely after all. Sides in the Northern Hemisphere very much have a sense of individual style, and then a different style (maybe) for their country. It's a bit different if you look at Australia and South Africa but not all that different - their styles are different to New Zealand, but they're largely similar to each other.

The remedy? It won't be easy. There's a lot of traditions and history to overcome and traditions that don't place the national side's glory at the top of the heap.

I think all the top tier NH nations need to have a contest that runs from perhaps a late September start until the 6N. Then a proper break for the internationals. Then a proper pan-european contest with, if possible, different sides. If not, at least pick the top sides THIS year so you don't have the farce of a side that was great last year but has disintegrated (with retirements and so on) and is dropping like a stone this year being in the top-flight contest. (It has happened, more than once.)

Will it necessarily fix things? No. I think you need to mix things up more than the clubs staying together so there's more spreading of knowledge and understanding and experience. While I'm a big fan of Warren Gatland I don't think the resurgence in Welsh rugby's fortune's is down to him. It's no coincidence that Wales moved to four or five (the numbers have changed) super-franchises with the older clubs under them, feeding players up.

Of course, while the remedy is relative easy to prescribe, this isn't a case of getting one patient to agree. As Welsh rugby - where there are relatively few stakeholders - shows, getting all the stakeholders to agree is a very fraught process. English rugby has more stakeholder. French rugby even more. Then agreeing some format for (another) new look European competition... I honestly doubt it will happen.

So, it's early for a prediction for the RWC. But barring injury disasters, don't be surprised if a team that plays South of the equator lifts it yet again.

Lions squad 2013

Test Side

1. Healy
2. Hibbard
3. Jones
4. Launchbury
5. Wyn Jones (c)
6. Warburton
7. Tipuric
8. Faletau
9. Phillips
10. Sexton
11. North
12. Twelvetrees
13. Edwards
14. Cuthbert
15. Halfpenny

Reserves

Jenkins, Best, Cole, Ryan Jones, Youngs, Farrell, Brown, Roberts

Dirt-trackers

1. Marler
2. Youngs
3. Grant
4. Hamilton
5. Coombs
6. Robshaw (c)
7. Haskell
8. Morgan
9. Weir
10. Biggar
11. Maitland
12. Tuilagi
13. Barritt
14. Bowe/Zebo
15. Hogg

Overal count per nation:

Wales 16

England 13

Scotland 5

Ireland 4

Healy is the only really surprising choice in the first XV, but the Lions probably can't work Jenkins back to starting fitness in time after the end of season in France. Wyn Jones wins his place as the experienced captain as well as on form. Twelvetrees for some creativity against the Aussie backs. Ryan Jones is there to cover a lot of positions and is probably unlucky on “utility back five” tag and how well that Wales back row worked against England. Parling is unlucky to miss the flight but I wanted the option of a big centre or an extra kicker from hand and so had to squeeze both Roberts and Farrell in somehow! If I swap out Farrell and Roberts for Hook, then Parling would get on the plane - but picking someone who no longer gets a lot of playing time on the international stage seems unreasonable.

In the dirt trackers, Maitland is in as a good utility back, but also with his Crusaders experience of other stadia, players and the like. I think someone with first-hand experience adds to watching video and well Wales know the main players all too well, I expect some fresh blood too, mainly from the young Brumbies on current form. I'd like to take both Bowe and Zebo, but I'm not sure on fitness grounds, so they're bracketed. Biggar starts here for extra experience. If Sexton is injured or out of form he'd jump straight up to the test squad for me, over Farrell.

If I can take extra bodies over the 38 listed, Parling and then probably the young Welsh prop (James I think?) make it up to a 40-man squad.

O'Driscoll, it won't surprise those of you that listen to me talk about rugby, doesn't make a 4th trip. Yes, he has a load of experience and flashes of brilliance. If he does go, he could provide the x-factor that wins a game for the Lions. But so could Edwards and Twelvetrees that I've picked in the centres ahead of him. I think they're more likely to do that than O'Driscoll, than the 2013 model of O'Driscoll anyway. Neither of them are as good as BOD in his pomp but in his final years? Both perform better week-in, week-out.

