England vs Italy.

errlloyd · 27-02-2017 1:24pm

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.

I have absolutely no idea how you intend on changing it without adding an offside line to the tackle, which unfortunately is impossible.

Imagine this. Player makes a break, goes one on one with the fullback, gets tackled. He turns in the tackle and offloads it backwards to the winger in support. Now what happens? The fullback was the last man, so every single defender on the opposition is offside. So none of them can tackle the winger until they have got back onside.

elefant · 27-02-2017 1:25pm

I'd hate if they changed anything in the game because of this (if that's even a serious possibility).

One of the main reasons I love watching rugby, and wish I'd had the chance to play more of it myself when I was younger, is the tactical/mental side of the game.
The captains making decisions about what type of penalty to take, the way teams need to think on their feet to adjust to the referees' interpretations of the laws, the way situations like this can happen where a little bit of creativity within in the laws of the game can give a big outsider a chance at an upset, the way a better understanding of the laws by players can add a real something extra to their overall game etc.

I'm no expert, but I think the sport would be much the poorer for adjusting to try and force teams to play in a certain way. The potential for variety is one of the best things about rugby.

molloyjh · 27-02-2017 1:29pm

Also worth noting that Wasps have used this tactic this season too. Hughes and Launchbury were playing that day so you'd think they might have remembered it. It was only back in January after all. Can't remember too many complaints over it then.

https://gifs.com/gif/j2BkoP

techdiver · 27-02-2017 1:36pm

molloyjh wrote: »

Also worth noting that Wasps have used this tactic this season too. Can't remember too many complaints over it then.

https://gifs.com/gif/j2BkoP

Someone should tweet this to Dawson to see what he thinks of his beloved Wasps doing it.

Actually funny that Launchbury and Hughes were involved in Wasps doing it, but couldn't figure it out when Italy did the exact same thing??? :pac::pac:

snowflaker · 27-02-2017 1:43pm

CMOTDibbler · 27-02-2017 2:00pm

errlloyd wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea how you intend on changing it without adding an offside line to the tackle, which unfortunately is impossible.

Imagine this. Player makes a break, goes one on one with the fullback, gets tackled. He turns in the tackle and offloads it backwards to the winger in support. Now what happens? The fullback was the last man, so every single defender on the opposition is offside. So none of them can tackle the winger until they have got back onside.

That's it exactly. I'm absolutely gobsmacked at ex-players like Matt Dawson saying the laws have to change. Have they no clue as to what that would mean?

Rhetorical question obviously. They clearly don't.

.ak · 27-02-2017 2:01pm

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.

Remove what? Remove it how?

English Lurker · 27-02-2017 2:11pm

errlloyd wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea how you intend on changing it without adding an offside line to the tackle, which unfortunately is impossible.

Imagine this. Player makes a break, goes one on one with the fullback, gets tackled. He turns in the tackle and offloads it backwards to the winger in support. Now what happens? The fullback was the last man, so every single defender on the opposition is offside. So none of them can tackle the winger until they have got back onside.

You can - if you so wish - close off the loophole by ruling a new offside line is formed when a player from the attacking team places himself over the tackled player.

Not completely without problems but, in the unlikely event of this happening all the time, probably preferable.

lawred2 wrote: »

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

The people making money off of people watching the game. There have already been changes designed at making the game more attractive to watch i.e. defanging the maul.

Former Former · 27-02-2017 2:15pm

It's not a loophole. It's a situation that is created by the scrum-half dicking around and taking an age to get the ball out.

If the attacking team wants to avoid this, all they have to do is move the ball out quickly before the defenders have time to effect this tactic.

Leaving this law as is should speed up the game if it forces the SH not to spend an age looking around and around before he eventually uses it.

techdiver · 27-02-2017 2:18pm

I agree with most here.

Absolutely no need to change any rules here.

Jones and Dawson are just being assholes about the whole thing.

I actually like that Jones has reignited my hatred for English rugby. I missed it during Lancasters time, when he had the cheek to be a down to earth and humble guy!

CMOTDibbler · 27-02-2017 2:27pm

English Lurker wrote: »

You can - if you so wish - close off the loophole by ruling a new offside line is formed when a player from the attacking team places himself over the tackled player.

Not completely without problems but, in the unlikely event of this happening all the time, probably preferable.

In the scenario outlined above, it would cause mayhem on the pitch. Player makes a break, gets tackled by the full back, supporting player positions himself over the tackled player and hey presto, a number of players (conceivably all but the full back) are automatically offside.

Pretty much every clean break could result in a penalty. And imagine the nightmare for the officials.

molloyjh · 27-02-2017 2:32pm

English Lurker wrote: »

You can - if you so wish - close off the loophole by ruling a new offside line is formed when a player from the attacking team places himself over the tackled player.

Not completely without problems but, in the unlikely event of this happening all the time, probably preferable.

The people making money off of people watching the game. There have already been changes designed at making the game more attractive to watch i.e. defanging the maul.

Yeah I can't see this becoming a regular enough thing that it will require a law change. If that was going to happen it would have by now. Jones has done well to redirect at least some of the commentary on this away from how poor England were at adapting to how bad Italy were for daring to do such an anti-rugby legal transgression. Or at least to how he's being such a d!ck about the whole thing.

The entire conversation should be about how English players, including some who played on a team that used the very same tactic only 6 weeks ago, utterly failed to figure out what was even happening let alone how to combat it.

TheCitizen · 27-02-2017 2:32pm

lawred2 wrote: »

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.

I thought it was great viewing actually.

molloyjh · 27-02-2017 2:34pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

I thought it was great viewing actually.

