Tonights Performance

[loretta]

I didn't think he was biased, I thought he was poor!

[WhitecapTiger]

I was right on the Tigers' tryline at the end and don't think we can argue with the card for Hamilton (we'd given 4 or 5 away in quick succession). Mind you, I promise that if when I've seen the tv catch-up it turns out I'm wrong, I'll come back and offer a full retraction!

I don't doubt we committed several pens in quick succession (but so did Quins earlier, with no team warning - and they weren't all that far out either) but my point about Hamilton's card was that there were a number of offences that the officials couldn't identify a player number for, he then went back to the line out for Hamilton - I think it was for taking the man in the air - but it seemed a really weak decision / option to take - with hindsight I suppose it was all he could go for and he had given us a team warning.

The number we committed (probably) deserved a card - just not Hamilton IMO (I've also not watched it back yet and am talking from memory of TV watching) - undoubtedly a case of 'one for the team' but I don't think Hamilton's was a penalty - also happy to re-consider and retract after watching it again.

Couple that with Quins getting away with plenty and I think it was inconsistent refereeing - not necessarily harsh overall - if that makes sense.

Thankfully it didn't affect the outcome and the conversion was missed, Quins got nothing which I think is more than they deserved.

[Hot_Charlie]

I was right on the Tigers' tryline at the end and don't think we can argue with the card for Hamilton (we'd given 4 or 5 away in quick succession). Mind you, I promise that if when I've seen the tv catch-up it turns out I'm wrong, I'll come back and offer a full retraction!

I don't doubt we committed several pens in quick succession (but so did Quins earlier, with no team warning - and they weren't all that far out either) but my point about Hamilton's card was that there were a number of offences that the officials couldn't identify a player number for, he then went back to the line out for Hamilton - I think it was for taking the man in the air - but it seemed a really weak decision / option to take - with hindsight I suppose it was all he could go for and he had given us a team warning.

The number we committed (probably) deserved a card - just not Hamilton IMO (I've also not watched it back yet and am talking from memory of TV watching) - undoubtedly a case of 'one for the team' but I don't think Hamilton's was a penalty - also happy to re-consider and retract after watching it again.

Couple that with Quins getting away with plenty and I think it was inconsistent refereeing - not necessarily harsh overall - if that makes sense.

Thankfully it didn't affect the outcome and the conversion was missed, Quins got nothing which I think is more than they deserved.

It's worth remembering that he'd have given a yellow for the previous penalty, but none of the officials had a number (I think they were looking for Bateman!) hence Hamilton was carded for the subsequent offence.

[Hull Fan]

can someone just tell me again why we are swapping Freddie for George.

Of course, I'll tell you. Freddie Burns is a very good player but George Ford is better. It's quite a simple explanation really.

Spoken with the accuracy about 10's that we would expect from somebody who thinks Owen F is rubbish. It's a opinion of course but I firmly believe that Freddie's all round game is better than George's.

Eddie Jones doesn't think so

[TomWeston]

...

Eddie Jones doesn't think so

And what does Eddie Jones know about different players' qualities?

[mol2]

What England need from theor fly half may be different from what Tigers need.

Not sure Tigers have another kicker to take all or at least the longer range kicks when Ford plays.

For England it's different they have Farrell to do most of the kicking and Daly to do the extreme range ones. If there was only Ford in the side who could kick, anything over 30m would be far from a certainty. This changes the complexion of the games in that the opposition know that they can compete more on the edge anywhere outside of the kickers range. Do that with Farrell kicking and that moves to 45m and if Daly is there 55m isn't a safe range to concede a penalty without risking 3 points.

[TigerCam]

What England need from theor fly half may be different from what Tigers need.

Not sure Tigers have another kicker to take all or at least the longer range kicks when Ford plays.

For England it's different they have Farrell to do most of the kicking and Daly to do the extreme range ones. If there was only Ford in the side who could kick, anything over 30m would be far from a certainty. This changes the complexion of the games in that the opposition know that they can compete more on the edge anywhere outside of the kickers range. Do that with Farrell kicking and that moves to 45m and if Daly is there 55m isn't a safe range to concede a penalty without risking 3 points.

Dan Cole has eluded to the changes he has had to make under EJ. Maybe place kicking is one of them?

[Hull Fan]

...

Eddie Jones doesn't think so

And what does Eddie Jones know about different players' qualities?

I would of thought he would have watched them play and discussed them with their coaches to some degree! I assume we are talking about playing qualities rather than if they help people across roads.

