Wales looking strong after solid win over Scotland

Travesty with that disallowed try!

Unfortunately the last few minutes just killed Scotland....

But going back to the "ifs and buts"

IF that try had been allowed (and the kick was successful) it would have been 27-20 and I believe there were a couple missed kicks too...

Just saying that if Scotland had taken their chances (and not had a disallowed try) it would have been a lot scarier for Wales...

Of course, I'm well aware of the possibility that if Scotland had scored that disallowed try Wales could well have rallied up and scored 10 tries....etc.. so no need to harass me on the "if" comment...

@Pretzel I don't think the score would have been 27-20. You have to remember the Laidlaw's try came from the scrum that was a result of the 'knock on'. Really it was a case of one try or the other.

Agreed Ruggernut, the try came from events straight after the knock-on.
Many positives for Wales going into the England game, not least the fact that I don't think they have yet played to full potential. How lucky to have found not only North but also Cuthbert in the last 12 months?
The biggest positive for the 6N as a whole is that Scotland have finally unearthed a few potential game-changers (Laidlaw, Hogg, Gray). Having been in the doldrums for so long, it is good to see a glimmer of resurrection, and therefore a more competitive Scotland team, thus improving the NH standard.

Actually I forgot about that...

Ok then it's still a travesty lol...

Had Jacobson not got tooo excited and knocked on with the pick and drives then it could have been 27-20

I agree. It's a shame that Hogg's try was disallowed.

No way that was a knock on. That being said, and while I'm not up to speed on scotish rugby, what the hell are they doing? They go through games with a super narrow game (granted, they have a great forward pack, and one must play to one's strengths), run odd and predictable lines and decoys, as was shown in a huge hit by jon davies, I think, who knew where the ball was going and had more than time to have a cup of coffee before murdering the receiver, and then we have plays like that. Obviously there are some players (i.e., Laidlaw, Hogg) that have that X-factor, that can create something out of the blue. So why play such a narrow game, instead of using forwards to create difficulties in the defense and have quick ball to creative backs? Again, please fill me in, I dont know much about the scotish game. I think with their forwards, laidlaw, hogg, Visser in a not so distant future (cant wait for that) and maybe a scrummie with crisp service, a rugby brain and an atittude, scotland can become so much more...

I suppose Scotland has more recently had a "forwards game" (I'd say since 2003) or since the likes of hastings and townsend retired.... Similarly to England with the "maul, ruck, maul, ruck drop goal and repeat" sort of 10 man rugby...

And in some ways I think a lot of teams are scared to break the trend. For instance if you win the next 5 games playing 10 man rugby.. relying heavily on the forwards, you think woweee...

Then you get players like Lamont, who runs the ball, he takes the ball in hard and is pretty quick, but if you don't have the surrounding players for support all the hard yards are undone when Lamont gets the ball and is tackle 20 metres ahead of the rest of the team.. so you start to lose games, therefore you resort to heading back to just the forwards games and keeping it close by!

This weekends Scottish team however I think have mixed it up a little, they are trying to play more fluid rugby, look at the amount of offloads they had!!! (it was incredible!) then you get an injection of pace from newcomer Hogg (who HAS to start next game!) and things start to flow a bit more, players supporting others, offloading.. ok it was obvious but you have to start somewhere, and lets face it, Wales weren't exactly miles ahead for most of the game, it just seemed to run away towards the end.

I think you also need to look at the player sizes, one of the papers did a comparison between 4 Welsh players and their Scottish counterparts and had little sketches of heights.. and the Welsh players all towered above the scots, and had the extra weight!

An example:

Alex Cuthbert 6ft6in 104kg against Max Evans 5ft9in 87.9kg (all according to the great wiki)

Bit of a mismatch...

No way that was a knock on. That being said, and while I'm not up to speed on scotish rugby, what the hell are they doing? They go through games with a super narrow game (granted, they have a great forward pack, and one must play to one's strengths), run odd and predictable lines and decoys, as was shown in a huge hit by jon davies, I think, who knew where the ball was going and had more than time to have a cup of coffee before murdering the receiver, and then we have plays like that. Obviously there are some players (i.e., Laidlaw, Hogg) that have that X-factor, that can create something out of the blue. So why play such a narrow game, instead of using forwards to create difficulties in the defense and have quick ball to creative backs? Again, please fill me in, I dont know much about the scotish game. I think with their forwards, laidlaw, hogg, Visser in a not so distant future (cant wait for that) and maybe a scrummie with crisp service, a rugby brain and an atittude, scotland can become so much more...