Six Nations 2013: Team of the tournament

As I normally do I'm going to review this season's tournament by looking at my team of the tournament. Injuries, a few suspensions and the like have made this harder than normal - people who probably should be included aren't going to make it because they missed too many games for me to feel it's fair to include them. In a break from tradition, however, I'm going to be lazy. Every team had its off periods. If Wales had shown up for the first half against Ireland, they might have won back-to-back slams. Or not of course. England failed to show up for the second half against Wales, and really failed to show up against Italy and in the first half against France. France didn't really show up until Scotland yesterday. In fact, rather satisfyingly, the order in the final table is in reverse order of the number of poor halves played. And, since Wales were imposing themselves on England before England fell asleep, and Wales and England were clearly better than the other four teams this year, I'm just going to do this: Eloise's team of the Six Nations: Look at the Wales team sheet from the match against England. From 1-15, I'm picking the Welsh team. Now, I should say, this is based on my habit of picking units rather than individuals as much as possible. The Welsh front row dominated the English, French, Scottish and Italian front rows. In fact it monstered most of them repeatedly and cruelly. That sort of thing rarely happens, certainly not against all those sides. So, although I have doubts about Hibbard's lineout throwing, Jones, Hibbard and Jenkins are in. The only place I'm not sure about this red domination is the locks on a unit rather than player by player basis. England's locks were very good, as a unit, at most scrums, carrying the ball, clearing rucks, and at the lineout. However, in that critical game, yesterday, they didn't dominate, so I'm going with the Welsh pair. I think Parling and Launchbury were better in the line out over the championship as a whole, but that is only part of their role and they didn't impose even that on the Welsh. There are individuals who are probably hard done by here. Parra along with Picamoles shone for the French. Comparing Parra and Phillips is rather chalk and cheese for scrum halves. But, to my mind, Phillips was strong throughout, whenever Wales needed him to be. He was helped in that by stronger people around him than Parra, but while Parra was great he couldn't drag his team-mates up and inspire them while Phillips could and did. Fofana was brilliant in the centres, as expected, and wasted for too long on the wings. Parese was suspended for a game, but brilliant and inspirational for the Italians. Picamoles, Parese and Read are in a meaningful discussion for "best 8 in the world" which is a step up for Picamoles now. Falatau, good Welshman that he is, is not in that discussion. However, if you were to list the top 5 number 8's I think he'd be in that discussion. There are a couple of South Africans, an Aussie, an Irishman and an Englishman who are also in that discussion but Falatau is there on merit. While thinking of the Italians, Masi also deserves a mention: he was clearly Italy's second best player after Parese, he was a strong, great full back, solid on defence, incisive in attack. Hogg too shone at full back. Halfpenny's goal kicking can be discounted (although not necessarily in terms of the impact of taking a task away from Biggar to let him concentrate on other things to his and the team's benefit) as outside the full back role. But Halfpenny hardly made a mistake throughout the five games and while he didn't make the sweeping, penetrating runs that Masi and Hogg both did, he was often the extra man to pass the ball to those big wingers. Hamilton, for the Scots imposed himself at lineout time, repeatedly. He was good around the park too. I think he'll be on the Lions tour, possibly at the expense of Evans, but as part of a pair the Scottish locks weren't strong enough for my list. Heaslip and Healey from the Irish can count themselves as unlucky too - but Heaslip had one shocker of a game and several mediocre games and doesn't make it to my list. The Irish hooker might count himself as unlucky too. But given I've been reduced to calling him "the Irish hooker" shows how much he imposed himself on my consciousness. Zebo is the other notable Irish absentee: Against Wales he was scintillating. Then he injured himself. He is a great talent but one game and ten minutes into the next one is not enough to get you into my list for team of the tournament. Before the tournament Sexton would have been written in to most people's lists. After his injuries he's not making my team of the tournament consideration. He'll almost certainly go to Australia in the summer though. There aren't enough names here for a Lions touring team - but I'd be surprised if there aren't a LOT of Welsh players on the plane.

Start of the Six Nations

France beat Italy in Paris. Not really any surprises there, although seeing a French side play very much like the All Blacks is a bit scary. They defended and as soon as their was a critical mistake from Italy they swooped and ruthlessly scored tries. The verve and fire from France, the élan that we associate with them - and with the All Blacks in fairness - was absent and they didn't seem to really create but the coach and the players will, I suspect all be happy. It will be interesting to see how France do against Ireland and Wales though.

Italy seem to be still improving. Starting your campaign in Paris is not easy for anyone but despite a number of new players in this "just after the world cup" season Italy look better than they did overall last year (despite their famous victory over Les Bleus).

Scotland and England ugh. A poor side with a surprisingly porous defence managed to win over a side that created all the opportunities (Hodgson's try was good defensive play, not anything creative) because the more creative side seemed, en masse, to panic in the last 22m. Passes weren't thrown, when they were thrown they weren't good passes, when they were good passes they were still dropped.

