Six Nations 2017

bendertherobot

Sublime interpretation of the laws from Italy today. Unless you're Matt Dawson on twitter.

Pross

Hilarious seeing England unable to understand that if Italy aren't creating a ruck they can stand where they like. You'd think as a professional sportsman you'd learn the laws of the game you play. It was such a simple tactic to overcome too, a few pick and drives through the unprotected breakdown area was all that was needed. I thought they'd have got the grasp after half time but they still struggled a bit. It goes to show how players are coached to the point they are unable to think for themselves. Shame Italy tired again and the final score flattered England.

Wales were absolutely dire yesterday but that shouldn't take away from Scotland who were superb at the breakdown. They've improved enormously under the new coaching setup and I'm hoping the WRU will take note, in a way the last thing Wales needed was a tournament with a few results to paper over the cracks again. Regional rugby is also taking its toll, who'd have thought only having 4 professional teams and bringing in rules that restrict selection outside those teams would limit the talent pool? Oh yes, anyone with half a brain.

my_grandadʹs_bike

bendertherobot wrote:

Sublime interpretation of the laws from Italy today. Unless you're Matt Dawson on twitter.

Unfortunately for the Italians it only took England one half to more or less suss it out - gave rise to a bat s**t crazy game of Rugby. Can't see England beating Scotland or Ireland on current form.

bendertherobot

my grandad's bike wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Sublime interpretation of the laws from Italy today. Unless you're Matt Dawson on twitter.

Unfortunately for the Italians it only took England one half to more or less suss it out - gave rise to a bat s**t crazy game of Rugby. Can't see England beating Scotland or Ireland on current form.

It's probably a tactic that can work for an entire game but requires a steadfast adherence and a don't panic philosophy. You can drive through but if you put a shield in place it works. The problem later was that it doesn't work at the higher tempo unless you can match that tempo.

my_grandadʹs_bike

Looking forward to the analysts and strategy guys looking at this from all the other rugby playing nations - can't help thinking it will end up with some form of rule change as games descend into absolute confusion and chaos.

Pross

If there's a change to the laws it will be ridiculous. It's completely clear and always has been, if there's no ruck formed / called then there is no offside line. It does my head in week in, week out being at matches where supporters are moaning about offsides that simply don't exist.

One thing I would like to see tested is for a defending team not to contest a maul. In my opinion the attacking team would then be guilty of obstruction by having men in front of the ball carrier.

bendertherobot

my grandad's bike wrote:

Looking forward to the analysts and strategy guys looking at this from all the other rugby playing nations - can't help thinking it will end up with some form of rule change as games descend into absolute confusion and chaos.

Doesn't need to. It's a 100+ year old rule. No issues with it at all. Remember that it requires a lot of skill to tackle a player, roll away, get away and ensure that no ruck is formed. A lot of skill. I've never seen a team perform that many non rucks ever. Brilliant stuff and the law should not be changed at all.

pblakeney

"I am the referee, not a coach".

crispybug2

Just back from the game, a curious one today, superb interpretation of the laws by Italy and I'm struggling to understand why it took England an entire half of rugby to work it out, quite simply the scrum half stands one out and the forwards smash through the middle until the opposition stop playing at silly buggers!!

Anyway, a good win for England, onwards and upwards against Scotland

tangled_metal

Just seen England match highlights on iPlayer. Well done to the Italians. Conor o'Shea really got lucky with that tactic. How bad were England at reacting?! You need a group of players able to think and react. Anyone think the English players were too slow on their reaction? Asking the ref what to do?

Whatever your views it probably kept the defeat from being a rout. No matter what you think of English performances they'd have run away with a better score if Italy hadn't tried something.

So thinking ahead to the next WC, would NZ or Australia have demolished Italy if they tried that? Something a pundit said makes me think England aren't the real deal. They're being flattered by second in IRB rankings and still leading the 6 nations with grand slam still on? What's your view? You'll know more about it than me.

my_grandadʹs_bike

bendertherobot wrote:

my grandad's bike wrote:

Looking forward to the analysts and strategy guys looking at this from all the other rugby playing nations - can't help thinking it will end up with some form of rule change as games descend into absolute confusion and chaos.

Doesn't need to. It's a 100+ year old rule. No issues with it at all. Remember that it requires a lot of skill to tackle a player, roll away, get away and ensure that no ruck is formed. A lot of skill. I've never seen a team perform that many non rucks ever. Brilliant stuff and the law should not be changed at all.