A gentleman that Dan Parks. Some nice words above on his rivals for the 10 jersey.
Also, he was refreshingly honest and measured in his comments on the BBC coverage, especially when you consider how raw he must feel emotionally with his very recent retirement, after essentially losing his place.

Treated very poorly by Andy Robinson if you ask me. Basically persuaded him NOT to retire after the world cup, only to force him out and into international retirement in a very public humiliation right in the middle of a tournament.

And Robinson has previous for this too. The way he treated Mat Tait, throwing him into a premature debut, then swiftly dumping him and destroying the young lad's confidence for a good few years to come, just on account of two good tackles by Henson, (by the way I'm sure Tait presented clean ball on at least one of those hits).

I've got a feeling there are other examples of Robbo building players up and ruthlessly hanging them out to dry on the back of 1-2 poor performances.

According the Parks he said he never entered the tournament with the eye to seeing it out fully... it was the fact Scotland had injury plagues that he stepped up...

I'm not sure whether in your eyes that clears Andy Robinson's name or not...

I am sort of bewildered by it... however the performance put in by Laidlaw was perhaps a bit more fresh than Parks... I think I would still back Jackson for the 10 shirt though...

Is that a fact? Well, it suppose it does exonerate Robinson then doesn't it. Adds to Parks's stock even more though, in my opinon.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby/top-rugby-stories/six_nations_i_couldn_t_resist_one_last_crack_at_england_admits_dan_parks_1_2115237

How much of that could have been "semi-made up" by Parks if he felt he needed an excuse to back out I don't know... all sounds fairly genuine though...

Wales cranked up a gear and blew scotland away

I thought Wales played well but there was an extremely cynical penalty given to Wales when Philips ran into Strokosch I believe..

I was disappointed by that call, which I believe was "technically" correct however it seemed a bit unsportsman like...

Couple of thoughts on the game:

Wales really look awesome. Their defensive shape and line speed was tremendous. Can't see any of their remaining opponents being able to contain their backs. France will be competitive but at Millennium Stadium Wales will have the advantage. To top an already big and powerful backline, to have not one but TWO monsters - Cuthbert and North - on the wings is just taking the piss! Not just monsters, but highly effective, intelligent rugby players too.

Scotland looked better playing with 14 men than 15 - Robbo should leave one extra player on the bench next game!

Stuart Hogg is mustard. What an impact. Blair too seemed to get the tempo up when he came on.

Definitely a try for Hogg. Surely Romain "Poitiers", as Jonathan Davies called him, could have check this with TMO?

And speaking of Poite, I enjoyed the way he reffed this. Many people will complain that he failed to implement the breakdown rules and was pretty lax on offside too. However, as a spectator I love it when a ref just lets the game flow a bit - look at the result, a hugely entertaining match full of attacking intent, quick ball recycling and expansive running rugby. As long as he's consistent and treats both sides the same - and I think he achieved this - then I'd much rather have his laissez-faire approach over some other refs' more whistle-happy style any day.

The be and end all of this discussion is that the Scots once again had ill discipline and it let them down. They are a great side if like you guys say play to their strengths but like the commentator said same old same old. Think they were ripped off with that disallowed try though should have gone to the 4th ref:-)

I have to admit that I'm more than a little worried at the moment as in both matches so far Wales have only played good rugby for about 20 minutes a piece.

It's been enough for the two matches we've won but we really need to be ale to do that for a full 80 minutes to be able to compete globally.

There are plenty of positives to take out of the season so far but there is a long way to go and I hope the WRU understand that.

I know we've only been running with half a team so far which is always going make things messy but not that long ago a single injury could have turned the whole squad on its head. It's been reassuring to see that they've been able to adapt and cope with missing players without looking too shaken up.

I think some people underestimate the space left by Waburton in the breakdown, we've coped without him but skills in that area combined with Priestland can give the team so much space when they're together.

Mike Phillips was found out by Scotland again, just like last year from memory, he's not picked for speed but he does offer so much that nobody else does in that position. Again, I think he struggled partly due to Warburton which I think reduced his time to recycle the ball effectively.

I started this championship thinking that if any of the six teams won I really wouldn't be that surprised but I'd be really shocked if anybody won a Grand Slam. I still think that the matches against England, Italy & France really could go either way depending on what happens.

I'd rather Warburton & North were kept for the French match if there is any doubt about their fitness as I think we'd miss them far more against France than England. It's a shame but it's looking like it will be France's fourth weekly match in a row when they face us.

Not idea and not really fair.

No idea what will happen against England, I suppose English supporters should at least be grateful that there's potential to be at least one entertaining match at Twickenham in 2012...joke! :)

Oops, should have said...

