Six Nations have announced that they are ringing the changes for next year’s tournament. OvallyBalls had an exclusive mole in the decision room.
Six Nations Clown Five: Listen, chaps, I’m awfully sorry we failed to get the Six Nations behind a paywall so that we could destroy the popularity of the only tournament that is broadly watched, but we’ll try again in a couple of years.
SNC2: I’m not a fookin’ chap.
SNC4: Ah, bellissima! Like me, you are wearing a molto clever disguise to our top-secret meeting in this luxury ristorante.
SNC2: Catch yerself on. I’m wearing what the boss told me to wear: blue.
SNC5: Can we just get back to our onions? We have a tournament to ruin here.
SNC6: Onions? Oignons? En France, we return to our moutons.
SNC3: We quite like our lovely sheep as well.
SNC1: Ach, can we knock the tired wee 70s jokes on the heid? We’ve two major things to discuss here: playing matches on a Thursday (a THURS-DEE!), and deep-sixing one rest weekend.
SNC3: Thursday matches! It was bad enough, look you, when the Friday ones started. Working people are not going to be able to get to these matches, or maybe even watch them on the telly.
SNC5: Surely they will just have their servants do anything necessary on those particular evenings?
SNC6: Bah, the British do not know how to live. They eat their dinner – and quelle horreur d’un repas – at a silly time. They are weaklings who cannot stay up to a reasonable hour.
SNC4: Sono d’accordo.
SNC1: I dinna like the Thursday match, but I’m a wee bit more concerned about losing the rest weekend. That’s 5 Test matches in six weeks. Do we not have a small concern about player welfare there?
SNC3: We’ve not got a huge squad to field from the valleys.
SNC4: È vero, this also concerns us.
SNC2: Agh, it’s all right, we’ll just call on Leinster’s academy if half the squad end up in the hospital.
SNC6: Eh ben oui, we have many teams in the Top14, and perhaps we can bend the rules on players being called up.
SNC5: No worries here either, chaps … heh, heh: and chapesses. So is it all settled, then?
SNCs 1, 3 and 4 (simultaneously): Fuck off / vaffanculo.
SNC5: Perhaps I have not yet properly explained the emoluments available to those who agree to these proposals.
[whispers]
All: Crack on!
Ovally Balls 
The bunker cannot issue a full red card, that is down to the ref at the time of the incident
LikeLike
Haven’t seen the Scotland / Arg game – but turnaround makes me think of an Aus /Arg game in the RC last year – Aus were up 20-3 early and 20-17 at half time before losing 67-27. When Argentina click – they are very good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Flair, Thauma, I’ve no idea what can and can’t be done by the bunker, but it would be pretty stupid not to allow it to decide on the 20 minute or full red: if you’ve got the technology, use it properly.
Speaking of reds, yes, I did enjoy a good few glasses on Saturday!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who can issue what and the guidelines for each are here https://passport.world.rugby/laws-of-the-game/law-application-guidelines/implementation-of-the-20minute-red-card-replacement-in-elite-rugby-august-2025/
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, the guidelines are pretty ridiculous. You have the same offence getting a different sanction depending on who gives it even if both potential decision makers would arrive at the same conclusion. If they want three different sanctions then they need to categorise the offences to suit, they’re sort of achieving this now just not being honest about it and in a way that leaves room for more inconsistency as a result. Thankless task for the officials at the moment.
LikeLike
I assume it’s because they want high shots to only be 20 minute reds (I get this to some extent as a fair few of them have an accidental element to them), but can’t admit that as to do so would be irresponsible. Which is a terrible stance to take. Perhaps that’s unfair, but it’s how I read it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Ticht, the wording is, as ever, unclear and open to interpretation:
“The referee may, using the normal TMO review process, issue a permanent red card on the field for highly dangerous and intentional actions. An off-field review is not conducted where this outcome is clear after a short number of replays.” (My bolding)
What constitutes a ‘short number’? I’ve just gone over it and it took 3 minutes and 14 seconds, with 17 replays for the ref to make that decision. He clearly doesn’t think it’s red initially and the number of replays suggest that it wasn’t obviously ‘highly dangerous and intentional’ as the law states it must be to dish out a straight red.
