So, what did we learn this season?

[Torquemada 1420]

1) The Saders are still the smartest "club" side in the world. TF Razor is not the AB's coach.

Subplot: BB and Smith are past their sell by dates.

2) Leinster are not the greatest "club" side the world has ever seen after all.

PS: I did not see the URC final but will wager is was a powerfest.

3) Sarries are not invincible either in the Prem or the Mickey Mouse Shield.

4) Forwards still win games. In all of the above, despite the pretensions of the losers at being able to play the "better" rugby, they were all undone because their own fwds were not just bested but hammered. The resurgence of France and dominance of T14 is down to the T14 being best suited (style, length of season, depth of squads) to beating the sh*t out of opponents.

I'm not sure that is a good thing at all and shows the laws (and the stupid length of seasons) still, in the end, have the weight firmly behind weight. Whilst there was much to appreciate for the connoisseurs (esp in the Saders' efforts), the casual observer or newbie** is unlikely to have found a new love in rugby having sat through any of the above. And we still have the T14 final to come: but we can be certain that will be more of the same or worse.

**And even some old hands: I've canned my T14 subscription for next season. I found myself gone from 3 or 4 game at a weekend a few years back to picking the odd one and since that would rarely be the televised game, I'm watching a friend's stream anyway.

5) As for the Laws............ We started the season with much talk about player welfare. And ended it (when it finallllllly ended) with the collisions being greater than ever, players taking their lives into their own hands at the exocet-fest of rucks (FM: watch the MH v UBB game) and refs walking their way back from red cards for dangerous play. I have no stats but I'll bet the head stuff is at least as bad as it ever has been.

[OomStruisbaai]

South Africa teams learned a lot playing in the URC.

There are a lot of benefits for our teams.

The CC will still be important for us.

Our coaches will have to plan better because relegation will come into effect next year.

You can win Cups despite shite admins

New rivalries are good for rugby.

[OomStruisbaai]

The forwards always decide win or lose, backs the scoreline.

[Torquemada 1420]

The forwards always decide win or lose, backs the scoreline.

100% this and the Laws need to try and shift the balance if we want more people to watch and reduce the emphasis on smash.

Eddie Jones is kinda right in his thinking in one way when he said the side that concedes the most pens wins the game.

[Uncle fester]

The forwards always decide win or lose, backs the scoreline.

100% this and the Laws need to try and shift the balance if we want more people to watch and reduce the emphasis on smash.

Eddie Jones is kinda right in his thinking in one way when he said the side that concedes the most pens wins the game.

Your knowledge and understanding of the game is Jake-esque.

[Paddington Bear]

This season has shown that rugby is approaching a decision point that it is hard to put off too much longer - is this a sport of movement or collision?
If you watch back old games (this is particularly true in the amateur era but is also true for much of the earlier pro era), you are clearly watching a sport of movement.
Now it is much less clear where the balance lies.
The rolling back of consequences for head collisions is indicative of the half arsed approach of the authorities to this. They know if they do nothing they’re likely to end up sued for everything they’ve got, equally they are unwilling or unable to take on vested interests within the game that are fighting tooth and nail against any action that might seriously reduce the scale of collisions we’re seeing. They are no doubt terrified of a world cup semi or final having a Charlie Ewels moment and their showpiece event being a damp squib, which is understandable.

Games based around what is let’s face it violence are entertaining and get you out of your seat, but it is very hard to justify that as a sport that children should be playing. This will come to a head sooner rather than later IMO.

[OomStruisbaai]

The forwards always decide win or lose, backs the scoreline.

100% this and the Laws need to try and shift the balance if we want more people to watch and reduce the emphasis on smash.

Eddie Jones is kinda right in his thinking in one way when he said the side that concedes the most pens wins the game.

My self love running rugby and flair players and have respect for Jones.

All rugby competitions in all countries from u7 to senior have teams that play different styles .

But it all starts with 1st and 2nd phase. That must never change

[Guy Smiley]

5) As for the Laws............ We started the season with much talk about player welfare. And ended it (when it finallllllly ended) with the collisions being greater than ever, players taking their lives into their own hands at the exocet-fest of rucks (FM: watch the MH v UBB game) and refs walking their way back from red cards for dangerous play. I have no stats but I'll bet the head stuff is at least as bad as it ever has been.

Just on this player welfare issue...