So I am guessing he doesn't rate Freddie otherwise he would be England's starting fly half.

[Hot_Charlie]

What England need from theor fly half may be different from what Tigers need.

Not sure Tigers have another kicker to take all or at least the longer range kicks when Ford plays.

We don't have a long range kicker now unless Williams is on the pitch. That said, England spent a long time with a kicker of fairly limited range in Jonny Wilkinson and it didn't make too much difference.

[Hinckley Bob]

What England need from theor fly half may be different from what Tigers need.

Not sure Tigers have another kicker to take all or at least the longer range kicks when Ford plays.

We don't have a long range kicker now unless Williams is on the pitch. That said, England spent a long time with a kicker of fairly limited range in Jonny Wilkinson and it didn't make too much difference.

Now I am a fan of George Ford but he definitely is not in Wilkinson's class as a kicker (nor tackler). I believe that he does however, have a similar attitude in pursuit of self-improvement and hope that his kicking can be brought up to a similar standing to his creativity, which is second to none.

[h's dad]

[quote="ellis9"<<quote="sebco"]can someone >>just tell me again why we are swapping Freddie for George.<</quote>>

Of course, I'll tell you. Freddie Burns is a very good player but George Ford is better. It's quite a simple explanation really.

Spoken with the accuracy about 10's that we would expect from somebody who thinks Owen F is rubbish. It's a opinion of course but I firmly believe that Freddie's all round game is better than George's.

Eddie Jones doesn't think so[/quote]
We've also found out that Eddie doesn't understand the rules on rucks or offside. It's also worthy of note that in an England shirt Freddie has averaged well over twice as many points per game as George and actually a little higher than Owen F.

[Hinckley Bob]

[quote="h's dad"
It's also worthy of note that in an England shirt Freddie has averaged well over twice as many points per game as George and actually a little higher than Owen F.[/quote]

Statistics can be interpreted as you wish. I suspect that he may well have been selected against weaker opposition.

[h's dad]

[quote="h's dad"
It's also worthy of note that in an England shirt Freddie has averaged well over twice as many points per game as George and actually a little higher than Owen F.

Statistics can be interpreted as you wish. I suspect that he may well have been selected against weaker opposition.[/quote]
First sentence, true. Second sentence, 40% of his games were against that weak SH team that plays in black so I guess that will have to remain a matter of opinion.

[Hull Fan]

Of course, I'll tell you. Freddie Burns is a very good player but George Ford is better. It's quite a simple explanation really.[/quote]
Spoken with the accuracy about 10's that we would expect from somebody who thinks Owen F is rubbish. It's a opinion of course but I firmly believe that Freddie's all round game is better than George's.[/quote]

Eddie Jones doesn't think so[/quote]
We've also found out that Eddie doesn't understand the rules on rucks or offside. It's also worthy of note that in an England shirt Freddie has averaged well over twice as many points per game as George and actually a little higher than Owen F.[/quote]

But has had less chance to drop his average as not played as many minutes as the other two. Freddie is better than average but I feel George is a better player. I'm not saying I'm correct, just my opinion.

[Chobbsy]

Overall, Mr Richards' performance was appalling. Hardly a line out was straight ( including ours), to the point that Quins had to lean out to take their own ball at one stage, but not one was picked up. He was oblivious to several knock ons and forward passes, and not looking closer at Quin's try off the corner flag was simply farcical!

I'd add to that his apparent desperation to bin/card a Tigers player towards then end, resulting in Hamilton being carded for a line out offence - which I don't think amounted to anything let alone a card.

Couple that with Quins receiving no warning at all (that I recall) for their similar repeated infringements earlier in the 2nd half (albeit some were a little further out than ours) and at best you could say Sir was 'inconsistent' in his application, or interpretation, of the laws.

IMHO.

I seem to remember he can be inconsistent - but I actually like the way he doesn't constantly run to the TMO, unlike some. I would also say that my impression last night was that he got the big calls right. However, I was surrounded by Quins fans who were convinced he was a tiger! I was right on the Tigers' tryline at the end and don't think we can argue with the card for Hamilton (we'd given 4 or 5 away in quick succession). Mind you, I promise that if when I've seen the tv catch-up it turns out I'm wrong, I'll come back and offer a full retraction!

You think he got the big calls right? Really? ball bounces back off the corner flag onto the line and he gives a try without referring? If they had got the final conversion and got a losing bonus point and that was the difference between them finishing in 4th and us would you still be under the impression that it wasn't a big call?