Six Nations 2017

guy.spartacus

bendertherobot wrote:

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

(d)
At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

guy.spartacus

bendertherobot wrote:

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.

I think they were just making it obvious they weren't forming a ruck - any closer and they risked being grabbed by an English forward and pulled in

bompington

FWIW the papers are reporting that the ref told the Italians prior to the game that tackling the half would "break the spirit of the laws" - which, of course, is a nice concept but a bit of a tautology.

But really rugby laws are a pile of illogic, and it's only the shared understanding between players & the ref that makes it work.

While we're at it... am I the only one who thinks that dummy runners are increasingly used as American football-style blockers?

kingstongraham

guy.spartacus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

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

(d)
At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

Makes sense for not picking it up - does that cover not making a new tackle on the 9 as well?

guy.spartacus

KingstonGraham wrote:

guy.spartacus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

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

(d)
At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

Makes sense for not picking it up - does that cover not making a new tackle on the 9 as well?

In regular play I take great pleasure in steaming round the side of a ruck when a lackadaisical 9 has picked the ball up and started winding up a pass - I think it was Danny Care's speed at getting the ball away that stopped a tackle on him occurring.

kingstongraham

guy.spartacus wrote:

In regular play I take great pleasure in steaming round the side of a ruck when a lackadaisical 9 has picked the ball up and started winding up a pass - I think it was Danny Care's speed at getting the ball away that stopped a tackle on him occurring.

Not in the first half it wasn't - he regularly looked back and saw no one to pass to except two Italians and didn't know what to do next.

guy.spartacus

KingstonGraham wrote:

guy.spartacus wrote:

In regular play I take great pleasure in steaming round the side of a ruck when a lackadaisical 9 has picked the ball up and started winding up a pass - I think it was Danny Care's speed at getting the ball away that stopped a tackle on him occurring.

Not in the first half it wasn't - he regularly looked back and saw no one to pass to except two Italians and didn't know what to do next.

They were still a fair distance from him awaiting the intercept - forced him to go round the corner a couple of times on his own.

Quite why the forwards didn't just start shoving it up their jumper every breakdown within 5 minutes is beyond me.

Not the spectator sport it could be but would have stopped all the silly buggers dancing about in our back line fairly quickly

crispybug2

Having now gone back and watched the match again the main thing I've noticed is the complete absence of leadership from Dylan Hartley, leaders emerge in tough circumstances and frankly Hartley disappeared!

This match has hastened his departure from the England set up and undoubtedly cost whatever small chance he had of leading the Lions.

bendertherobot

KingstonGraham wrote:

guy.spartacus wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

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

(d)
At a tackle or near to a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the tackler closest to those players’ goal line.

Makes sense for not picking it up - does that cover not making a new tackle on the 9 as well?

Yes, it seems to, through a combination of things. I have to say, it makes for an interesting rule but, given it's just standing in the way without adding anything else, it does seem to detract somewhat from the spirit of the game. That said, I'm all for the laws.

Of course, what would work is to send a player either side, distract the scrum half then wade through the middle and nick the ball. The problem there is that if you get scragged by the opposition player in the 'faux ruck' it becomes a ruck and the 2 players sent round become offside. All very interesting.

narbs

crispybug2 wrote:

Having now gone back and watched the match again the main thing I've noticed is the complete absence of leadership from Dylan Hartley, leaders emerge in tough circumstances and frankly Hartley disappeared!

This match has hastened his departure from the England set up and undoubtedly cost whatever small chance he had of leading the Lions.

AWJ being ignored by his kickers has probably ruled him out of his chance as well.

Random Scot for the Lions captaincy!

bartman100

I couldn't care less about the Rugby, but do hope England get a good kicking. I say this as an Englishman.

Thanks
Bye!

Pross

narbs wrote:

crispybug2 wrote:

Having now gone back and watched the match again the main thing I've noticed is the complete absence of leadership from Dylan Hartley, leaders emerge in tough circumstances and frankly Hartley disappeared!

This match has hastened his departure from the England set up and undoubtedly cost whatever small chance he had of leading the Lions.

AWJ being ignored by his kickers has probably ruled him out of his chance as well.

Random Scot for the Lions captaincy!

Yeah, that was embarrassing. Neither AWJ or the ref should have allowed it once the ref indicated the posts. Certainly if I'd been AWJ there'd have have been a conversation in the changing rooms and Biggar wouldn't be doing it again. Personally I think touch was the right call but despite that and the fact I like Biggar he would be getting dropped for a few games.

For Lions captain I'd go for Laidlaw assuming he's fit. I wouldn't have either AWJ or Hartley in the starting lineup on current form (AWJ wouldn't be in my test squad at all).

narbs

Pross wrote:

narbs wrote:

crispybug2 wrote:

Having now gone back and watched the match again the main thing I've noticed is the complete absence of leadership from Dylan Hartley, leaders emerge in tough circumstances and frankly Hartley disappeared!

This match has hastened his departure from the England set up and undoubtedly cost whatever small chance he had of leading the Lions.

AWJ being ignored by his kickers has probably ruled him out of his chance as well.

Random Scot for the Lions captaincy!

Yeah, that was embarrassing. Neither AWJ or the ref should have allowed it once the ref indicated the posts. Certainly if I'd been AWJ there'd have have been a conversation in the changing rooms and Biggar wouldn't be doing it again. Personally I think touch was the right call but despite that and the fact I like Biggar he would be getting dropped for a few games.