I've watched two incidents over recent weeks where a player was lifted over the horizontal and naturally ended up on the turf. In one of those incidents, his head hit the turf first. In the other, the shoulder touched turf a poofteenth before the head did.

This is the point of difference the refs are directed to use when determining RC or YC, apparently.

I know from various observations made in a completely ad hoc fashion over years of misadventure that you can still cause some serious damage to the general head region of some bloke by dropping him on a shoulder, yet here we are with our governing body deciding that this should be the metric used to determine sanction for an act which goes directly to the heart of the whole player welfare issue.

This is bullshit. Why not grab the bull by the horns and ban the act of lifting players in the tackle / ruck area? I mean... you want to address the issue of potential harm... then bloody well address it.

Now extrapolate this approach out to the wider head injury issue and stop tap dancing around it.

I feel bad for players who are caught in that no man's land just before the collision when the attacking player dips into contact. It really is bad luck at times...

but they're going in upright, trying to wrap the arms (in theory) and the risk is quite obvious that doing so exposes them to risk.

I don't know how long and how many cards it might take for the message to sink in, because rugby players are a stubborn lot who are pretty much locked into the show of strength as lifestyle mode... so it needs more affirmative action. Make it low tackles only and you risk having a 15 man flat defense trying to cover any offload initiated line break... so maybe ban offloads. I dunno... but the rulings and guidelines are halfarsed as it is.

Having commentators like Justin Marshall whinging on about it endlessly has to stop as well... sure Justin, you can't see any harm to the player on screen... but you're not checking for micro concussion and brain bleeding, are you.... he's a moron, seriously.

[Biffer]

We learnt what Saracens would have been without the financial cheating. They would have been a very good team, would likely have won several titles, but wouldn’t have been as dominant as they were. £1.2 million a season means you have five or six guys on £300k instead of five or six guys on £100-150k. That gives you an extra depth in your squad that makes the difference. It was demonstrated yesterday - if Sarries had five more £300k players to bring off the bench they would have dominated the last quarter and won the game.

[Kawazaki]

The game is dominated by the Jackler. In my opinion, they are given far too much leeway and as a direct consequence of that they have a huge bearing on how matches are played now - almost exclusively in a negative way. Coaches have worked out that there is (far) less risk in kicking the ball over the defensive line and then organising a fast kick chase to tackle any ball-in-hand kick return with a skilled Jackler there to turnover the ball, or even better win a penalty than to run the ball-in-hand. It's very simple but it's effective. In yesterday's GP final, you saw what happens when both teams are playing the same tactic.

I've written before one way I think you could restrict the Jackler so the balance could at least be evened back up so that running the ball into contact isn't so risky.

[Kawazaki]

We learnt what Saracens would have been without the financial cheating. They would have been a very good team, would likely have won several titles, but wouldn’t have been as dominant as they were. £1.2 million a season means you have five or six guys on £300k instead of five or six guys on £100-150k. That gives you an extra depth in your squad that makes the difference. It was demonstrated yesterday - if Sarries had five more £300k players to bring off the bench they would have dominated the last quarter and won the game.

Christ, talk about post-rationalisation.

[Biffer]

We learnt what Saracens would have been without the financial cheating. They would have been a very good team, would likely have won several titles, but wouldn’t have been as dominant as they were. £1.2 million a season means you have five or six guys on £300k instead of five or six guys on £100-150k. That gives you an extra depth in your squad that makes the difference. It was demonstrated yesterday - if Sarries had five more £300k players to bring off the bench they would have dominated the last quarter and won the game.

Christ, talk about post-rationalisation.

Oh yeah, I forgot having better players has no effect on a team.

[Kawazaki]

We learnt what Saracens would have been without the financial cheating. They would have been a very good team, would likely have won several titles, but wouldn’t have been as dominant as they were. £1.2 million a season means you have five or six guys on £300k instead of five or six guys on £100-150k. That gives you an extra depth in your squad that makes the difference. It was demonstrated yesterday - if Sarries had five more £300k players to bring off the bench they would have dominated the last quarter and won the game.

Christ, talk about post-rationalisation.

Oh yeah, I forgot having better players has no effect on a team.

Saracens were red-hot favourites to win. The players they had were plenty good enough to win yesterday.

[Biffer]

Christ, talk about post-rationalisation.

Oh yeah, I forgot having better players has no effect on a team.

Saracens were red-hot favourites to win. The players they had were plenty good enough to win yesterday.

And you’ve missed the point, what a surprise.

