I agree with that but with one caveat. He penalised Australia a number of times when the Bok front row just pancaked. Those penalties should have gone the other way. But, he was light years in front of anyone who has reffed us this year. The New Zealanders would have hated him because he would not have allowed their ruck tactics from the start.I thought the English ref had a pretty good game. Very clear communication, authoritative. A nice change from the usual faces.
Plus, full credit to whoever called that lineout.How about Kaitu'u's first involvement being a throw into the lineout and nailing it. How many times do you see a nervy rookie hooker bumble his first throw?
I don't see how you apt explanation of the balancing required in the tight 5 ....
What part did I miss that answered my questions? where did you address how Valentini and Isi or Wilson together forces Hooper to do more work or how it changes the Tight V dynamic? it definitely feels like I am missing something since, re-reading your previous post didn't illuminate answers to either of those questions. You claim the issue with Valentini and Isi both being in the backrow is because they don't complement Hooper due to offering the same thing and throws the backrow out of balance, but didn't provide an example of how Swinton does suit playing with Valentini at 8 since he's not any quicker or mobile, not any better over the ball, and not any more accurate at hitting rucks. You seem to be a bit aggravated by this whole debate based on your snarkiness, so I apologise for causing such frustration.Gotta say, your ability to completely miss the point - over multiple posts - is exceptional. Maybe I used too many syllables?
EDIT however I consider myself a generous person, so have some free education in this:
I have a colleague of whom this is a favorite phrase, used in the sense of "knock yourself out", "go for it", "have at it", "go to town", "help yourself". ("You want to add that feature to the soft...english.stackexchange.com
All of the above.
Sorry Dan54, I wasn't suggesting it was exclusively used by sides without attacking options, everyone attempts it, however I am suggesting those are the sides that would strongly oppose its' removal.
I think taking down the player at the front may be dangerous, my thoughts are simply that if the player with the ball is moving towards the opposing tryline, there must be no-one in front of him obstructing the defender.
Can solve the current maul imbalance with one simple change: use-it-or-lose-it happens once. As soon as it stops after "maul" is called, ball must emerge in 5 seconds, no further motion allowed.
Sanction: FK to the team who did not carry the ball in.