Yeah, it was terrible viewing for a lot of the English fans who were expecting tries galore from the off. It was great viewing for pretty much everyone else.

Hungrycol · 27-02-2017 2:34pm

I would have loved Poite to go one further and say:

"What ruck? I see a white player on the ground with the ball and just because you want a ruck and the other team doesn't doesn't mean it HAS to be a ruck. In realtiy you had a player on the ground, two players standing over him. That is all you had."

Well done Italy. You played by the rules and the opposition didn't like it. Teams are drilled too much in training and can't think on their feet anymore, seems that way by the England piano lifters anyway.

TheCitizen · 27-02-2017 2:37pm

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.

It won't be changed and neither should it be.

The English coach on the other hand should get hauled over the coals. Who is he to decide what's rugby or what's not rugby, it's not his place to question the laws of the game just because his players were slow to adapt. His unsportsmanlike "we'll take them to the cleaners" comment prior to the game v Italy left him and his team hostages to fortune, he should shut his trap. There should be a law against him.

snowflaker · 27-02-2017 2:38pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

It won't be changed and neither should it be.

The English coach on the other hand should get hauled over the coals. Who is he to decide what's rugby or what's not rugby, it's not his place to question the laws of the game just because his players were slow to adapt. His unsportsmanlike "we'll take them to the cleaners" comment prior to the game v Italy left him and his team hostages to fortune, he should shut his trap. There should be a law against him.

The law was getting him to eat his words

stephen_n · 27-02-2017 2:55pm

English Lurker wrote: »

You can - if you so wish - close off the loophole by ruling a new offside line is formed when a player from the attacking team places himself over the tackled player.

Not completely without problems but, in the unlikely event of this happening all the time, probably preferable.

Or teams could just adapt and play through the middle, once England speed up their attack yesterday, it negated the tactic. Makes it hard for structured attacks but I doubt England would ever get caught out again by it.

Duggie2012 · 27-02-2017 2:56pm

i hopw we stuff them in a few weeks time.

shootermacg · 27-02-2017 3:05pm

The idea of rucking 9 times out of ten is to slow down the opposition ball. Who would have ever thought not rucking was the way to do this against England?

:D:D

Connor's stock has gone way up and rightly so. My favourite game of the weekend, no question.

TheCitizen · 27-02-2017 3:18pm

BTW speaking of law changes that should happen there's a good few that need changing, what Italy did yesterday was fine.

The penalty try situation. Defending teams are infringing in the red zone in the knowledge they'll get 2 or 3 chances to offend before the ref even gives them a warning. The pressure is ramped up on the attacking side to get it over the line. The refs should be giving more benefit to the attacking side, should be awarding more penalty tries. Also a rule change could be when a defending team infringes in the red zone once they are immediately issued a warning. If they offend again, the attacking team should have a shot to nothing to get another try, if at that point the defending team turns it over, then the attacking side should get a penalty kick at goal.

27-02-2017 3:21pm

For those who didn't get a chance to see it. This is up there with Venter and Brown's post match interviews for sheer saltyness.

The Lost Sheep · 27-02-2017 3:25pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

BTW speaking of law changes that should happen there's a good few that need changing, what Italy did yesterday was fine.

The penalty try situation. Defending teams are infringing in the red zone in the knowledge they'll get 2 or 3 chances to offend before the ref even gives them a warning. The pressure is ramped up on the attacking side to get it over the line. The refs should be giving more benefit to the attacking side, should be awarding more penalty tries. Also a rule change could be when a defending team infringes in the red zone once they are immediately issued a warning. If they offend again, the attacking team should have a shot to nothing to get another try, if at that point the defending team turns it over, then the attacking side should get a penalty kick at goal.

This is all better suited to the laws thread but a penalty try can only be awarded if a probable try wasn't scored due to foul play. Refs in general do give more benefit to attacking side so there isn't any reason for much more penalty trys to be awarded

dub_skav · 27-02-2017 3:30pm

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

This is all better suited to the laws thread but a penalty try can only be awarded if a probable try wasn't scored due to foul play. Refs in general do give more benefit to attacking side so there isn't any reason for much more penalty trys to be awarded

You are correct in that, but certainly more yellow cards should be issued for professional fouls.
That's an easier call than whether a try would definitely have been scored.

errlloyd · 27-02-2017 3:31pm

Loving a bit of Oasis in the background.

Richard Hillman · 27-02-2017 3:37pm

There doesn't need to be a rule change because England concocted a route through it of just running the ball straight through them. No rugby team will be doing this again for every play for a long time.

It's kind of like when an American Football team are 3rd and long and the defence will open up the middle to allow the team to run the ball and cover the receivers for the pass. Its ok for 3rd and Long but If you did it for every play, you wouldn't last very long.

It was amusing whilst it lasted but it will be a long time for this game to be forgotten to see it tried on this scale again

Bazzo · 27-02-2017 3:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

For those who didn't get a chance to see it. This is up there with Venter and Brown's post match interviews for sheer saltyness.

That's a ****ing disgraceful interview. Having a go at a journalist in the middle of it all too, what a spiteful little **** Eddie Jones is. Oops, does that count as abuse? I'll take the reprimand if it does TBH.

sydthebeat · 27-02-2017 3:49pm

Such a childish little imp

Dog Botherer · 27-02-2017 4:01pm

Saw a few Aussies on Twitter remarking that Eddie's turned into a real "Whingeing Pom".

Well, if the glove fits...

nelly17 · 27-02-2017 4:04pm

What strikes me is that I have seen people say if Hartley wasn't Captain he'd not be making the team on recent form - I'd seriously question his ability to captain having not had the capacity to deal with the tactic on the day

England vs Italy.

Comments