To refresh, Mostert was moving in to tackle Garbisi, who as he looked to effect the tackle, was tackled by Hooker. Mostert is bent over, pretty much down to his waist level, so definitely not looking to go high. You can see he is looking to tackle Garbisi legally from his body position – including the way his arms are coming round in the wrap. He is in the process of wrapping his arms, but the momentum of the Hooker tackle means his shoulder makes contact with Garbisi’s chest and his upper arm then rides up to the head or the head makes contact with the arm as Garbisi goes down.
For something like this to not be reffered to the bunker just makes no sense at all. Welcome to World Rugby!
LikeLike
Deebee, I think the reasoning behind the : “only the ref can issue a permanent RC” is that most refs would systematically defer the decision to the TMOs, for fear of being wrong, and therefore would loose their authority.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cry havoc! And let loose the dogs of war.
LikeLike
Woof!
LikeLike
Awoooooo!
I’ve just been reading a novel that features a Czechoslovakian wolfdog, a breed I’d never heard of before. They sound quite endearing.
LikeLike
Wikipedia tells me that “There are a range of experts who believe that they can tell the difference between a wolf, a dog, and a wolfdog, but they have been proven to be incorrect when providing their evidence before courts of law.”
Bow-wow woof-woof grrrrr as a wolf, a dog, a wolfdog or David Bowie might say.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Flair, I don’t agree on the bunker undermining the ref: they do it in cricket for LBW and catches that may or may not have hit the ground before being caught. Also for more minor issues, like overstepping etc. I can’t see how taking over three minutes and 17 replays of the same footage enhances the ref’s authority (or keeps it intact). You have the technology, so use it. Supersport, presumably using the feed from Italy, were able to show close up pictures at half time that clearly showed Mostert going for a legitimate tackle, and making contact with the chest as initial impact.
The other thing is that if the ref is unsure, he has the option to refer it to the TMO/bunker so that the match can continue, rather than the players standing around whilst replays mount, the crowd pressures the ref and assistants, by baying for blood – if anything, the ref having to make the call in front of 40K people is a worse option for him/her and the players involved than referring it to the bunker, away from the cauldron.
But I think what gets my goat most of all is the complete lack of consistency: there were a couple of headshots on Siya Kolisi and Gerhard Steenekamp that didn’t even get looked at. Steenekamp actually had to go for a HIA (Garbisi didn’t after the Mostert tackle) after his gumshield pinged from contact, and yet not even looked at by the TMO or ref. There simply has to be a better system of how and when referrals are done and what the thresholds are.
Player safety is paramount, absolutely no question, but a straight red for what a few years ago would’ve been dismissed as a ‘rugby incident’ seems to be over the top in response to concerns around head injuries.
I’ll leave it there, as it’s done and dusted and doubtless Mostert will get four or five weeks, perhaps reduced by one for nice biscuits, being a good lad showing contrition, and doing the Owen Farrell tackle course. World Rugby, though, can’t leave it as it is and the blazers need to grow a pair (or get the sensible gender involved) and sort this out once and for all.
LikeLike
Deebee, I’m not really a cricket specialist- this must be the understatement of the year!- but it doesn’t seem to be a flowing game like football or rugby. So an interruption is no big deal, more like VAR in tennis. A rugby ref seems to be far mire important.
It’s not a perfect world but either rugby union simplifies its laws or accepts that so many rules imply a constant interpretation by the ref. Hence the necessary inconsistencies. We have to accept them, hoping the balance will be OK in the long term.
LikeLike
Yeah, cricket is more stop-start, although probably closer to golf in duration of REAL cricket. I’d still prefer a quick on-field check that goes automatically upstairs for review if deemed to be a card, of any description. Get the offending player off, get the game going and leave it to the bunker to decide on further sanction (or not). That way, the ref can ref what he or she sees live, and leave the technicalities to the bunker. There will always be inconsistencies – same in football, or any other sport, really, but they seem to be much more glaring at the moment in rugby.