"Not ideal and not really fair."

I think Wales have the ability to dominate most teams at the moment, I just haven't really seen it in the last couple games...

People talk about discipline, but I think the Scots yellows, were an attempt at damage control...In fact I was highly suprised at Wales when they had a player down in the first half and Scotland were getting closer and closer to the try line (before Jacobson knocked it on) I was saying that Wales should just put hands in the ruck and kill the ball.. yeh, they'll give away a penalty but they'll stop a try... Then Scotland (as usual) got a bit too excited and *pop*

I agree with Stroudos about the more relaxed reffing, however I would like to see the offside rule regarding players coming up too quick enforced a little more...

Jonathan Davies (the little chap in the commentary box) said "well it looked like he was a little offside" (regarding a Welsh player!) Typical sneaky commentary from him... A LITTLE OFFSIDE?!?!? lol, its either offside or it AIN'T offside...

Pretzel, have a closer look at Jacobsons 'knock on', infact look at what Gethin Jenkins was up to! Wales got away with murder the whole match, but that probably just makes them more 'street wise' than us, and this has always been the case, with the exception of Nathan Hines although big Jim Hamilton is pretty much stepping into his shoes lately! Anyway apart from them pretty much no other member of the team has the ability to 'play the ref'. Mike Phillips prime example, ive often called him a cheating bas**** but he GETS AWAY WITH IT, and there are guys like him the world over (pros and amateur) I'm not saying we should start cheating to win games but it does feel like we lose a lot of games with that going on! (England were at it and you can guarantee the French and Irish will be at it too. The Italians will try to but their street wise-ness is on a par with ours)

Before the advent of the TMO, that 'knock-on' would have been a forgivable decision. With the aid of replays by and the correct questioning of the TMO (ie 'Is there any reason why I can't award a try?' or words to that effect), there is no reason why the ref should be so hasty.

It has been mentioned on other fora that Wales were offside all the time in defence - I would really like to see some detailed analysis on this (computer graphic lines etc) to see whether they really were, or has Shaun Edwards worked even more wonders with them? I suspect it may be some of both, and England are once again kicking themselves for letting the horse bolt....

Those of you saying the ref should have gone to the TMO - surely you know by now that the TMO (under current laws and regs) is not entitled to comment on events outside the ingoal area? (Whether they SHOULD be able to is a different question.)

It was in the act of scoring the try though surely?

Nope. Remember the furore last year over George Clancy's decision to disallow a try due to a forward pass which the TMO referred to, but shouldn't have? Exactly the same situation.

Here's the relevant IRB law:

6.A.6 REFEREE CONSULTING WITH OTHERS
(a) The referee may consult with assistant referees in regard to matters relating to their duties, the Law relating to foul play or timekeeping and may request assistance related to other aspects of the referee’s duties including the adjudication of offside.

(b) A match organiser may appoint an official who uses technological devices. If the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving a try being scored or a touch down, that official may be consulted.
The official may be consulted if the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal with regard to the scoring of a try or a touch down when foul play in in-goal may have been involved.
The official may be consulted in relation to the success or otherwise of kicks at goal."

The protocols go into it more indepth, but the upshot is that it clearly only allows the referee to refer to the TMO in relation to acts in the in-goal area. Whether it is "in the act of scoring" is not relevant. (Although again, query whether it should be in situations such as this.)

I am sure there have been incidences where the TMO has ruled when a player has had a foot in touch prior to grounding in-goal. This surely falls into that kind of category?

....Stands back, awaits spears.... ;)

haha. Can't think of any of the top of my head, but yes there have been instances when TMO have made rulings strictly in accordance with the laws and accompanying protocols. Usually leads to a little storm in a tea cup.

I couldn't name a particular incident but it has happened on more than one occasion where its "in the act of scoring a try" and a player is tackled and his foot scrapes the touchline before he grounds the ball..

It was the 'hands in the ruck' offences they seemed to be getting a way with (England and Waleas) Against Wales you can clearly here Sean Lamont near the end of the game shouting at the ref 'their hands are all over it! in an extremely exasperated manner, like it had been going on all game. As far as the 'knock-on' it looked fine to me in real time, never mind in slo-mo, think he should have been given the benefit of the doubt, still very looking forward to seeing more of Hogg, he does look a class act.Agree with other posters re we should blood even more young players, they're the future and need experience while they're young not once they've aged a bit. Our 1st XV is made up of loads of kids now and the team is doing better than ever! Lets be honest, you'll never be as fit as you were when you were 18!

the knock on try should be subject to video review, rugby has become too fast for the ref to make split second decisions that are too difficult for the naked eye to pick up.

that try changes the whole complexion of the game,both teams, the fans and perhaps even the ref deserve the benefit of replay in this situation.

league does it, if not a little too much, union needs to catch up.

