Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

England vs Italy.

Options
1…1718202223…25

Comments

  • Options
    #572
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,293 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    techdiver wrote: »
    In fairness, a word in the refs ear in the lead up to the game can resolve that.
    .

    conor o shea said just that in an interview afterwards... that they had spoke to pointe beforehand and told him thats how they were going to play the rucks so that he would be aware of it.


  • Options
    #573
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,200 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    awec wrote: »
    Good jumpers though will realise the opposition aren't engaging and keep hold of the ball at the front, therefore no obstruction.

    They've to be very careful on the long transfer scenario. Nigel Owens penalised both Munster and the Scarlets at the weekend for it.


  • Options
    #574
    Shedite27
    Registered Users Posts: 9,385 ✭✭✭Shedite27


    Not really a rugby fan so apologies if this is a stupid question, but what's the logic in the offside rule only kicking in when the defense engages in the ruck? Is it an oversight in how the rule is written or would there be a major change if IRB change the rule?


  • Options
    #575
    thomond2006
    Registered Users Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    Regarding the confusion from the England players in the first half regarding the non-rucks, surely some fault lies with the coaches? They have eyes both on the ground and on monitors, surely the problem could have been diagnosed by them during the first half? We've seen on the Lions documentaries that coaches can communicate regularly to players via medics or water carriers.


  • Options
    #576
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,200 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    Shedite27 wrote: »
    Not really a rugby fan so apologies if this is a stupid question, but what's the logic in the offside rule only kicking in when the defense engages in the ruck? Is it an oversight in how the rule is written or would there be a major change if IRB change the rule?

    Because it's not a ruck. Commentators and pundits are continually using the word "ruck" when they shouldn't.

    It's the tackle area. A ruck only exists if a player from each side contests over the tackled player. So it needed another Italian player to go in over the tackled player to compete. It's simply a tackle and nothing else.

    Therefore it is still open play where there is no offside line.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #577
    TheCitizen
    Registered Users Posts: 9,334 ✭✭✭TheCitizen


    Shedite27 wrote: »
    Not really a rugby fan so apologies if this is a stupid question, but what's the logic in the offside rule only kicking in when the defense engages in the ruck? Is it an oversight in how the rule is written or would there be a major change if IRB change the rule?
    There's no need to change the rule. All England had to do was pick and go through the middle. The English were slow on the uptake.


  • Options
    #578
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    Yeah, Poite signalled this (open play) clearly with his arms out wide. How they could be confused by this is beyond me.


  • Options
    #579
    Neil3030
    Registered Users Posts: 17,065 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    Shedite27 wrote: »
    Not really a rugby fan so apologies if this is a stupid question, but what's the logic in the offside rule only kicking in when the defense engages in the ruck? Is it an oversight in how the rule is written or would there be a major change if IRB change the rule?

    Otherwise all tacklers would be offside, once a ball carrier breaks the gainline.


  • Options
    #580
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,200 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    There's no need to change the rule. All England had to do was pick and go through the middle. The English were slow on the uptake.

    That's what makes Matt Dawson's comment so laughable and pathetic. To claim that the rules now need to be changed is beyond infantile. This was always the situation and teams have done it before.

    It's the laws of the game. They might as well have said "The Italian players keep trying to score points, what can we do to stop this?"


  • Options
    #581
    Sangre
    Registered Users Posts: 12,154 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    This isn't any different from teams not engaging a maul or using the choke tackle. Teams adapt.

    Its one of the reasons I love rugby, teams take advantage of the laws and the sport adapts to the new tactic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #582
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    Buer wrote: »
    That's what makes Matt Dawson's comment so laughable and pathetic. To claim that the rules now need to be changed is beyond infantile. This was always the situation and teams have done it before.

    It's the laws of the game. They might as well have said "The Italian players keep trying to score points, what can we do to stop this?"
    Or Eddie Jones saying "This isn't rugby". Of course it's rugby. There's no law says that every tackle should result in a ruck.


  • Options
    #583
    ScrubsfanChris
    Registered Users Posts: 8,599 ✭✭✭ScrubsfanChris


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    There's no need to change the rule. All England had to do was pick and go through the middle. The English were slow on the uptake.
    Even simpler, the player thats tackled lets go of the ball, gets back to his feet, picks the ball up again and continues on.


  • Options
    #584
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    TheCitizen wrote: »
    There's no need to change the rule. All England had to do was pick and go through the middle. The English were slow on the uptake.

    There is a need to change it, and it will be changed.

    Makes for terrible viewing when used non stop throughout a match.


  • Options
    #585
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,293 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    ScrubsfanChris wrote: »
    Even simpler, the player thats tackled lets go of the ball, gets back to his feet, picks the ball up again and continues on.

    or again, just keep putting trail runners on......tackled player pops from the deck, train runner crashes through... rinse and repeat


  • Options
    #586
    Sangre
    Registered Users Posts: 12,154 ✭✭✭✭Sangre


    Rightwing wrote: »
    There is a need to change it, and it will be changed.

    Makes for terrible viewing when used non stop throughout a match.

    I don't think we'll ever see a team fail so badly to adapt to this tactic. Hardly worth changing a basic law of the game to cater for one match.

    Also, how do you change it?


  • Options
    #587
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,293 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Rightwing wrote: »
    There is a need to change it, and it will be changed.