I'll cede to your greater knowledge as I hardly follow the game these days and haven't played for a number of years which I'd care not to mention. To my untrained eye though, I thought on a fair number of occasions Italy had two people initially in the contact area deeming it a ruck and then one or more swiftly left the contact area convincing Poitre that is was just a tackle? Definitely not bemoaning the tactics, you get away with whatever the referee lets you.

laurentian

Pross wrote:

If there's a change to the laws it will be ridiculous. It's completely clear and always has been, if there's no ruck formed / called then there is no offside line. It does my head in week in, week out being at matches where supporters are moaning about offsides that simply don't exist.

One thing I would like to see tested is for a defending team not to contest a maul. In my opinion the attacking team would then be guilty of obstruction by having men in front of the ball carrier.

For me, the surprise was no the tactic of Italy (I admired that), is was that it took England a while to counteract it . . . which is the simplest thing ever, you pick the ball up and go straight forward with it. The problem that almost all Northern Hemisphere players are trying to liberate themselves from is the "rugby by numbers" that makes premiership rugby the sterile and contactless spectacle that it has become - Haskell's conversation with the referee was a national embarrassment.

England should have moaned about the continued presence of the Italian 9 between the English 9 and 10 when he WAS offside in the second half when defending Italians WERE in the ruck. The ref got that wrong but fair play to Italy for playing the ref.

I guess the wind was a major factor in Farrell missing so many kicks and, as the player that ignited the English backline in the first 15 minutes of the second half, I am puzzled as to why the hell Danny Care was taken off. At the end of the day, England, with a changed side, scored 6 tries which is about what I would have expected.

Scotland / Wales was a cracking game and Scotland are certainly beginning to shake off the terrible run of luck that has befallen them for the last few years. I don't know what influence Gatland has on selection now that he's in Lions mode and Howley is in charge but that Welsh performance and squad are beginning to make me wonder whether his choice as Lions coach is a good one - a loss to Ireland, which is quite possible, would have Wales asking some questions . . .

pblakeney

I see t'internet is getting it's knickers in a twist about Italy "ruining" the game. Quite frankly it is an opportunity to open up the game and I am bored of watching ruck, after ruck, after ruck... More tactical options could be interesting.

veronese68

Unfortunately I didn't manage to watch the game yesterday but it's quite funny reading some of the comments I've heard around the place. Being an English/Italian half breed I'm not too bothered which team wins, although Italy being the underdog is always fun. It sounds like they realised they wouldn't win in normal play so tried something different and almost got away with it. Fair play to them. Eddie Jones saying it's not rugby sounded like sour grapes to me. My son had watched the match at his rugby club and, having heard what I should think were fairly heavily biased views, thought Italy were out of order. But if it's within the rules it's not wrong in my opinion. As others have said it sounds like it made things more interesting. Haskell and Hartley asking the ref what was going on does seem rather embarrassing.
I'll have to watch it on replay now.

wallace_and_gromit

Veronese68 wrote:

It sounds like they realised they wouldn't win in normal play so tried something different and almost got away with it.

Sometimes you have to "shuffle the cards" and see if something happens. I recall the Italian experiment a few years ago with Bergamasco at scrum half wasn't a huge success, so it's good to see their wheeze on Sunday yielding benefits.

guy.spartacus

bendertherobot wrote:

my grandad's bike wrote:

Looking forward to the analysts and strategy guys looking at this from all the other rugby playing nations - can't help thinking it will end up with some form of rule change as games descend into absolute confusion and chaos.

Doesn't need to. It's a 100+ year old rule. No issues with it at all. Remember that it requires a lot of skill to tackle a player, roll away, get away and ensure that no ruck is formed. A lot of skill. I've never seen a team perform that many non rucks ever. Brilliant stuff and the law should not be changed at all.

The tackler doesn't need to get away, it's the other players that form a ruck - hence the call of 'tackler only' from the referee. The tackler cannot be offside onhis own, he could stand up and pick the ball up if he wanted to

bendertherobot

guy.spartacus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

my grandad's bike wrote:

Looking forward to the analysts and strategy guys looking at this from all the other rugby playing nations - can't help thinking it will end up with some form of rule change as games descend into absolute confusion and chaos.

Doesn't need to. It's a 100+ year old rule. No issues with it at all. Remember that it requires a lot of skill to tackle a player, roll away, get away and ensure that no ruck is formed. A lot of skill. I've never seen a team perform that many non rucks ever. Brilliant stuff and the law should not be changed at all.

The tackler doesn't need to get away, it's the other players that form a ruck - hence the call of 'tackler only' from the referee. The tackler cannot be offside onhis own, he could stand up and pick the ball up if he wanted to

True. But there are plenty of games where the mere presence of a tackler has been called as a ruck so removing blue from the equation altogether just assists the ref. The desire to jackal in the modern game also means that most initial tacklers end up trying to engage.

An interesting point arises in relation to the 1 metre rule though. If there's no ruck, why was engagement with the scrum half prohibited?

kingstongraham

Surely it's more interesting than Italy just turning up and rolling over.

veronese68

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surely it's more interesting than Italy just turning up and rolling over.

