Can't understand people brushing this under the carpet. Had the score been 18-20 would everyone dismiss it so lightly?
Whether he thought he could score or not he absolutely had to put Pitts under the sticks, it was pure greed/complete lack of awareness, either are criminal. As it happens he didn't stand a chance of taking Hardaker on the outside.

I blame Blacklock.

This thread is going around in circles more than a very circley thing.

I'm on my third glass of wine and second bag of crisps. I'm debating whether to get a packet of winegums from the kitchen but I don't want to miss anything.

I was disagreeing with the argument that because the players practise that particular drill, Pitts should have taken the ball. Jogging back and forth whilst practising catching a ball you expect to be delivered around your ankles is appreciably different to running at full tilt and taking a ball that has already bounced at your feet in a game situation.

It goes without saying that everything is easier in training, but that only strengthens my argument that Pitts was in no way responsible for the break down of the move. I can see the point in defending Yeaman, but to try and shift the blame (or any part thereof) onto Pitts is ridiculous.

Earlier in the thread he actually said that pitts wasn't as equal in proportionate blame but to suggest Pitts should be taking that pass 80% of the time is unbelievable.

Don't disagree with that and never have.