Farrell debate rages on, but no doubt over scrum frailty
“Going forward, England are always going to struggle unless they can guarantee a stable scrum”
Aweek has passed but the controversy continues, was it or wasn’t it? A question that can have only one answer, no matter how damming the evidence. Owen Farrell wasn’t penalised for his tackle on Andre Esterhuizen at the end of the Springbok match, even after the intervention of the TMO, so no offence was committed. I thought his arm curved partially around as a result of the impact, once contact was made, but the referee chose to view the apparent swing of the arm as an attempt to wrap around the body.
At the end of the game with near 80,000 fans on their feet celebrating what everyone thought was a ‘get out of gaol’ England victory, to then be called back for the penalty was unthinkable. Maybe both referee Angus Gardner and the TMO agreed, or perhaps, because they were under pressure, just decided to pass the responsibility for any punishment onto the citing officer.
As for the citing officer, Keith Brown. Even if it had been a red card offence (which I don’t think it was but maybe a yellow), it would have been a brave call from a New Zealand official effectively banning one of England’s key players in the week they were due to face the All Blacks.
It really does beggar belief that no one at World Rugby thought of the possible conflict of interest that could arise by choosing the citing officer from either team’s next opponents should a ‘Farrell type’ incident occur.
One would hope that World Rugby have taken on board the possible wider repercussions of any similar incident involving a key player for either team if cited, and will in future ensure that the independence of the citing officer is put beyond any doubt and cannot be questioned.
Eddie Jones has come up with an idea of two referees on the field as a possible answer to the increased intensity he believes the game now has.
He said the SA game lasted 100 minutes, with the ball in play for 39, so players could rest and recover for 61 minutes making the action more intense, although surely that is not an additional intensity factor as now half the team can be replaced any time he chooses.
Having two referees would also pose the big question of who would have ultimate control and make the final decision should the two disagree on punishment?
One thing that was evident during that Bok game was the problem England have at the scrum, as Kyle Sinckler and Harry Williams failed to hold the tighthead side steady.
Williams may have leapt in the air in celebration at the awarding of the crucial penalty that proved the match winner – but it was excellent work by Ben Moon, promoted to the starting XV for yesterday’s All Black clash, that forced the South Africans to buckle. With neither Sinckler nor Williams quite up to speed yet, it may be time to bring back Dan Cole who has always been solid in the scrum.
Although, as we used to say, he is not a piano player, someone who makes breaks and carries the ball on barnstorming runs, Cole is very much one of the better piano shifters, someone who does much of the unseen work of a forward, rather like Jason Leonard did.
What has to be remembered is that a team needs both types of players if they are to prosper, as too many runners and not enough ball winners means no ball to run with and visa-versa.
Going forward, England are always going to struggle unless they can guarantee a stable scrum. It doesn’t have to be dominant, although that would improve the ability of the backs to have ‘go forward ball’, but it must be stable and stationary for England to prosper.
Ihave avoided commenting on the Lions situation before because I think it is a very simple problem to solve and am surprised that no one has stated the obvious answer. We have been told that the PRO14 are prepared to adjust their season to accommodate the Lions while the Premiership have not yet agreed to do the same – but that is for a very simple reason. Money.
The PRO14 teams are owned by their respective Unions and will therefore benefit from the windfall a Lions tour brings, not only to the host Union but all the home Unions that provide the players. The Premiership are not currently included in the payout and must rely on the RFU providing any extra funds on top of the already exorbitant agreed player release fees.
As the new season structure was agreed with the normal international tours in mind, it can only be the extra time that the Lions need for pre-tour training and recovery that are contentious.
I am sure that if the Lions were prepared to offer an agreed sum as compensation to the Premiership for the use of the players, they too would be flexible as to player release. After all, the Premiership Rugby Cup is said to be a development competition and therefore shouldn’t include too many of the players the Lions may want to select.