USA v England - 19/07/25

[Ddanno]

Ok,they're off for lightning, just after a denied try for Dombrandt.
Can one of the bug boys explain what happened there? He's talking about binding onto a ripper, and therefore it's obstruction, but... What does that even mean?

is it that he split out from the maul, but didn't get away from it enough? Which doesn't look right to me - but I fully acknowledge my ignorance of what the big buggers do, though I've generally learned a lot from my decades on forae.

This won't help but I was perplexed as well, as I've never heard the term 'ripper' outside the context of Nightmare on Elm Street, 18th century Britain, or a violent farting session

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I thought you hated stats

Why would you think that?

 

[IT157]

Why would you think that?

he's confused you with Leonormous Boozer

But as to be suspected it wasn't as black and white as liking /hating stats by this poster.

Post #868 in the British & Irish Lions first test match thread.

 

[BMatt]

Ted Hill watch (stats from RugbyPass):

Carries: 0
Tackles: 0 (1 missed)
Lineouts: 0
Turnovers: 0


Edit: Stats updated, now 1 tackle (0 missed), so crisis averted

Hill's 100% tackle success rate means he should have been picked dover Tom Curry for the Lions test.

 

[BPM]

I think the back row has to change for the AIs

Tom Willis has to start at 8..which then changes what we've had with Earl at 8 previously.

That's a headache for the coaches with the current flanker options

I read the original question as 'who has played themselves in?'. That implies people who were previously outside of the 23. Willis was already the man in possession at the end of the 6N.

The clear winners for me are the centres. Atkinson was the pick of the bunch but Northmore was good in both of his games and Ojomoh looked classy in attack and very aggressive in defence. Obviously, the standard of last night’s opposition needs to be taken into account, but the three of them have surely cemented their place in the squad.

I know it's an inexperienced team and the weather isn't great but the attack has been miles off the last couple weeks. I assume the kicking is SB instructed but against the US it'd be nice to see some flashes of creativity

Disagree on the bolded. It's fair to say that we lacked ambition and creativity against the USA but against Argentina, the attack was pretty good. On the handful of occasions we did attack 'ball-in-hand', I thought the decision-making and execution was decent - Northmore and Ojomoh in particular.

 

[BPM]

Glad that's over.

Centres - good, we might be getting somewhere

Langdon + Ohgre - encouraging

Ford - should be in Aus and told not to ******* kick

Locks - fine

CCS - more of that please

The rest, ehhhh. Gameplan was shunt but who cares against oppo like that.

From an overall tour perspective, I’d also add the props. Baxter and Heyes were excellent throughout and AOF had some good moments. Rodd was a bit underwhelming but possibly more from the PoV that I’ve definitely seen him play better.

 

[higgik]

Yeah have to agree he's been very quiet.

Maybe because CCS is on it today, so less for him to do????

 

[higgik]

Wouldn't complain, we're a little thin on locks so keep Chessum there imo

CCS is definitely project. Hill is very good, but I think CCS could surpass even him in his all round game.

 

[BPM]

Maybe because CCS is on it today, so less for him to do????

I was underwhelmed by Pepper. After a couple of good cameos, I thought he was going to rip it up, but he was pretty anonymous. In fairness, it can be harder to shine as a flanker in these sort of games, but he definitely suffered in comparison to CCS who was very busy a prominent on both sides of the ball.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

TBF it’s a game that suits a dominant ball carrier type simple as that

 

[BPM]

TBF, that wasn't what stood out to me about CCS. I expect him to make big carries. What impressed me more was his work rate and being a real nuisance in mauls and around the ruck. In essence, lots of small but effective interventions. I thought that was more what I'd see from Pepper, but didn't.

Don't get me wrong, he was fine. I just hoped to see a bit more from him. Perhaps we'd have seen more link play if we'd held on to the ball a bit more.

 

[Scotty]

TBF it's a game that suits a dominant ball carrier type simple as that

Yeah part of me wanted to see a back row of CCS Underhill Willis, BCurry just pure physicality in defence and attack.

 

[Geordie]

TBF, that wasn't what stood out to me about CCS. I expect him to make big carries. What impressed me more was his work rate and being a real nuisance in mauls and around the ruck. In essence, lots of small but effective interventions. I thought that was more what I'd see from Pepper, but didn't.

Don't get me wrong, he was fine. I just hoped to see a bit more from him. Perhaps we'd have seen more link play if we'd held on to the ball a bit more.

Yeah that's what I got from his performance aswell. Far more effective and influential rather than just trying to be over physical.

It's a good sign, but we need to see him repeat that against the bigger sides.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

His first game in a while in the backrow and not at lock, his first game in a while looking like the player he can be

Hmmmmm

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

His first game in a while in the backrow and not at lock, his first game in a while looking like the player he can be

Hmmmmm

I mean it’s also v USA

I don’t think anyone could fault his physicality but the issue especially as a 6 was his positioning and stamina in defence which he struggled with against higher level opposition

 

[Which Tyler]

This won't help but I was perplexed as well, as I've never heard the term 'ripper' outside the context of Nightmare on Elm Street, 18th century Britain, or a violent farting session

Did you see Puja's answer?

I think the problem was that we caught the ball, players came in to form the maul and the catcher gave the ball over the top of them to Dombrandt, who then bound on. There was an IRB law clarification a while back on that - the ball can be transferred within a maul by ripping it backwards, but you can't pass it over the top of already bound people (cause teams were doing that and making nigh-undefendable mauls).

The reason they clarified it as still being offside with a handover is that it removed any competition - if the ball doesn't have to be transferred to somone binding onto the first man, then a lock could jump in the lineout, have two players bound onto his midriff in perfect driving position (with no need to pay any attention to the ball) as soon as he landed, and then use long arms to just hand it back to someone at the back who could then plonk themselves at the back of a wedge. Better to rule that the ball can only be transferred to someone directly bound onto you, otherwise it stops being a maul.

 

[Ddanno]

Did you see Puja's answer?

Yeah, makes a lot more sense now.

Still don't know what a ripper is.

 

[Which Tyler]

Yeah, makes a lot more sense now.

Still don't know what a ripper is.

We're not alone - when ref was explaining his decision (to Ford and Dombrandt?) one of them actively asked him what a ripper was.

Sounds like a very technical offence that only back-5 players would even know about. But still - it's always good to learn, and that whole offence is new to me.

 

[TommiG88]

Did you see Puja's answer?

I think the ball was given over the top, as the US pack had started to push before he landed. It frustrates me that it went to TMO to stop the try, but didn’t check how it came about

 

[Which Tyler]

I think the ball was given over the top, as the US pack had started to push before he landed. It frustrates me that it went to TMO to stop the try, but didn't check how it came about

TBF to the ref - wasn't there a technical problem and couldn't get the replay in the stadium?
Seemed like the TMO saw something, told the ref, faffed about with tech, gave up and gave the ref a script to tell the skippers