Stains - Barf

[fortysix]

That WAS the worst advert for rugby this season.............absolute rubbish, apart from Fords try....

[Big Dai]

They call me "Mr Pig!"

[GT1]

Ref + assistants + heavy use of tmo got most of decisions correct except that Bath should have been down to 14 men! Result may have been different if they had been, the ref has obviously come on a bit since the dozen or so scrums he allowed Sale before giving pen try but on that day there was no screen to watch Sale dropping every scrum LE18
Shouldn't you be LE8 now??

[loretta]

They call me "Mr Pig!"

Hakuna matata, Dai. Hakuna matata.....

[Big Dai]

Ref + assistants + heavy use of tmo got most of decisions correct except that Bath should have been down to 14 men! Result may have been different if they had been, the ref has obviously come on a bit since the dozen or so scrums he allowed Sale before giving pen try but on that day there was no screen to watch Sale dropping every scrum LE18
Shouldn't you be LE8 now??

Haven't got to the bottom of this yet......I think the rule states that if the player goes off causes uncontested scrums you can't replace him. But as Nathan Catt was a happy hooker the scrums were contested and we're back to a full compliment?

[Tigerbeat]

I don't think that there was any doubt that the injuries were genuine.......seems wrong for a side to have to play with one man less if they go to uncontested scrums.
I understand why the rule was brought in.

[TigerCam]

That's a good result for us is it not.

could have been worse. Now for 5 points from Sale

[Noddy555]

The result changes nothing we have still got to get a 5 pointer this pm.
Then we have to hope that we get a freak result against Saracens and Saints
lose their last match at the gardens next week. The only saving grace is is that Barf are away at the stoop next week, sop we may qualify by the back door as long as we perform this afternoon.

[mol2]

I think the assertion that Bath should have been down to 14 men is is incorrect.

Just because a side loses both hookers they would only have to go down to 14 men if they didn't have a fit sub capable of safely playing hooker. (That's not the same as playing it well)
Bath decided that their bench loose head was up to the task and were entitled to bring him on.

[teds]

)
Bath decided that their bench loose head was up to the task and were entitled to bring him on.

Errr who decided? The worrying thing is that neither the Bath coaches nor the BT commentary team seemed aware of the law. Suppose a Saints player had been injured in a scrum. Who is liable for negligence - the Bath coaches or the player who volunteered? Its not clear to me who made the decision.

Possibly, teams should be required to register a player's qualification for playing in any of the front row positions at least 7 days before they are allowed to play in that position.

This covers everyone from an insurance point of view, and hopefully ensures that contested scrums only take place with suitably competent players in the front row.

[mol2]

The key point in terms of safety were met - essentially a prop should be able to withstand the forces of playing in the front row. A prop, particularly a tight head should be experienced in pushing in the front row. Yes the loose head may have one side free and the tight head will be more used to pressure on both shoulders than a loose head but you would expect a prop to cope at hooker.

Yes, they may struggle with the hooking (but until this season hookers hadn't hooked for years!) and struggle throwing compared to a regular hooker. However as a long retired tight head I'd have expected to have more grunt in the front row than my hooker and wouldn't have been fazed by finding myself in the middle of a scrum. I certainly wouldn't have felt endangered.

[Big Dai]

The key point in terms of safety were met - essentially a prop should be able to withstand the forces of playing in the front row. A prop, particularly a tight head should be experienced in pushing in the front row. Yes the loose head may have one side free and the tight head will be more used to pressure on both shoulders than a loose head but you would expect a prop to cope at hooker.

Yes, they may struggle with the hooking (but until this season hookers hadn't hooked for years!) and struggle throwing compared to a regular hooker. However as a long retired tight head I'd have expected to have more grunt in the front row than my hooker and wouldn't have been fazed by finding myself in the middle of a scrum. I certainly wouldn't have felt endangered.

...........Tell that to the lad from Gloucester from some years back. I applaud the approach of Nathan Catt in this instance.

[Tiger_in_Birmingham]

The key point in terms of safety were met - essentially a prop should be able to withstand the forces of playing in the front row. A prop, particularly a tight head should be experienced in pushing in the front row. Yes the loose head may have one side free and the tight head will be more used to pressure on both shoulders than a loose head but you would expect a prop to cope at hooker.

Yes, they may struggle with the hooking (but until this season hookers hadn't hooked for years!) and struggle throwing compared to a regular hooker. However as a long retired tight head I'd have expected to have more grunt in the front row than my hooker and wouldn't have been fazed by finding myself in the middle of a scrum. I certainly wouldn't have felt endangered.

Given that nowadays loose head and tight head aren't deemed interchangeable from a specialist/safety perspective I don't see how hooker can be deemed safe for everyone.

Have played there once at Uni I was adamant to never have to do it again. I don't think I did too badly but I hated every single scrum and was uncomfortable throughout

[Big Dai]

May be we need a "passport" system. Some players I knew could do both sides, others weren't keen...............but there's a difference between not keen and incapable. ..............And some were incapable!

If we had the players capabilities listed at KO the ref would know what he was up against. Say Nathan Catt had a passport to play hooker. The ref would have access to this info prior to kick off and would know no one was taking the Michael. It works the other way too. When teams, and you know who they are, drop to uncontested scrums because they are getting mullered.

[wormus]

May be we need a "passport" system. Some players I knew could do both sides, others weren't keen...............but there's a difference between not keen and incapable. ..............And some were incapable!

If we had the players capabilities listed at KO the ref would know what he was up against. Say Nathan Catt had a passport to play hooker. The ref would have access to this info prior to kick off and would know no one was taking the Michael. It works the other way too. When teams, and you know who they are, drop to uncontested scrums because they are getting mullered.

Fully agree with Big Dai,
As ALL the players must be registered with the RFU or others eg. Europe, then list ALL of the positions that they are capable of playing in with no limits to the number.
This way it is an open book, which can be added to or trimmed as necessary and all can see. Player safety comes first.