Very much so, I wasn't that bothered about watching because that's what I expected on current form.

kingstongraham

Veronese68 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surely it's more interesting than Italy just turning up and rolling over.

Very much so, I wasn't that bothered about watching because that's what I expected on current form.

Same here, I was planning on going out once England were out of sight, but kept me interested all match.

I'm not sure why there was special protection for the 9 - why does he get a 1 metre exclusion zone if the game is just continuing?

bendertherobot

KingstonGraham wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surely it's more interesting than Italy just turning up and rolling over.

Very much so, I wasn't that bothered about watching because that's what I expected on current form.

Same here, I was planning on going out once England were out of sight, but kept me interested all match.

I'm not sure why there was special protection for the 9 - why does he get a 1 metre exclusion zone if the game is just continuing?

I'm working through that. The ruck creates an offside line that extends across the pitch, you can't cross it. The tackle creates an offside line around the players only. A bubble. If you don't enter that then you can't be offside. But to get to the ball? That seems to require still going through 'the gate' as if a ruck was formed. I'm still not clear as to why the SH has protection other than being 'near' the offside line.

guy.spartacus

KingstonGraham wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surely it's more interesting than Italy just turning up and rolling over.

Very much so, I wasn't that bothered about watching because that's what I expected on current form.

Same here, I was planning on going out once England were out of sight, but kept me interested all match.

I'm not sure why there was special protection for the 9 - why does he get a 1 metre exclusion zone if the game is just continuing?

He is directly behind the tackle zone and any attack would still need to come through the 'gate' - the width of which is formed by the tackled player rather than the tackler. Any engagement by the Italians in this area would create a ruck and therefore they (the ones dancing about in the 10-12 channels) would be offside

guy.spartacus

bendertherobot wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surely it's more interesting than Italy just turning up and rolling over.

Very much so, I wasn't that bothered about watching because that's what I expected on current form.

Same here, I was planning on going out once England were out of sight, but kept me interested all match.

I'm not sure why there was special protection for the 9 - why does he get a 1 metre exclusion zone if the game is just continuing?

I'm working through that. The ruck creates an offside line that extends across the pitch, you can't cross it. The tackle creates an offside line around the players only. A bubble. If you don't enter that then you can't be offside. But to get to the ball? That seems to require still going through 'the gate' as if a ruck was formed. I'm still not clear as to why the SH has protection other than being 'near' the offside line.

Also - until the 9 picks the ball up, he is without the ball and therefore any tackle on him would be illegal.

bendertherobot

guy.spartacus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surely it's more interesting than Italy just turning up and rolling over.

Very much so, I wasn't that bothered about watching because that's what I expected on current form.

Same here, I was planning on going out once England were out of sight, but kept me interested all match.

I'm not sure why there was special protection for the 9 - why does he get a 1 metre exclusion zone if the game is just continuing?

I'm working through that. The ruck creates an offside line that extends across the pitch, you can't cross it. The tackle creates an offside line around the players only. A bubble. If you don't enter that then you can't be offside. But to get to the ball? That seems to require still going through 'the gate' as if a ruck was formed. I'm still not clear as to why the SH has protection other than being 'near' the offside line.

Also - until the 9 picks the ball up, he is without the ball and therefore any tackle on him would be illegal.

I agree. But we're not talking about tackling the 9. No one intended to. It's about getting to the ball. So the exclusion around the 9 is largely irrelevant. But, it seems, once he's retrieved it you may well, if you're an 'offside irritator' not be able to tackle him as you're first up tackler and need to come from an otherwise onside position? Essentially, ruck or no ruck you have to proceed through the gate to get to the ball/player in possession.

kingstongraham

As soon as you start reading the laws of the game you realise that pretty much every ruck involves both teams breaking the rules.

kingstongraham

bendertherobot wrote:

guy.spartacus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surely it's more interesting than Italy just turning up and rolling over.

Very much so, I wasn't that bothered about watching because that's what I expected on current form.

Same here, I was planning on going out once England were out of sight, but kept me interested all match.

I'm not sure why there was special protection for the 9 - why does he get a 1 metre exclusion zone if the game is just continuing?

I'm working through that. The ruck creates an offside line that extends across the pitch, you can't cross it. The tackle creates an offside line around the players only. A bubble. If you don't enter that then you can't be offside. But to get to the ball? That seems to require still going through 'the gate' as if a ruck was formed. I'm still not clear as to why the SH has protection other than being 'near' the offside line.

Also - until the 9 picks the ball up, he is without the ball and therefore any tackle on him would be illegal.