Scotland have real problems. They really seem to lack composure in the attacking 22. They don't support attacking players well and they don't score their tries. But that will, I feel, paper over the cracks that were present in England's performance. I'm listening to pundits prattling on about how good the English defence was. The trouble is, it was at times, but watch the match and watch how often Scotland broke the defensive line - if they hadn't done that I would have commented on their poor play with the offloads and support play. England would have deserved their win if they had defended that well, because Scotland would never have created the chances that they blew.

Again it will be interesting to see how these two perform against the better sides. Wales, Ireland and France will rip these two apart. They might blow the odd chance but they will make plenty and convert most of them. There could be several 25+ point blow-outs this year.

What goes in to making a rugby great?

Obviously, from the player and their various coaches, physios and the like, a lot of work and effort and dedication. But that wasn't quite what I meant.

Rather, if you look at the sizes of player pools available why are some hitting way over their weight? Looking at the senior males numbers, England have 166,000, France 110,000, South Africa 109,000. Although there isn't a convenient sort routine, Australia at about 40k, then USA at 35k, beat out a cluster of New Zealand, Ireland and Wales at around 25k, then it's a step down to Scotland and Italy (around 12k) and then the rest of the world. (Note that Argentina don't report senior male numbers but have total males > Australia, so should possibly be up above Australia for senior males too.)

So why are the USA so low in the world rankings (17 at the moment). Although England and South Africa have been world number 1, I don't think France has, and New Zealand are, however much you might not want to hear it, the most successful side since rankings were introduced, with the highest ever rating and by far the longest possession of the number 1 spot despite being 6th or 7th in terms of total size?

I suspect the answer is largely in the mind. Or perhaps more accurately in the experience. While you can argue who the fittest (in a physical sense) individual is, certainly down to Italy and Scotland in the rankings and sizes, you don't see sides routinely win because of better fitness - although you can see sides in the lead stretch that with a combination of mental and physical willingness. But rugby, perhaps more than any other team sport, is about the brain. Making the choices to join the ruck or stand off, pass, off-load, take the tackle and so on. They are all essential choices in rugby that every player makes throughout the game. This is why someone like Brian O'Driscoll is still a very good player. He doesn't have the speed and agility that made him dangerous as a younger man, but he knows now much better how to apply himself, when to find that extra burst of power or force his old bones to make that swerve. (OK, I'm making him sound like he's only walking with a zimmer frame and he's still fit enough for 80 minutes of international rugby but it is clearly getting harder and harder for him to stay at the top level physically.)

And here, I think, national culture and club structures play a vital role. England and France play club rugby not to lose and with a lot of foreign players. The former Celtic league (now with Italy of course), Super Rugby and the like, play largely with home-grown players and because there is no penalty beyond pride for losing, they play to win. In addition, all these countries have relatively few top-flight sides - four or five typically, but because they're largely home-grown talent you also have a solid pool of players at the highest level not dissimilar to the pools of the biggest countries' unions. Plus you have the benefit of being able to choose more combinations of players used to playing together at club level as well - Nonu and Smith (both Hurricanes) beat out any combination with SBW in big matches due, I largely suspect, to familiarity. When Carter and Slade went down, Cruden (also a Hurricane last year) slotted in comfortably between Weepu (ALSO a Hurricane) and Nonu - how much did that familiarity help them all?

Add to that in New Zealand well coached, structured and scouted rugby from at least the age of seven, and a system (NPC) under Super Rugby level that mixes new talent, talent at current Super Rugby but not quite All Black level and retired All Blacks for a year or two, and you also get a system that spreads the skills and experience into the youngsters.

And that, I suspect, is the true magic. All those things that we're used to seeing the All Blacks do so well, year after year, game after game, are down to the fact that when as a brash youngster of 22 or so they take they field, they play with an extra chunk of year's experience behind them of playing top-flight competitive age-group rugby. They're making the smart choices of the BOD of today, with the physical exuberance of the BOD of a decade ago.

Team of the tournament

It's very tempting, from 1-15 to put All Blacks' in here. They did, after all, win so as a team they were the best.

But after a close semi-final, close 3-4th play-off and close final it's pretty clear that's not fair to a lot of class players.

As usual for me, I'm going to look for what I consider to be consistency through the tournament wherever possible, and cluster players by groups to some extent.

