A while back I was lucky enough to have a chat with Jamie Peacock about coaching styles and I asked him about the various coaches he'd played under. His opinion was that at a club level you need a strong technical coach like Tony Smith who he rated as the best in that field. However, he said that at international level you don't need a technical coach you really need a strong manager. His opinion was based on the fact that over a short time a technical coach can not really do that much in terms of individual skills etc. He surprised me by saying that if he had to pick a coach to win a one off game or a short series then the best he's seen is Bluey McClennan. Not great technically but a genius at getting teams to bond and fired up to play for each other, a great motivator.
Can't help thinking that if we'd had Roby we might have won today and last week. No criticism of Clark who is a cracking player and going to get better, but he hasn't yet got the game management skills of Roby who makes good decisions and would have put us in the right areas of the field and knows when to scoot, when to pass and when to kick from dummy half. We'll never know of course, but I think that Roby would have made a difference.
It's reassuring to be reading this debate so far. In the states I have no doubt there'd be a clamour of posts along the lines of "If we allowed pupils to be armed then somebody would have been able to stop him", and "put him in the chair".
I think the overriding feeling is one of sadness. Sadness for the family of Mrs Maguire, but also sadness for the boy's own family who by all accounts were decent responsible parents.
The amazing thing is the video proved it was a try and the video ref came up with a reason for disallowing it which the video didnt show!! the ball was on the ground and his hand touched the ball. It was proven as fact and the VR for whatever reason went against what he saw...this is a worrying precedent for hometown video refs!
He was applying the little known rule that because they're down under then English players need to apply upward pressure........
For future tournaments we should insist that for the group games the officials for each game are appointed before the tournament starts so that everyone knows in advance who is reffing which game. Appointing refs on a week to week basis will always lead to this kind of controversy.
Inglis' hands were going in an upward motion to clear the ball, hence no grounding. Halls's was downwards.
That was the difference for me there.
Either way, the reason it was disallowed was nonsense.
That's the point some are missing. The VR gave a reason for disallowing it, that reason has been proved to be wrong. If the reason for disallowing it is wrong then it is a try.
Also, people are atuned to this myth of what constitutes a try. Have a look at the laws of the game, there is nothing written about having full control etc it merely states that a try is scored when the ball is grounded.
There's no money for this top-up of course and it won't be guaranteed but it's vital we do all we can to be 'fit for business'. In this case it means making sure some of our poorest people are paid significantly less than a living rate so that boardroom profits aren't dented.
Its this kind of stereotyping that I find hypocritical. The suggestion that boardrooms are packed with greedy uncompassionate people is just downright nonsense. Of course there are some directors that are, but the general stereotyping is incorrect in my experience.
I have been on both sides of the divide and I can state with absolute certainty that I could walk onto any shop floor anywhere in the country and find you greedy uncompassionate people there too. But of course, in some people's worlds the management are compelled to be greedy fat cats looking to exploit the workers and the workers are all angelic downtrodden victims.
Bottom line in this matter is this - do you want employers to employ more people with disabilities ?
This is another example of people hearing what they want to hear instead of thinking about what he was actually saying.
When you strip it down to the basics, what he was saying was that quite often employers won't employ disabled workers because of costs. To mitigate that he was suggesting that some of the cost burden be taken off the employers and passed to the state.
So, it would be cheaper for the employer, thus encouraging them to employ more people with disabilities. The worker would be no worse off as the "below minimum wage" pay would be topped up via the benefits system. I fail to see what so wrong with that, it is a win-win for all concerned.