    Makes for terrible viewing when used non stop throughout a match.

    nope, you dont get it.

    first off, it made for extremely entertaining viewing
    second off, teams with more intelligence than england will adapt much quicker
    third off, if it becomes much more popular team will have effective strategies to counter.

    its not new at all, teams have been doing it sporadically in the SH for the past few seasons.

    its not going to change just because some english beefheads couldnt cope with it :D


  • Options
    #588
    Neil3030
    Registered Users Posts: 17,065 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    Sangre wrote: »
    I don't think we'll ever see a team fail so badly to adapt to this tactic. Hardly worth changing a basic law of the game to cater for one match.

    Also, how do you change it?

    It's already been changed. They call it rugby league.


  • Options
    #589
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    nope, you dont get it.

    first off, it made for extremely entertaining viewing
    second off, teams with more intelligence than england will adapt much quicker
    third off, if it becomes much more popular team will have effective strategies to counter.

    its not new at all, teams have been doing it sporadically in the SH for the past few seasons.

    its not going to change just because some english beefheads couldnt cope with it :D

    Completely agree with you. If Italy did that against Munster they would have been annihilated in a hail of pick and goes. England got stage fright and drew a collective blank but it's an exploit that has a remedy available on the pitch.

    No need for a rule change.


  • Options
    #590
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Rightwing wrote: »
    There is a need to change it, and it will be changed.

    Makes for terrible viewing when used non stop throughout a match.

    But it won't be used non stop in a match when played against a team that can counter it.

    England made this tactic a 'problem', not Italy.


  • Options
    #591
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    nope, you dont get it.

    first off, it made for extremely entertaining viewing
    second off, teams with more intelligence than england will adapt much quicker
    third off, if it becomes much more popular team will have effective strategies to counter.

    its not new at all, teams have been doing it sporadically in the SH for the past few seasons.

    its not going to change just because some english beefheads couldnt cope with it :D

    We need to look at the bigger picture. Visualise Wales v Irl with both teams doing that for 80 mins. Now the penny is beginning to drop.

    Hence, the change will come.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #592
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    Rightwing wrote: »
    We need to look at the bigger picture. Visualise Wales v Irl with both teams doing that for 80 mins. Now the penny is beginning to drop.

    But that won't happen.


  • Options
    #593
    Neil3030
    Registered Users Posts: 17,065 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    Rightwing wrote: »
    We need to look at the bigger picture. Visualise Wales v Irl with both teams doing that for 80 mins. Now the penny is beginning to drop.

    Hence, the change will come.

    Are you just ignoring all the posts explaining how this tactic basically leaves a team wide open and will never be employed to the same degree again?


  • Options
    #594
    ScrubsfanChris
    Registered Users Posts: 8,599 ✭✭✭ScrubsfanChris


    Rightwing wrote: »
    We need to look at the bigger picture. Visualise Wales v Irl with both teams doing that for 80 mins. Now the penny is beginning to drop.

    Hence, the change will come.
    I'd say Ireland would love for he Welsh to use this tactic. We don't make many a line break passing it out wide so Heaslip, SOB, CJ and others taking the ball up the middle will do nicely.


  • Options
    #595
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,305 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Rightwing wrote: »
    There is a need to change it, and it will be changed.

    Makes for terrible viewing when used non stop throughout a match.

    Wrong.

    If England adapted after about the second or third time Italy did it then Italy would have been compelled to actually compete for the ball proper after the tackle which would have resulted in the rucks being formed.

    Simply because England didn't adapt is no reason to change it.

    Who cares about 'terrible viewing' - which is subjective toss anyway.


  • Options
    #596
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,293 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Rightwing wrote: »
    We need to look at the bigger picture. Visualise Wales v Irl with both teams doing that for 80 mins. Now the penny is beginning to drop.

    Hence, the change will come.

    why in gods name would ireland and wales both try that against each other?

    im not sure you grasp the fact that it became a problem for england in the first half, becuase they didnt know what to do.

    they had half time to actually get some 'coaching' and they came out and scored 4 tries in the second half by showing (in some cases) how easily and effectively it can be countered


  • Options
    #597
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,562 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    It won't happen again.

    I reckon Italy came with a plan to use it and thought they'd get 3, maybe 4 good attempts at it before England figured it out. I reckon they were as surprised as anyone to see England struggle so badly and so continued to use it.

    The game was of high enough profile that other coaches will probably cover this tactic this week in training, just in case. Nobody will be caught off guard again, if teams do use it they'll get 1 or 2 successful attempts and that'll be that.


  • Options
    #598
    Neil3030
    Registered Users Posts: 17,065 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    There's something amusingly satisfying about teams all now changing their training schedules to adapt to what Italy have been doing.


  • Options
    #599
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    Well if that is the case no need for the IRB to change. Let's wait and see but I suspect it will be removed.


  • Options
    #600
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,293 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Well if that is the case no need for the IRB to change. Let's wait and see but I suspect it will be removed.

    it wont because it will affect a basic foundation law of the game.

    rugby is a game of players on their feet in a contest for the ball.

    just because one side decides not to contest, doesnt mean we change the laws.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #601
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Well if that is the case no need for the IRB to change. Let's wait and see but I suspect it will be removed.
    What exactly are World Rugby going to remove?
    Italy didn't compete after the tackle and didn't create a ruck. How can you remove anything?


Advertisement