LikeLike
The review system in cricket does undermine the old notion that ‘the umpire is always right’, but that’s true of all sports that now use video footage and I don’t think it undermines the umpire’s authority beyond that. Of course not every decision gets reviewed as that would bring the game to a standstill, one side or the other has to seriously think i’s worth it to choose to use one of their limited number of reviews to try to overturn it. As for most lbw decisions the people appealing don’t even really think they’re out (either on reflection or in the first place) and for most catches from thin edges the batman knows if he hit it or not this isn’t as big a problem as it could be. Of course most sports have some level of dishonesty baked in (usually blurred with getting carried away, being wrong, not knowing one way or another etc), but this isn’t the end of the world. The system is gamed a bit of course – reviews are called for more often in circumstances that are more important or just because there are reviews left at the end of an innings so they may as well use them even when they know there is little chance of them changing a decision.
For the rugby cards I’m with Deebee – send it all upstairs if it’s at least a yellow and let them make a decision from the three options. Means giving clarity on what should be a full red card and what should only get twenty minutes though.
LikeLike
“For the rugby cards I’m with Deebee – send it all upstairs if it’s at least a yellow and let them make a decision from the three options. Means giving clarity on what should be a full red card and what should only get twenty minutes though.”
The problem is, World Rugby have bowed to pressure from the Southern Hemisphere in reducing full red cards because of mismatches after a player gets sent off. That is why, at present, only the referee can issue the full red.
There is a lot of pushback on red cards and how they “ruin” games – “well, don’t stand upright when you’re tackling” would be my response.*
I spoke to a senior refereeing official recently and in answer to my question, “Is there a directive to referees in the professional game to issue red cards unless absolutely necessary?” and he answered simply, “Yes.”
The threshold for yellow being met and then the decision being taken off-field for it to remain yellow or upgraded to a 20 minute red is actually quite a good system, it takes a baying crowd out of the equation and gets the game restarted.
I agree that a full red should be available to the official in the bunker.
*Getting rid of the shoulder to head hits has a further benefit on top of the player well-being, the need to tackle low means the ball carrier gets their arms free at lot more and can pass out of the tackle – the game becomes more free flowing and faster. This is more attractive and also puts the emphasis on pace and skills over power
LikeLiked by 1 person
^”Is there a directive to referees in the professional game to NOT issue red cards…” obviously
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Ticht – I was really surprised to see the referee gave the straight red to Mostert – I don’t expect them to give one at all with the current system, at least not for anything that can be seen as having anything much to do with rugby. ‘Not really rugby’ stuff – punches, headbutts, calling the ref a cheat etc I can imagine getting one though I can also see those being passed on at times, there was something I thought was more in that category in France-Scotland this year if I remember rightly.
LikeLike
@CMW, I have to admit I was a little surprised at that too, it was much more debatable than the LDJ one from last week. However, the ref said it was always illegal because his hand was behind the line of his shoulder – ie it was a shoulder charge, no attempt to wrap in contact.
We have to get these head shots out of the game and if there are mistakes in the decisions, imo it’s much better that they are being made where technically it might have been a 20 minute red as opposed to a full one
Personally I’d go full red for any head contact, give it a couple of seasons and we’d see it stopped.
LikeLiked by 1 person
^ where it may have been a 20 minute red as opposed to a full card is in the “degree of danger”
LikeLike
Ticht. What’s the ‘Word on The Street’ about Toonie? Are the SRU going to stick it out until after the RWC, or will they grow some balls and get rid before the 6N? (I know that would probably mean Franco going East, or it should, anyway).
LikeLike
BB, no one really knows anything. I get the feeling that we’ll carry on to the 6N with Townsend at the wheel. If we have a crap campaign he will, hopefully, fall in his sword.
If we do well then all this will be forgotten.
He’s only just signed an extension to his contract so the SRU would have to buy him out, unless of course there are performance targets, but I doubt that.
Did you see McTominay’s goal just now?