I agree. But we're not talking about tackling the 9. No one intended to. It's about getting to the ball. So the exclusion around the 9 is largely irrelevant. But, it seems, once he's retrieved it you may well, if you're an 'offside irritator' not be able to tackle him as you're first up tackler and need to come from an otherwise onside position?

Exactly, if it isn't a ruck, and the ball is either just on the ground, or in the hands of the 9 - what's the law that says you can't go for it?

bendertherobot

KingstonGraham wrote:

As soon as you start reading the laws of the game you realise that pretty much every ruck involves both teams breaking the rules.

Laws

And have a look at http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=15.7

I mean, when did any of that lot get regularly done?

guy.spartacus

bendertherobot wrote:

guy.spartacus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surely it's more interesting than Italy just turning up and rolling over.

Very much so, I wasn't that bothered about watching because that's what I expected on current form.

Same here, I was planning on going out once England were out of sight, but kept me interested all match.

I'm not sure why there was special protection for the 9 - why does he get a 1 metre exclusion zone if the game is just continuing?

I'm working through that. The ruck creates an offside line that extends across the pitch, you can't cross it. The tackle creates an offside line around the players only. A bubble. If you don't enter that then you can't be offside. But to get to the ball? That seems to require still going through 'the gate' as if a ruck was formed. I'm still not clear as to why the SH has protection other than being 'near' the offside line.

Also - until the 9 picks the ball up, he is without the ball and therefore any tackle on him would be illegal.

I agree. But we're not talking about tackling the 9. No one intended to. It's about getting to the ball. So the exclusion around the 9 is largely irrelevant. But, it seems, once he's retrieved it you may well, if you're an 'offside irritator' not be able to tackle him as you're first up tackler and need to come from an otherwise onside position? Essentially, ruck or no ruck you have to proceed through the gate to get to the ball/player in possession.

I think he's fair game for a tackle from anywhere if he's picked it up - any tackle would only be illegal if they'd been offside in the first instance.

Tackles can come from any direction in open play.

bendertherobot

KingstonGraham wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

guy.spartacus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surely it's more interesting than Italy just turning up and rolling over.

Very much so, I wasn't that bothered about watching because that's what I expected on current form.

Same here, I was planning on going out once England were out of sight, but kept me interested all match.

I'm not sure why there was special protection for the 9 - why does he get a 1 metre exclusion zone if the game is just continuing?

I'm working through that. The ruck creates an offside line that extends across the pitch, you can't cross it. The tackle creates an offside line around the players only. A bubble. If you don't enter that then you can't be offside. But to get to the ball? That seems to require still going through 'the gate' as if a ruck was formed. I'm still not clear as to why the SH has protection other than being 'near' the offside line.

Also - until the 9 picks the ball up, he is without the ball and therefore any tackle on him would be illegal.

I agree. But we're not talking about tackling the 9. No one intended to. It's about getting to the ball. So the exclusion around the 9 is largely irrelevant. But, it seems, once he's retrieved it you may well, if you're an 'offside irritator' not be able to tackle him as you're first up tackler and need to come from an otherwise onside position?

Exactly, if it isn't a ruck, and the ball is either just on the ground, or in the hands of the 9 - what's the law that says you can't go for it?

It's a combination of these:

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=15.6

bendertherobot

guy.spartacus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

guy.spartacus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Surely it's more interesting than Italy just turning up and rolling over.

Very much so, I wasn't that bothered about watching because that's what I expected on current form.

Same here, I was planning on going out once England were out of sight, but kept me interested all match.

I'm not sure why there was special protection for the 9 - why does he get a 1 metre exclusion zone if the game is just continuing?

I'm working through that. The ruck creates an offside line that extends across the pitch, you can't cross it. The tackle creates an offside line around the players only. A bubble. If you don't enter that then you can't be offside. But to get to the ball? That seems to require still going through 'the gate' as if a ruck was formed. I'm still not clear as to why the SH has protection other than being 'near' the offside line.

Also - until the 9 picks the ball up, he is without the ball and therefore any tackle on him would be illegal.

I agree. But we're not talking about tackling the 9. No one intended to. It's about getting to the ball. So the exclusion around the 9 is largely irrelevant. But, it seems, once he's retrieved it you may well, if you're an 'offside irritator' not be able to tackle him as you're first up tackler and need to come from an otherwise onside position? Essentially, ruck or no ruck you have to proceed through the gate to get to the ball/player in possession.

I think he's fair game for a tackle from anywhere if he's picked it up - any tackle would only be illegal if they'd been offside in the first instance.

Tackles can come from any direction in open play.

Yes. That's an issue as well. But it begs the question about the 1 metre. They could have positioned themselves nearer the ball and/or SH. I think it's something to do with first up tackler provisions and tackle provisions preventing wandering round to get the ball.