see your point, but the RFU has agreement with English Clubs to release players for periods prior to international matches and also the blank weeks between the six nations matches. There is no agreement with other clubs /regions. French clubs could delay players joining up with the squad and also take them back part way through the fixture plan. They felt that as players wouldn't be able to train it would hinder the squad. I can also understand their thinking.

I agree and perhaps he is also supporting his dad who was upset at being one of the last ones to find out Sam was leaving. It was clear from Burgess's article in the Mail that he had an issue with Ford about his playing position.
[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3311129/SAM-BURGESS-couldn-t-right-fighting-losing-battle-playing-rugby-union-England-heart-just-isn-t-it.html[/url

For Mike Ford to state to the media that Burgess "didn't have the stomach" to stay and fight for his place in Union, shows his anger towards Sam whose reply shows the relationship had broken down

[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3313301/Sam-Burgess-hits-Mike-Ford-landing-Sydney-rugby-league-return-say-wants-m-not-afraid-say-missed-mum.html[/url


I have sympathy for Lancaster who is a decent man and had done a decent job in turning around the mess he inherited. Yes he made mistakes and has to fall on his sword but the main blame lies with the players and the club coaching set ups that have failed to produce enough world class rugby talent. It is not Lancaster's job as head England coach to teach players basic skills which so many lack.

He was entitled to select Burgess as a wild card impact player ahead of the other inside centre contenders who had all (with the exception of Eastmond) had enough caps to make the 12 position their own as Joseph had done at 13. None of the other contenders had good form going into the WC with the exception of Slade who was seen as cover for outside centre.

I think that had Joseph stayed fit Lancaster would have stuck with Ford even though he lacked any spark in the warm up matches. But once Joseph was ruled out that meant the other half of that Bath double act (Ford) was replaced with Farrell. Had Lancaster gone with Burrill and Slade against Wales with Burgess coming on from the bench for impact he would not have been criticised as much. As it was both Farrell and Burgess had good games against Wales and the errors came from the others despite their lifelong Union education and ironically from Lancaster's decision to replace Burgess with Ford which is when the rot set in.

All in all a big mess which Burgess is better out of as it is clear there were too many Union insiders who wanted him to fail.

Interesting article with some fair points on the schism between the two codes
[urlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/11989592/Sam-Burgess-affair-ends-the-truce-in-rugbys-code-wars.html[/url

That's not quite what happened, one thing that seems to be conveniently forgotten in this exchange of views on brown is the way England lost the Wales match.
If you recall the scores were level, brown fielded a high ball on the halfway line and did not release the ball. The end result a penalty to Wales which they kicked, thus winning the game. To be fair to brown the England forwards did not seem to drive over brown thus allowing him to release the ball.
Never the less he did not perform and thus the penalty was against him. He then wanted to start an altercation with one of the Wales players.
I have complete sympathy with the lad he works hard for England and is truly committed ,unfortunately he had a poor World Cup .

So he fielded the ball, took the tackle, set himself in a position to set up the ruck and he did not perform, because the forwards didn't go over him. i'll leave it there.

He still had to release the ball, whilst the England forwards did not do him any favours he got himself in the wrong position and held on to the ball.
So unfortunately the penalty was down to him.

Pretty much every assessment (by actual people who understand the game) of that Wales try, put the blame on Brad Barritt rushing up and creating the dog leg in defence. A criminal lack of defensive discipline especially on halfway where there was virtually no threat until he bolted. Once Wales were outside and then behind the England defence they were able to execute a very well worked try.
It's the duty of the opposite side winger to come across and cover cross kicks, and the scrum half also acts as a sweeper. Thought that was obvious.

Most quality full backs like Brown like to play around the ruck area - ever watched Willie Le Roux? That's where you want your best attacking players. Long gone are the days when RU full backs had to sit 25 yards behind play all day waiting for kicks. The ruck is more predictable than it was 20 years ago when I played FB so you are much less likely to turn the ball over. The FB and the Wings work together, they are all basically FB's these days. Jonny May and Watson both have extensive experience at FB and know what to do and how to cover each other.

Penalties for not releasing are entirely the fault of the supporting players, you simply can't surrender the ball to the opposition, especially in your own half. Better 3 than 7 points.

And why do you think turnover ball is so dangerous? Everyone on the defence is out of position. Such a shame the best England manage most times is to kick it away.

You seem to have conveniently forgotten more than anyone. I remember England having a penalty on 77 minutes (Warburton not releasing Mike Brown in the tackle funnily enough) and instead of kicking the f******g thing between the posts to level the scores (which would have ultimately meant we went through the QF) our dip captain went for a lineout in the corner which we made a total c**k of.

One thing about that penalty Robshaw opted not to kick at goal for, it was pretty close to the sideline so not a gimme that it would've been knocked over.

Yep and had it been missed he could've been criticised for playing too conservatively.

I agree with the call made to kick to touch. They could've tried a couple of attempts at a try (as its England probably a rolling maul designed to bring about a penalty try) and if that didn't work see if a penalty nearer the posts was forthcoming or stick a drop goal over.

The poor decision, for me, wasn't in kicking to touch, but in going for a short lineout.

This is a rugby league forum can we stop talking about kick n clap

No. Its a topic called Burgess leaves Bath. If you don't want to read then don't.

And a conversation about Burgess or Bath ended long ago.