I think when it comes to try time the video ref needs to be called in if there is any doubt...

I mean the Scottish players definitely had doubt, the commentator said something like "they're up in arms"

Teams generally tend not to do this when they know it wasn't a try...

If whether a team was up in arms about it was the determinant factor, we wouldn't need referees! Seriously, which player was actually in a position to really know?

I did not mean "players up in arms = instant try" etc... I simply meant that more often than not when a player knows he has not scored a try he tends to keep his head down and jog back.

As you cleared up above somewhere the TMO cannot be used to check outside the try area, so I can forgive Poite for that in the sense that perhaps he felt it would be a nice thing if he could check but according to the rules he couldn't!....

What? That try didn't change diddly squat. They scored from the next possession! I don't necessarily disagree that some decisions close to the line should be up for review, but stick to the facts in making your point!

Boring video of kicks and spectators. Why not show some rugby as played by either Wales or Scotland?

I think that Poite's 'interesting' refereeing of that game makes it hard to draw conclusions.

The breakdown was a free-for-all and he allowed teams to close the gap in the line-out, this meant that turnovers were ignored and quite a lot of holding on at the breakdown went on. It also explains the Welsh lineout in the first half.

If teams had been pinged for going over the top, sealing off and other breakdown offences then we would have seen a very different game: I don't know who would have benefited from proper application of these rules but I suspect it would have been the Welsh.

Scotland have effective, mobile loose forwards and some decent outside backs. They need a decent midfield (Ansbro is sorely missed) and a gameplan which allows the outside backs to run in space *and* lets the loose forwards get around to support quick ball from any half-breaks.

Wales need to carry better around the fringes and improve the passing and game awareness in the centres: I think they've looked better when Hook comes on just because he gives them an extra play-maker. They also need to make their lineout and scrum that bit more reliable, although the problems at second row are probably the source of a lot of that (alun wyn jones, luke charteris, bradley davies all out injured: that's all of the locks they used at the RWC).

Lots of people have been complaining about Poite's refereeing of the ruck, citing comments such as Lamont's towards the end of the match. However, what people are completely glazing over is why there were Welsh hands in rucks constantly.
Had Poite had more control of the ruck then there would have been Welsh turnovers in abundance. The back row (and Gethin Jenkins) were constantly getting to the ruck, on their feet, and competing for the ball only to be confronted by Scottish players holding on, not releasing and therefore keeping possession. Unfortauntely, as Poite did not referee this area very well, the Scots (not the Welsh) were able to get away with murder in terms of hanging onto the ball. If there had been a better refereeing performance in this aspect, then we would probably be talking about more points for Wales, and I suspect further Scottish yellow cards.

jog1986- Rubbish! 'On their feet' means 'on their feet' not using another body to support your own bodyweight, in otherwords ref'd strictly. just one knee touching the body of a player on the floor means their 'off their feet' therefore cannot play the ball. It rarely is ref'd strictly however..........

And how the feck did the Welsh openside get away with coming in at the side just before H'penny's first try? If you're not sure when, its at 1:42 in the highlights

Didn't spot that during the game, now you pointed it out its horrendously clear, not only does he come in from the side he goes straight off his feet too...

Great spot! Right in front of the ref as well...

jockandy, on their feet most certainly means on their feet, supporting your own body weight. I understand exactly how the law works, no need for any explanations. The Scottish forwards and ball carriers were constantly slowing down the ball at the ruck, not releasing for the Welsh forwards when they were ON their feet. In doing so, due to further rucking, people would go off their feet. But don't let facts get in the way of what you think was happening.

As far as your claim against Shingler is concerned, how about watching the footage once again? Notice who Shingler clears out by 'coming in from the side.' Correct me if I'm wrong but he actually clears out a Scottish forward who, lo and behold, is coming in from the side...you may argue that two wrongs don't make a right, but then that would prove your lack of knowledge in terms of how refereeing is carried out.

I disagree jog, the Scottish forward was involved in bringing the player to the ground.

Whether or not he was involved in bring the player to the ground is irrelevant due to the way in which the initial tackler brought the ball carrier to the ground.

I don't agree.. ever heard of a two man tackle? he took the top half...

I have indeed heard of a two man tackle, however, this is not one. For the Scottish forward to actually be taking part in the tackle then he would need to be wrapping, or at least attempting to, his arms around the ball carrier. As he's not then he is not considered part of the tackle. So, I refer you back to the original point of it being irrelevant. Watch it carefully again.