[Kawazaki]

Oh yeah, I forgot having better players has no effect on a team.

Saracens were red-hot favourites to win. The players they had were plenty good enough to win yesterday.

And you’ve missed the point, what a surprise.

Not at all. Saracens lost because they played dumb rugby. The players that did that have been with the club for years. Leicester played better and deserved to win.

You've just followed some dumb logic, engaged your biases, and concluded it must all be down to money.

[Biffer]

Saracens were red-hot favourites to win. The players they had were plenty good enough to win yesterday.

And you’ve missed the point, what a surprise.

Not at all. Saracens lost because they played dumb rugby. The players that did that have been with the club for years. Leicester played better and deserved to win.

You've just followed some dumb logic, engaged your biases, and concluded it must all be down to money.

Nope. Not the point being made. But you’re desperate need to defend Sarries means you can’t think it through and howl about anyone criticising them being wrong.

[Kawazaki]

And you’ve missed the point, what a surprise.

Not at all. Saracens lost because they played dumb rugby. The players that did that have been with the club for years. Leicester played better and deserved to win.

You've just followed some dumb logic, engaged your biases, and concluded it must all be down to money.

Nope. Not the point being made. But you’re desperate need to defend Sarries means you can’t think it through and howl about anyone criticising them being wrong.

I'm not defending them ffs!

I've described Saracens as dumb and said Leicester were the better team. Given credit where it's due, not where I want it to be due based on bad logic.

[Biffer]

Not at all. Saracens lost because they played dumb rugby. The players that did that have been with the club for years. Leicester played better and deserved to win.

You've just followed some dumb logic, engaged your biases, and concluded it must all be down to money.

Nope. Not the point being made. But you’re desperate need to defend Sarries means you can’t think it through and howl about anyone criticising them being wrong.

I'm not defending them ffs!

I've described Saracens as dumb and said Leicester were the better team. Given credit where it's due, not where I want it to be due based on bad logic.

Still missing the point.

[Kawazaki]

Let's have a few more points of reference before we start making sweeping conclusions eh?

You've made a point but not the one you think you have.

[Biffer]

I’ve made a point about Saracens squad several years ago. You’ve decided I’ve made a different point.

[Kawazaki]

I’ve made a point about Saracens squad several years ago. You’ve decided I’ve made a different point.

You said Saracens would have won yesterday.

[Biffer]

I’ve made a point about Saracens squad several years ago. You’ve decided I’ve made a different point.

You said Saracens would have won yesterday.

If they’d been able to stack the bench with more talent like they did six or seven years ago.

[Kawazaki]

I’ve made a point about Saracens squad several years ago. You’ve decided I’ve made a different point.

You said Saracens would have won yesterday.

If they’d been able to stack the bench with more talent like they did six or seven years ago.

You do know Saracens lost matches six or seven years ago don't you?

[Biffer]

Fewer than they do now

[Kawazaki]

Fewer than they do now

Fewer than the single game you are basing your logic on?

Like I said, you're making a point but it's not the one you think it's about.

[Biffer]

Fewer than they do now

Fewer than the single game you are basing your logic on.

Like I said, you're making a point but it's not the one you think it's about.

You quite clearly don’t understand the point.

[Kawazaki]

Fewer than they do now

Fewer than the single game you are basing your logic on.

Like I said, you're making a point but it's not the one you think it's about.

You quite clearly don’t understand the point.

I understand completely what you think yesterday's result proved.

[Biffer]

Fewer than the single game you are basing your logic on.

Like I said, you're making a point but it's not the one you think it's about.

You quite clearly don’t understand the point.

I understand completely what you think yesterday's result proved.

So why are you talking about things that don’t relate to the point I made, seeing as you understand it?

[Paddington Bear]

I think it’s fair to say we would have won with a better 9. I don’t necessarily think we’d need to break the bank to find one

[Kawazaki]

You quite clearly don’t understand the point.

I understand completely what you think yesterday's result proved.

So why are you talking about things that don’t relate to the point I made, seeing as you understand it?

I'm not.

[Biffer]

I understand completely what you think yesterday's result proved.

So why are you talking about things that don’t relate to the point I made, seeing as you understand it?

I'm not.

Yes you are. You think you’re not because you don’t understand the point.

But I’m not going to continue this, it’s incredibly boring for everyone else.

[Kawazaki]

So why are you talking about things that don’t relate to the point I made, seeing as you understand it?

I'm not.

