So what did you think he meant when he said he had 'no excuse' for not taking it? Or when he said that 'a professional player should be taking that pass, more often than not'? Or when he said he would expect Pitts to take the pass 8 times out of 10?

I just thought he was over-stressing his point.

It seems abundantly clear what he meant. There's no ambiguity. He says it should be taken in the majority of cases in three different ways.

Well I wouldn't agree with him on that. My initial disagreement was simply with your comment about practice being much easier in a way that seemed to me as if you therefore thought it was irrelevant. I thought it was relevant even if I don't necessarily agree that he should have been expected to catch it.

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.