LikeLike
Yup!!!! Scored FAR too early, should’ve been in the 99th minute. Not sure my nerves can take the rest of this, especially with Gannon-Doak off (he’s a bit like fitba’s version of Wee Darcy).
LikeLike
See what I mean?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, that was quite a finish to a game.
I’m speechless
I can’t spake
LikeLike
We did it! We’re at the World Cup!
LikeLike
Crack open the good stuff, BB, we’re going to the World Cup
LikeLike
BB, in answer to your query earlier, Steve Clarke for head coach for the 6N?
LikeLike
I’ve got an Aerstone ‘Sea Cask’ 10 yr old that is very smoooooooth (like a McTominay Overhead Kick). Might have a wee snifter of that.
Steve would certainly add a bit of grit that I think Townsend lacks.
LikeLike
The Welsh and both bits of Ireland could join us next year via the play-offs. Can you imagine the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh all at the same tournament?
Yes, the English will be there too, but nobody cares about them (sorry, Refit).
LikeLiked by 3 people
Wales scored seven tonight. 7(seven) as the vidi-printer would have had it. Helps with their chances of qualifying.
I don’t suppose we’ll get that many on Saturday.
LikeLike
Ha, watched the video of Yes Sir, I Can Boogie, from 50 seconds in it brought tears to my eyes.
Congrats to Scotland, there were a lot of people in that stadium that have had a brilliant night.
Hangover stories tomorrow?
LikeLike
A MASSIVE congratulations to Scotland on qualifying for the Football World Cup! Heard on the news this morning that it was a bit of a rollercoaster ride, making it all the more special. What do the other British Isles sides have to do to make it?
LikeLike
@Deebee – Wales have a playoff semi-final at home against one from Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo or Ireland. Win that and the playoff final would be against one from Italy, Denmark, Turkey, Ukraine or Northern Ireland, North Macedonia, Romania, Sweden. The Irishes have away semi-finals. Some big teams in there obviously. Hopefully we can get that home win and face the North Macedonians again in our final, would fancy us against them after last night…
England just need to get on a plane as they have emulated Scotland by winning their group.
LikeLike
Deebs – they are in play-offs which take place in March. Needless to say, UEFA have made it as complicated as possible, but basically its a small knockout tournament with16 teams to get the final 4 European qualifiers.
LikeLike
Or what Clyde said.
LikeLike
Could be a chance to knock Ireland and Italy out of the football World Cup as revenge for what can be assumed will happen in the rugby.
LikeLike
Mostert’s red downgraded to a yellow (presumably to save face for the officials and World Rugby), which means the Boks played almost 70 minutes a man down for bugger all. That’s two reds this month (Tadhg Beirne against the ABs) that have been rescinded on review. Will the idiots at World Rugby actually do something about this farce now?
LikeLike
The new system is supposed to stop one-sided games, Mostert’s red seems to have been in line with that so I don’t see a problem.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Deebs, it was an “always illegal tackle” because Mostert’s hand was behind the line of his shoulder on impact, ie it was a shoulder charge. The lawyers supposedly showed that there was no head contact. From the videos I’ve seen, the tackle starts on the chest and rides upwards, the whiplash causing the Italian’s players head to snap forward and cause his chin to collide with Mostert’s shoulder.
A better outcome would be for players to stop going in with a shoulder charge in the first place.
The Scottish youngster Freddy Douglas was interviewed after Emerging Scotland played Tonga on Monday and he mentioned that one of his “work ons” was making dominant hits.
That is the way the game is, but it’s going to end up with some getting very seriously hurt during a game, never mind the long term effects of these collisions, game after game.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jamie George, Ollie Lawrence and Tom Roebuck all out of England’s squad for the Argentina match. Not great, but more than enough cover, I’d have thought.
LikeLike
Ticht, agreed on shoulder charges, no problem, except that the citing panel deemed it to be only a yellow threshold. It would be good to see players not hitting the chest and above area at all in the tackle, but in a split second, when a 2m+ bloke is dipping into the tackle, already bent double, what do you do? I honestly have no answer – you can’t say to locks and loose forwards that you’re not allowed to takcle, surely?