You can grapple someone with your hands, thus not actually wrapping...

He is therefore a tackler..

Unforunately Pretzel, while you may think that's the case it is not. To be defined, within the laws, as the tackler, you have to be performing a tackle, ie wrapping your arms around the ball carrier. If you are just pulling someone down, as the Scottish forward is, you are not defined as a tackler, and the breakdown situation that occurs is different, as in there is no offside line. This was something that was clarified in a referees meeting that I attended in pre-season.

hence why the rugby laws are so messed up... there are "referees" and players like you who hang on to every word as if it is Gospel truth, then there are the rest of us "referees" and players who allow a little interpretation.

I have grabbed dodgy wingers shirts with my hand and managed to bring them down on my own without physically wrapping... therefore you're saying that I should not have a tackle notched next to my name....

Pretzel, I am not quite sure what you are getting at with the 'gospel truth' statement, however, if you were a referee then you would/should know the difference between someone tackling by wrapping, or attempting to wrap, arms around a ball carrier, and someone who grapples or grabs and pulls them down. They are two very different situations and there is no rooms for interpretation in this situation, no matter what you may think.
If someone is tackled then there is immediately an offside line and a gate, whereas if someone is dragged down then the offside line doesn't exist unless a ruck is formed.
I'm not saying that you grabbing dodgy wingers' shirts wouldn't be counted in tackle count as I don't know what the definition for tackle is when it comes to statistics, but in the laws, what you have described is not a 'tackle'.

So therefore how can that be a tackle situation? If what I did would not be deemed a tackle in the laws then by definition it should not lead to a ruck as the player was not tackled....

Pretzel, all I can say is go away and check out the laws. You are confusing different things. You state that if a player is not tackled then it cannot lead to a ruck, however, there is no need for a tackle as defined by the laws to take place in order for a ruck to form. This constant backward and forward is getting us nowhere. I know the laws quite well having had to study them, take exams on them and implement them while reffing. If I were wrong then I would hold my hands up and say so, but in this circumstance I am not. I have even checked the IRB website and my own personal law book.

If you're in with the IRB then go and ask what happens when a player brings down another with his hands rather than "wraps"... :)

As I said, perhaps you need to go and look at the laws yourself. You attempt at comedy is just showing up your lack of knowledge.

Right, my attempt at comedy? You should get out more if you truly believe I was trying to be funny...

You state yourself you attend referee meetings therefore one can only assume you are a referee... yet you do not know what to call something when a player pulls another player down with his hands?!?

I don't have much faith in the refereeing system if that is what is being turfed out each year...

You tell me to go look at the laws... perhaps you should bring it up in your next meeting that the laws do not seem to cover all aspects of the game...

My wife thinks I should be a rugby commentator, but there's no way I could keep a cool unbiased head!
Unlike my old school pal Master Cotter, or the fantastic Johnathan Davies! ;-)

It was Barclay and he was fine where he was. The Scots got pinged plenty for holding on, which I would say is a far easier law to enforce so how could they have gotten away with it? The offences the Welsh were guilty of are much harder for the ref to spot so while I was complaining about them doing it, I do congratulate them on their superior streetwise-ness, lots of other teams do it. If anything Scotland need to learn from other teams how to live right on the edge of the law and get away with it.

Just read a great post on the Scotsman site -

If you're worried about the centres there is an easy solution. Start with a backrow of BarclayRennieDenton and Harley on the bench. Put McInally in the 12 jersey and either Fusaro or the GingaNinja Grant in the 13 jersey. Et voila, a pair of centres who can run, catch, pass and tackle everything that moves :-D


Think this guy's on to something! Were Jonnie Beattie and Richie Vernon not two of the fastest runners in the Glasgow squad? That would be some 12 & 13!

So it was Barclay, however, according to the laws he was most certainly not fine where he was. He entered from the side, considering the gate runs from the way the tackler and ball carry hit the ground. In order for him to have been fine he would have had to come round from behind where the original tackler had landed, not just step his foot around to make it seem like he had. Them's the laws, check them out if you aren't convinced. As for the Scots getting pinged plenty, not exactly. The ref consistenly allowed them to hold onto the ball for longer than should be allowed.
To be honest, I thought that Poite's refing of the ruck was atrocious, allowing both teams to get away with certain things. However, if he'd been stricter, then I believe Wales would have come out further on top and Scotland may have had another player in the bin.

Yea, the refing was awful for both sides. Well we can agree to disagree, you won anyway so who cares :-)