Front Row:

This is an almost impossible choice. How many sides wouldn't welcome Woodcock, Mealamu, Franks, Poux, Servat and Mas, Jones and Jenkins (at least) into their front row. Add to this, those first choice players were occasionally beaten in a game by their opponents, but occasionally beat them too. Even Australia showed up in the 3/4 play off.

Woodcock gets the nod for me, that try being the icing on the cake. Jenkins on the other side - rarely beaten in the tight, plus tackling and carrying all around the park. Mealamu just edges Servat. Mas and Franks unlucky to lose out, and although Jones didn't make the cut, Wales certainly need him.

Second Row:

Again a hard choice. Chateris made Wales have a line out again. The other Welsh locks didn't let their side down, but seemed to rotate a bit too much for consideration. Nallet always looked good. Thorn and Whitelock started every match and never looked bad. Horwill led Australia well and Sharpe looked good when he played.

I'm going to give the nod here to Thorn and Whitelock. The AB line out never creaked when the ball was near them, and they stole ball from everyone.

Back Row:

An embarrassment of riches here. Warburton, Pocock, McCaw, Dusatoir all competing for one place. Harinordoqui, Read and Faletau for another, Lydiate and Kaino for the third.

McCaw gets one berth. He beat Pocock round the park in that semi while it was close with Dusatoir, more consistent through the whole tournament gets him the nod. Warburton loses out for a nod here thank's the Alain Rolland. But he (and Brussow) will be fighting Ritchie's crown over the next few years. Faletau just gets the nod at 8. He looked too good against France with and without Warburton to lose it to Harinordiqui, Read missed too many matches at the beginning, although he was probably the 8 of the knock-out stages. Kaino at blind-side. He was immense throughout the tournament.

Scrum-half:

Weepu wins here. All the others deserve a consideration - Yachvilli, Phillips and Genia would grace almost any team. Weepu gets it for me for taking the rotating junior 10's and making it work for them and the All Blacks. Yes, his kicking was off in the final, Yachvilli kicked well for France. Genia's movement of the ball was largely good. Philips certainly impressed. But Weepu picked up the potentially shattered hopes of a nation watching Carter collapse in pain, put them back together and dragged his various mates over the line.

Number 10:

Who to choose here? No one finished with their first choice. Cooper played most games, but looked really subdued in two critical games - bad against SA and NZ. Carter is still the class player. Cruden looked good in his 2 matches, but only played 2. Parra stood up in a relatively unfamiliar position and looked OK until the final. Priestland looked good, and Wales certainly missed him.

Priestland it is. He played more than any of them except Cooper and didn't have a bad game while he played. I think Carter and Cruden in years to come will be a devastating 1-2 for NZ, and not sure that Dan will be the man come 2015 any longer, but Priestland has had a great introduction on the biggest stage.

12 and 13:

Australia struggled to keep their centres playing too much for any to get onto the list when everyone else had their first choice play throughout. Sorry to you all - especially Barnes who probably deserved more time. Smith or Davis in one slot; Roberts, Rougerie or Nonu in the other? Before the tournament I would have said SBW would be on the list, but he didn't play enough, although he looked good when he did.

Roberts is an easy shout to my mind. He always looked dangerous, he made holes for others to exploit and put them through them reliably. Nonu had a quiet game or two, Rougerie to quiet in the pool stages.

Davis or Smith is harder. They both looked solid in all parts of their game, doing what was asked of them. Davis just edges it because he seemed to look more dangerous on attack - how much of this was playing outside Roberts I'm not sure but it's enough for me.

Back three:

Because they're so often interchangeable these days I'm picking all three as a group.

Fun and games here. Clerc - joint top try scorer? Williams who attracted attention every time he touched the ball and still scored some nice tries? Jane who looked so awesome under the high balls? Kahui who played there a lot and never looked bad despite playing out of position? North? Halfpenny? Dagg - who more or less kept Muliaina out of the XV when fit? O'Connor can't be overlooked either, not just for his kicking. Australia suffered a bit here with the poor form of their forwards and Cooper, the wings seemed too quiet, full back changed too much with centres getting crocked.

Clerc, Jane and Dagg. Clerc for the attacking edge just beats Williams and North. Jane for his amazing defence under the high ball, around the park and his ability to attack from there. Dagg... beating out Muliaina is no mean feat. He just edges Halfpenny despite the skill and long range kicking the latter brings.

So there we go.

9 All Blacks, 5 Welshmen and a Frenchman. A few Aussies that can consider themselves unlucky, injuries and the bad form of others pulled them down a bit.

Wales will be the side to beat come the 6N it appears...