Yes you are. You think you’re not because you don’t understand the point.

But I’m not going to continue this, it’s incredibly boring for everyone else.

If you post that 1+1=5 then don't be surprised when you get told you're talking bollocks.

[Kawazaki]

I think it’s fair to say we would have won with a better 9. I don’t necessarily think we’d need to break the bank to find one

It's been obvious all season that Davies was not up to standard. I don't rate Van Zyl either.

Sam Bryan is in the Saracens academy, from very near my neck of the woods, but I don't think he improves the situation. He's actually more of a running 9 like Mitchell.

I don't think there would be any way back to Saracens for Ben Spencer either given he was the only player who actually said he preferred to leave than stay in 2020. Don't think that would sit well with the whole 'Wolfpack' thing.

[PornDog]

Not getting sucked into the Sarries shitfight, but for once myself and Toga are on the same page (with regard to the poach - certainly not with Sarries)

I've talked about it before. The poach is probably the biggest single collision area on the pitch and a prime source of concussions and cards. It didn't exist back when I played back in the 90's - it was a penalty offence called 'hands in the ruck'. It was only in the noughties that it ever really became a thing and the role/leeway given has continued to expand.

When I think of Nigel Owens the almost ubiquitous phrase that comes to mind is "Hands away now - ruck called", but you never even here that anymore. Bring back the hands in the ruck offence, if you want to win the ball then drive over it like a fucking man and let that little yappy cunt do his job and pick it up for you.

As far as I'm concerned the only time you can poach the ball is if you can literally get hands on the ball and effect a lift before any opposing player binds on you. The shouldn't have to "clear you out", just bind and then its a fucking ruck - if you haven't lifted the ball by then then get your hands off it. Ideally a couple of the poachers buddies will join in, drive over the ball and help you win it legally.

Oh and effect a lift on the ball. Lifting the tackled players torso up like he's a rag doll is not and never should be a legitimate way to win the ball/a penalty. If you can't get on the ball then a players body is not a legitimate substitute.


As for lifting players, I'd make all lifting outside of the lineout illegal - whether in a ruck, maul or at a restart to support the catcher.

[petej]

So why are you talking about things that don’t relate to the point I made, seeing as you understand it?

I'm not.

Yes you are. You think you’re not because you don’t understand the point.

But I’m not going to continue this, it’s incredibly boring for everyone else.

I think I get your point. Sarries would have still won trophies due to good coaching but less of them without the salary cheating that enabled them to retain and sign top talent. It will actually take time for the benefits of their cheating to dwindle completely (probably a couple more years). Exeter probably lost out more than any other team.

[Paddington Bear]

Poach/jackal is clearly a bad thing - a break that doesn’t result in a try is all but a guarantee of a turnover and therefore a bad decision

[Biffer]

I'm not.

Yes you are. You think you’re not because you don’t understand the point.

But I’m not going to continue this, it’s incredibly boring for everyone else.

I think I get your point. Sarries would have still won trophies due to good coaching but less of them without the salary cheating that enabled them to retain and sign top talent. It will actually take time for the benefits of their cheating to dwindle completely (probably a couple more years). Exeter probably lost out more than any other team.

Yep. And the impact wasn’t on their best 15-20 players, it was the next ten, which gave them more depth, more strength on the bench and the ability to see out games in the last 20 minutes as a result.

[Niegs]

The game is dominated by the Jackler. In my opinion, they are given far too much leeway and as a direct consequence of that they have a huge bearing on how matches are played now - almost exclusively in a negative way. Coaches have worked out that there is (far) less risk in kicking the ball over the defensive line and then organising a fast kick chase to tackle any ball-in-hand kick return with a skilled Jackler there to turnover the ball, or even better win a penalty than to run the ball-in-hand. It's very simple but it's effective. In yesterday's GP final, you saw what happens when both teams are playing the same tactic.

I've written before one way I think you could restrict the Jackler so the balance could at least be evened back up so that running the ball into contact isn't so risky.

Agreed, and while I think 'supporting weight' has been better than before, the extra dig with the hands seems more common. Many look like hands in the ruck but refs seem to allow if the jackaler is under the arrived attacking player.

Edit: I see @PornDog has covered this.

[Ovals]

I think we've also learnt that, as the latest salary cap starts to bite, that it'll be a while before an English club wins the CC.

[PCPhil]

Most Saffa posters have an evil little imp that sits on their shoulder whenever someone says, ‘Sharks!’