rockershovel

Passing legislation isn't hard, provided the will is there. The Blair administration passed a quite staggering quantity of legislation. Look at some of the legislation that was waved through during the Covid hysteria! How fortunate that we happened to have a 350 page plus Bill just standing by, much of which remains on the Statute Rolls! The problem comes when either the subject matter is a problem - such as the Brexit period, when MPs in the Commons were trapped between the Whips and the electorate - or the legislation in question requires real work and competence, of which our present political class are largely bereft. It's all very well, passing legislation which is then left to find its own level by way of the courts or simply never implemented. It's quite another thing when that legislation is a detailed work involving things the electorate more-or-less understand, like their homes and livelihoods. Like it or not, HS2 is pretty much propping up the construction industry right now. There will be a hideous mess in the courts over contracts for the supply of just about everything needed to build a railway, many of them held by companies like Siemens. No, the government - any government - has no option but to complete to Birminghsm, and no realistic prospect of going beyond.

That is, indeed what the Laws of the Game say, and always have. However the current Laws contain quite a lot about the hooker acting to stabilise the front row during the "touch-bind-set" phase, which effectively dictate that the hooker is is a pushing position when the ball comes in. There is also the problem that modern scrums are so big and powerful it really isn't feasible to contest the ball in the former fashion. When I was playing at school, college and club (1970-85, roughly) scrums could be pushed in any direction for as long as they held up, or rotated in any direction. There was a thing called a "push-over try" in which the scrum was pushed forward until the locks were over the goal-line, and the No8 touched it down (actually the ref would award the try once the props passed the goal-line, to let the scrum break up quickly and safely. No TMO in those days, it was generally accepted that some things were "worth a try". ) "Wheeling the scrum" was a common tactic to counterbalance the effects of an excessively powerful opposition - ie, deliberately rotating the scrum so that the ball came out on the "wrong" side, isolating the scrumhalf in an offside position. The actual result was that the dominant pack would do "just enough" and the game proceed without a series of dangerous pile-ups (no scrum penalties in those days). There was also the "3 man scrum" in which the front row would form up and pack down unsupported. At the put-in, they would simply walk backwards, conceding the ball; the opposing pack would move in step. Hookers would signal to the scrumhalf to "put in", usually when they were ready to "strike".... possibly already "foot up" if the ref wasn't watching the tunnel... usually this was a tap on the props' backs to coordinate the shove. Hookers would rarely strike for a ball "against the head" although if the scrum managed to drive forwards, it might be attempted (it's quite difficult to heel the ball against your own Second row going backwards) None of this is now permitted. Most of it was of doubtful legality then, but it was how the game was played, by general consent.

Scrum penalties are getting out of hand, too. I spent my playing career in the front row and I'm still a devotee of the "fat boys' game" but the Bomb Squad's demolition of the England bench wasn't even funny. That sort of thing is also plain dangerous. Perhaps a scrum of that sort penalised by an uncontested scrum with the dominant side putting in? Still an advantage but not enough to make a habit of it? Loved the scrummaging last night. Good to see some serious competition at the line-outs, too.

It definitely needs a meaningful sanction - no sneaking back after 2 match suspensions and "tackle school". I thought it was unacceptable that Farrell was allowed to play in RWC at all... Going forwards, perhaps suspensions need to be worked off at that level? International cards mean suspension at international level? Club cards mean suspensions from all play?

There's more to it than that. Last night was pretty much a master-class in refereeing this difficult issue. However this tournament ALSO provided some pretty sub-standard refereeing and TMO work, there's a lot of development needed there. From the playing point of view, England showed how to adapt to losing a player, against Argentina. France came very close to pulling off the same thing in 2019. I do wonder if this issue, together with the increasing tactical use of the bench might lead toward the American system of excluding individual players BUT NOT permanently reducing team size - ie, permitting a different player to return after a period in the sin bin.

However many medals are handed out? Does everyone get the same medal?

...... which is precisely why the forces pushing "development and access" in rugby at all costs, want it; it's where the money is, and that's all they care about. So, whither the game? SA were undoubtedly right to sub Mbonangi(?sp) due to "injury" so that he did not play any major role. Now the enquiry into who said what, can be allowed to fizzle out amid controversy and acrimony. The ref denies hearing it, there is no direct record; World Rugby were never going to confront the inevitable twitterstorm on that basis. More thought needed on the "clash of heads" issue. We've now seen a tournament decided by such a sending-off. This can't continue. Cheslin Kolbe's astonishing feat stands, charging down a conversion. I can find no record of any other player achieving this at Test level. Nearer home, England will limp on in disarray, their coaching team unsettled and their selection problems unresolved. Let's hope they find some new props at least

Veering back on track, interesting to see the press coverage of last night's game. England are apparently felt to have peaked last week against the Boks, and suffered by it. No such claim about Argentina, who also played last weekend (are Pumas unique in having two 3rd place medals?) Borthwick's remarks about it being a tense game, rather than a high-quality game are instructive. Several commentators comment upon England having secured the game then let Argentina back in, not for the first time... game-saving tackle by George Ford. Marcus Smith at full-back? Maybe not.... Various retirements, but not the one a lot of people have been anticipating or hoping for. A great deal of work to do by England, starting with the notion that it simply isn't good enough to take your foot off the pedal with 10 minutes to go. 6N looks like a playoff between France and Ireland for the Grand Slam, England bulldoze past Wales and Scotland while Italy trail to another whitewash.