LikeLike
DB, this never used to be a problem in RU, since going professional and adopting league -style defences the tackling has become all about the power of the hit – the only team I remember tackling like that before was Western Samoa, it’s that long ago, before they became just Samoa.
Tackling around the waist was normal, as was the “soak tackle” where you’d use the momentum of the ball carrier and spin them around on to your side as you went to ground, allowing your rucking players to get over the top of you.
Another tackle technique taught to us at school was to tackle side-on, force the ball carrier out to the side of you and then hit them between knee and waist, wrapping arms around the legs.
We’re not going back to that, but those are just three examples of how it it possible to tackle without hitting like they do now – the problem lies in the fact that the defences are all set up to tackle head-on and drive the player backwards
LikeLike
Yip, we got taught similar tackle techniques back in the mists of time! As you say, it’s unlikely that we’ll be going back to that, so how to ensure both player safety and avoiding the farce that three of the four reds dished out thus far for tackle offences have been overtunred on review, with de Jager’s going to appeal as well.
Now I just want the sides announced for Saturday, so we can get on with the speculation about the matches!
LikeLike
England side to face the roar of Los Pumas:
15 Freddie Steward, 14 Immanuel Feyi-Waboso, 13 Henry Slade, 12 Fraser Dingwall, 11 Elliot Daly, 10 George Ford, 9 Ben Spencer, 8 Ben Earl, 7 Sam Underhill, 6 Guy Pepper, 5 Alex Coles, 4 Maro Itoje (captain), 3 Asher Opoku-Fordjour, 2 Luke Cowan-Dickie, 1 Ellis Genge
Replacements: 16 Theo Dan, 17 Fin Baxter, 18 Will Stuart, 19 Charlie Ewels, 20 Tom Curry, 21 Henry Pollock, 22 Alex Mitchell, 23 Marcus Smith
Too many double-barrelled names. Earl Spencer at 8-9 looks a bit soft too.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Deebee, here you go :
La composition des Bleus face à l’Australie
Le XV : 15. Ramos ; 14. Penaud, 13. Depoortere, 12. Fickou, 11. Bielle-Biarrey ; 10. Ntamack, 9. Lucu ; 7. Ollivon, 8. Alldritt (cap.), 6. Jelonch ; 5. Meafou, 4. Flament ; 3. Montagne, 2. Marchand, 1. Gros
Remplaçants : 16. Lamothe, 17. Neti, 18. Laclayat, 19. Taofifenua, 20. Auradou, 21. Jegou, 22. Jauneau, 23. Gourgues.
More on this later.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Like most fans, I like to list those who can’t make it due to injury or recent commotion.
Here is my list of unavailable France backs:
Dupont, Jalibert, Moefana, Barassi, Gailleton, Attisogbe with Segonds and Couilloud on the bench.
LikeLike
Kiwi rabble to face Wales:
15 Ruben Love, 14 Will Jordan, 13 Rieko Ioane, 12 Anton Lienert-Brown, 11 Caleb Clarke, 10 Damian McKenzie, 9 Cortez Ratima, 8 Wallace Sititi, 7 Du’Plessis Kirifi, 6 Simon Parker, 5 Fabian Holland, 4 Scott Barrett (captain), 3 Pasilio Tosi, 2 Samisoni Taukei’aho, 1 Tamaiti Williams.
Replacements: 16 George Bell, 17 Fletcher Newell, 18 George Bower, 19 Josh Lord, 20 Christian Lio-Willie, 21 Finlay Christie, 22 Leicester Fainga’anuku, 23 Sevu Reece.
Lightweight back row, creaking 2nd row, club-level front row, lousy 9, a replacement 10, who shouldn’t start any Test, past it centres, untested fullback, iffy 11 and Will Jordan. Wales by 27.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And the forwards:
Atonio, Tatafu, Baille, Wardi, Barlot, Mauvaka, Boudehent, Guillard, Capilla, etc…
That would make a decent injured XV!
Hope all these guys age well…
LikeLike