For Lions captain I'd go for Laidlaw assuming he's fit. I wouldn't have either AWJ or Hartley in the starting lineup on current form (AWJ wouldn't be in my test squad at all).

After Henson's performance for Bristol yesterday he can replace Biggar for the Ireland game. And now King Nicky's out of retirement and back at Cardiff he can come on after 65 minutes for a roll-back-the-years cameo and passing masterclass.

(Neither of these is unfortunately likely)

bendertherobot

narbs wrote:

Pross wrote:

narbs wrote:

crispybug2 wrote:

Having now gone back and watched the match again the main thing I've noticed is the complete absence of leadership from Dylan Hartley, leaders emerge in tough circumstances and frankly Hartley disappeared!

This match has hastened his departure from the England set up and undoubtedly cost whatever small chance he had of leading the Lions.

AWJ being ignored by his kickers has probably ruled him out of his chance as well.

Random Scot for the Lions captaincy!

Yeah, that was embarrassing. Neither AWJ or the ref should have allowed it once the ref indicated the posts. Certainly if I'd been AWJ there'd have have been a conversation in the changing rooms and Biggar wouldn't be doing it again. Personally I think touch was the right call but despite that and the fact I like Biggar he would be getting dropped for a few games.

For Lions captain I'd go for Laidlaw assuming he's fit. I wouldn't have either AWJ or Hartley in the starting lineup on current form (AWJ wouldn't be in my test squad at all).

After Henson's performance for Bristol yesterday he can replace Biggar for the Ireland game. And now King Nicky's out of retirement and back at Cardiff he can come on after 65 minutes for a roll-back-the-years cameo and passing masterclass.

(Neither of these is unfortunately likely)

Nah, Sam Davies at 10, the Witch at 12, I can't be bothered to think about 13 as that will be enough..........

crispybug2

After Henson's performance for Bristol yesterday he can replace Biggar for the Ireland game. And now King Nicky's out of retirement and back at Cardiff he can come on after 65 minutes for a roll-back-the-years cameo and passing masterclass.

(Neither of these is unfortunately likely)


Jesus Wept!!

When Gavin Henson is the answer to your problems you really are in a whole world of shite!!

bendertherobot

Old Gwlad.....

Garry H

bendertherobot wrote:

Old Gwlad.....

What happened to Gwlad?

bendertherobot

Killed by subs. There's a nu Gwlad. Not been there though.

Garry H

bendertherobot wrote:

Killed by subs. There's a nu Gwlad. Not been there though.

Just tried,but you have to register to see anything. Must be cr@p then.

Crazyjenkins01

What a game by the Italians, kept their cool and to the game plan, to the laws. I really enjoyed the game because of it, although not the sort of game we normally see. Really should have overcome the tactic quicker but that said still a bonus point win!

bendertherobot

Garry H wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Killed by subs. There's a nu Gwlad. Not been there though.

Just tried,but you have to register to see anything. Must be cr@p then.

It always was. Particularly that cycling thread.

crispybug2

It's being reported that Billy Vinipola could be fit in time for the Scotland match, can only hope that that's true as he's been missed and Nathan Hughes really doesn't look international quality.

Crazyjenkins01

Have to agree, he doesn't seem to be able to bring his form over from wasps...

Pross

Decent first half in the Wales v Ireland match, nice to see my (cycling) club mate looking so up for it again.

Interesting that the commentators have been talking up Webb and Murray as the front runners for the Lions 9 jersey. I had Laidlaw nailed on for that.

crispybug2

Match of the Six Nations so far!

Had Ireland nailed on for this match but Wales responded superbly to their form so far and were good value for the win

So if England win tomorrow then they win the Six Nations again

pblakeney

crispybug2 wrote:

Had Ireland nailed on for this match but Wales responded superbly to their form so far and were good value for the win

All true. Have to wonder the result without Johnny Sexton's yellow card.
What could he have done to get out of there?

narbs

PBlakeney wrote:

crispybug2 wrote:

Had Ireland nailed on for this match but Wales responded superbly to their form so far and were good value for the win

All true. Have to wonder the result without Johnny Sexton's yellow card.
What could he have done to get out of there?

Who cares?

Pross

PBlakeney wrote:

crispybug2 wrote:

Had Ireland nailed on for this match but Wales responded superbly to their form so far and were good value for the win

All true. Have to wonder the result without Johnny Sexton's yellow card.
What could he have done to get out of there?

I agree he was stuck but he also appeared to get in the way of the ball more than he needed to while there. I often see players stuck on the ground but a lot of the time they make sure they get there in the first place then make a big fuss of showing they're trying to get out.

crispybug2

Pross wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

crispybug2 wrote:

Had Ireland nailed on for this match but Wales responded superbly to their form so far and were good value for the win

All true. Have to wonder the result without Johnny Sexton's yellow card.
What could he have done to get out of there?

I agree he was stuck but he also appeared to get in the way of the ball more than he needed to while there. I often see players stuck on the ground but a lot of the time they make sure they get there in the first place then make a big fuss of showing they're trying to get out.

Speaking as a thirty year veteran on the rugby field I can assure you that Sexton knew exactly what he was doing, making it look accidental is part of the job. When I was playing if the opposition got a rolling maul going then it was my job to bring it to ground illegally and take my chances that the ref didn't see me and sin bin me for ten minutes!

bendertherobot

Sexton took one for the team. Good penalty well spotted. Barnes was pretty excellent last night.

Wales were strong. Wales ARE strong. It's not a game plan that has any real future but it can work on its day.