Why, exactly did those "liberal patriarchs" impose a maximum wage on soccer? Surely not to keep most of the income for themselves? If you think the rugby union / rugby league split is down to snobbery, then consjder the contortions its trans-Atlantic cousin puts itself through with its College format. US college football is BIG business at its upper levels, yet the players are notionally amateurs playing for scholarships. The functionally illiterate "jock" stumbling through primary-school level courses is a stock figure in the US media, along with the sheer ruthlessness towards players displayed in films like "Forrest Gump" or "the waterboy" - and I don't hear any outcry against this sort of thing.

Regarding the relationship between Nelson Mandela and the Springboks, there's also the point that Mandela needed Afrikaners to prevent South Africa collapsing overnight into the sort of hyper-inflationary tribal war zone and all-round kleptocracy which was the usual fate of sub-Saharan African countries. The film "Invictus" covers this nicely.

Just about the only #9 we've had for a decade...

Look for the Bachmann HOn3 moguls. I got as far as fitting-up a Bachmann body to a Hornby 28xx chassis. Quite liked the part.

The real thing would probably have had a "deckless cab" ie a cab full of firebox!

I'm quite intrigued with the Davy Crockett 4-4-0 on a Jinty chassis?

It's a strange business, coaching for the RFU. You'd think they had a licence to print money, but claim to lose tens of millions a year. They say its a top class international sport, and make schoolboy mistakes on the field.

Which completely bypasses the historic and cultural dimensions of the 6N and SANZAAR. A lot of people predicted Italy's stagnation, but "wider access and development" has become a religion, and like all religions it brooks no dissent, and no amount of failure can disprove it. Between the people who think that ANYONE can be the All Blacks, and the ones who think that the same talent can be spread ever thinner to produce ever expanding revenues, there is no telling 'em. It is not fortuitous that the ABs are so consistently successful. Nor that the Boks are so strong. Argentina are where they are because of their links to Europe. Japan are where they are because they have, for some inscrutable reason decided they want to be good at rugby, they have plenty of funds, a good pool of players and a culture in which failure is not an option. Nor is it fortuitous that England chronically under-perform when it matters, that Scotlsnd and Wales consistently produce sparks but cannot sustain it. It is not fortuitous that Fiji and to a lesser extent Tonga and Samoa have blossomed; it is the changes in eligibility which makes it worthwhile for a top class coach to spend time there. Rugby isn't football.

So, basically one game that matters in the first three-week pool round, then another three-week round the same? Pure greed

Good question. Both are lacking the necessary strength in depth to play extended tournaments, but are capable of top class rugby.

Mixed feelings about that. I can't summon any real interest in the womens game. I'd rather see the A Intrnatiobals back, or U20s getting a proper airing. The idea of a "top 12" composing 6N, SANZAR plus two sounds like a recognition of the obvious. Expand the RWC to 24 nations, definitely not. Too big already and God knows what the seeding and pools would look like. What happens if Italy get relegated? Do they stay in 6N? This reads like "more TV revenue at all cost to the the sport"

England need two pairs of top-class props for the next RWC and I don't feel that any of the current batch qualify. The other worrying thing is the captaincy. Lawes won't be around much longer and Farrell will be too old by 2027. Ford ... same issue. But who follows? There is a lack of obvious contenders. Johnson was established at club and Lions levels before pulling on the white Jersey as captain; Carling was an obvious choice, Dallaglio had that "I'm in charge" air. Corry was established as a captain.

I was very impressed with Earl. Arundel hardly got a look in and will only improve. I suspect that some sort of "fix" will be engineered to enable Marchant to be there. The front row is a good question. Cole and Marler are past their peak and I don't feel that any of the younger generation look the part. Sinckler, I think is a "Jones player" and won't improve; whatever may be said about Jones, he has a great ability to get the best out of "difficult" players like Hartley, Sinckler and Farrell. Someone give Farrell a coaching job, soon; preferably somewhere else. He is past his best on the field and an outright liability at times. I suspect that quite a few people see him in the Andy Farrell / Shaun Edwards role and he will be undroppable until that happens

Looking ahead, the main weak spot in the England squad looks like prop. Stuart doesn't impress me. Cole and Marler must be near the end and Genge and Sinckler seem well off the pace.

Another unfortunate Farrell habit, when kicking the ball into the corner for the winger to chase in and score, he consistently over-kicks. Did it twice in quick succession tonight. Vunipola has been a spent force for some time, main contribution tonight was two knock-ons for at least 3 points. Genge and Sinckler were completely outclassed in the set scrum. We weren't robbed, although we might well have pipped SA at the post. Too many obvious shortfalls when it mattered. I'd like to think that next season will start with a complete clear-out of the squad. Unfortunately I suspect tonight's performance will result in a consolidation.

I was rather thinking of the general tenor of both. Scoop , for my money is much the better of the two books.

I would have loved to see an Ireland / France final.... its entirely possible that England will come home with bronze medals, having beaten Argentina again. Farrell will still be captain when he is forty.....