rugbyunion
Latest News:

Next Game: ERCC : H v Castres Sat 21st October ko 5.30pm Live on SKY
Game after: AP : A v Newcastle Falcons Sun 29th October ko 3.00pm not live on TV


Why?
Yorkie (IP Logged)
30 September, 2017 20:15
Did we take the lineout with the Chiefs throwing in rather than the penalty? (After Jules got his yellow.)


Change our loosehead immediately before that last scrum which gave them the penalty to score 3 for the LBP?



http://www.jakehowlett.com/tuckshop/wrappers/chocolate/plain/yorkie-nutter.jpg

 
Re: Why?
Tribester (IP Logged)
30 September, 2017 20:48
As I understand it, the Salvi no arms clear out 5 metres from Tigers line was with the TMO for review as play continued, as the ref had initially said it was OK.

So, play continued and the ball finally went out of play near Exeters 5 metre line, with the throw-in to Exeter.
When the clear-out was reviewed by TMO and penalised, the ref offered Tigers the option, penalty where the clear-out occurred or continue to where the ball went out of play, with Chiefs throw-in. Tigers chose to restart 80 metres up field with the chance of stealing the line-out.

2nd question, no idea.

 
Re: Why?
Fuzzy Dunlop (IP Logged)
30 September, 2017 20:57
If Chiefs mess up the lineout on their 5m line then great, if they don't then Tigers get the ball back in more or less the same position they would've from their own lineout anyway.

Plus Chiefs were almost always keeping their clearing kicks in field, giving Tigers the ball and a chance to run back at them without having to risk a bad kick or lineout.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 30/09/2017 20:59 by Fuzzy Dunlop.

 
Re: Why?
Rich W (IP Logged)
30 September, 2017 22:41
What them two said.

The prop change was a poor roll of the dice with that random penalty generator.



...

 
Re: Why?
SK 88 (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 10:03
Why would we want a penalty in our own 22?

No idea on the sub. Traynor is not very good, surely Bateman could have lasted one more scrum? Think the lack of lock made a big difference too though.

 
Re: Why?
Rich W (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 10:09
It was the lack of a lock that made it an especially poor decision. If we'd had Wells or even Williams back on it would have made more sense - though still been a poor call. Frankly I think they'd have been better off sending Bauman on on the wrong side!



...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/10/2017 11:24 by Rich W.

 
Re: Why?
ra (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 10:39
Maybe that's why MoC was so angry at the end of the game, he may have sent instructions down to replace the lock as well as the prop but it didn't happen.



http://home.zonnet.nl/fred.kitty/calvin/A_hob.gif

 
Re: Why?
Jon T (IP Logged)
01 October, 2017 11:45
All pretty hsrsh in my opinion, the Club obviously rate Traynor as a decent prop or they wouldn't have offered him a contract. This board rates Boris and he thinks he's good enough or he wouldn't have agreed to his signing. Which in my book is enough for me.

The point about lock and MOC holds more weight. He was fuming at the (mis)handling of the HIAs and clearly thought Wells should have returned, in the BT sports highlights show he said one had overan by 3minutes thats why he was down on the touchline so early.


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?