Ref saw Hipkiss' head and allowed the substitution after inspection. For quite a few weeks afterwards Hipkiss, unusually, was wearing a scrum cap and I assume this means he had a wound that he wanted to prevent from opening and it wasn't just a fashion statement.
FBI wrote:Richard Cockerill claimed that the England physio used to take a razor blade onto the pitch with him to feign blood injuries but that he refused to have any part in it. Why did his stance change last year? Is the chairman of the club putting too much pressure on him to achieve results by whatever means? Is this short term approach approved by the shareholders? Is the corporate governance structure up to scratch? Are the directors questioning these practices?
To be fair to Hipkiss, there was blood in a cut on his head. Hardly streaming blood, but there was blood and Lewis (ironically) acknowledged and allowed it.
Anyway, wasn't Byrne actually off the field for a 'blood' injury when he wrongly re-entered the field without permission? And that was blood on his toe! Hardly a contamination risk.
The whole blood injury process was introduced to prevent contamination but has since been abused like every other law. Like this appeal law is being abused now as I originally said.
FBI wrote:Richard Cockerill claimed that the England physio used to take a razor blade onto the pitch with him to feign blood injuries but that he refused to have any part in it. Why did his stance change last year? Is the chairman of the club putting too much pressure on him to achieve results by whatever means? Is this short term approach approved by the shareholders? Is the corporate governance structure up to scratch? Are the directors questioning these practices?
To be fair to Hipkiss, there was blood in a cut on his head. Hardly streaming blood, but there was blood and Lewis (ironically) acknowledged and allowed it.
Anyway, wasn't Byrne actually off the field for a 'blood' injury when he wrongly re-entered the field without permission? And that was blood on his toe! Hardly a contamination risk.
The whole blood injury process was introduced to prevent contamination but has since been abused like every other law. Like this appeal law is being abused now as I originally said.
Hipkiss had been back on the field since the 48th minute. The bleeding was due to his scrum cap and bandage being removed in the final minute of extra time. Where is the contamination risk in a penalty shoot out?
bluntiger wrote:Why is it that we are playing a 22-man squad? Why not the 23-man squads we are playing in all other competitions this year? Typical rugby administration!
We're playing 22 man squads as the extra prop has not been adopted by the IRB yet for global roll-out, therefore all international games still take place with 22 man squads.
It is used in the HC, LV & GP as local unions have all agreed to adopt it but until it receives full IRB adoption it will not take effect in International matches.
The same was true in the Autumn Internationals.
Does this mean we can go uncontested with out losing a man?
Old and past it plodders in the pack, and then a fairly lively set of backs. Strange that you pick some decent backs but they will be of no use when Englands pack will get spanked. And not provide them with any decent ball.
Also would have had Youngs on the bench as he is on better form than those 2 incumbents.
You've got to commend MJ, some exciting backs that require quick ball from your forwards. The game, I think we all agree will be determined up front. But I'm looking forward to an open game, if England win, it will be with some exciting play. Roll on Saturday, let battle commence!
either way i think it will be close , but don`t you think its ironic that wales are going in with a strong pack and england have gone for flair in the backs ? role reversal ?
wont it be funny if wales win by penalties against english tries
guitarman wrote:
wont it be funny if wales win by penalties against english tries
I can think of no way in which this would be funny
I like the team other than Payne and Borthwick (and I'd have had Youngs starting at 9). IF we get decent ball to the backs then England win by between 7 and 10. If they don't then...well I don't want to consider what will probably happen should the pack be dominated as it may well be!
guitarman wrote:
wont it be funny if wales win by penalties against english tries
I can think of no way in which this would be funny
I can !
England did outscore us last year two tries to one .... and I think they also outscored us in the yellow card stats as well.
quote="RobGale"]I like the team other than Payne and Borthwick (and I'd have had Youngs starting at 9). IF we get decent ball to the backs then England win by between 7 and 10. If they don't then...well I don't want to consider what will probably happen should the pack be dominated as it may well be![/quote]
I can understand the reason for consistency at lock, though I dont rate Borthwick, particularly as a captain. But I agree about Payne ???? Think that decision may come back to bite them on their behinds.
Haven't seen enough of the other 9's to be able to comment subjectively.
Strange that you pick some decent backs but they will be of no use when Englands pack will get spanked. And not provide them with any decent ball.
