England vs Italy

First topic message reminder :

28 players that have been kept.

Forwards (16): Jack Clifford (Harlequins), Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers), Charlie Ewels (Bath), Jamie George (Saracens), Teimana Harrison (Northampton Saints), Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints), James Haskell (Wasps), Nathan Hughes (Wasps), Maro Itoje (Saracens), Joe Launchbury (Wasps), Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints), Joe Marler (Harlequins), Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins), Mako Vunipola (Saracens), Mike Williams (Leicester Tigers), Tom Wood (Northampton Saints)

Backs (12): Mike Brown (Harlequins), Danny Care (Harlequins), Elliot Daly (Wasps), Owen Farrell (Saracens), George Ford (Bath), Jonathan Joseph (Bath), Jonny May (Gloucester), Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs), Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs), Ben Te’o (Worcester Warriors), Anthony Watson (Bath), Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers)

SecretFly wrote:

Manu's Boxing Coach wrote:Is it just pure coincidence that the irish became so invested in this thread half an hour into the game??

Not a pip before hand and now they are dominating the thread...

Clear wumming imo.

If you dont think there's a problem if a game of rugby is played without a defensive offside line, I dont know what to tell you.

I looked up the Rugby Rule book, and the Irish are still just about legal in it.  World Rugby will discuss our future in 2018 -  but for now, we're still legal tender.

Fair play... that did make me chuckle

But I do thnk there is an interesting debate to be had about Italy's tactics used in this game. Clearly legal, but if it continues how the game would be played could potentially be changed drastically and not for the better.

I just think, any claims that this opinion that we should look at the laws after this game is just the English whining stifles a much needed discussion, and reduces it to mere parochialism.

Manu's Boxing Coach wrote:Is it just pure coincidence that the irish became so invested in this thread half an hour into the game??

Not a pip before hand and now they are dominating the thread...

Clear wumming imo.

If you dont think there's a problem if a game of rugby is played without a defensive offside line, I dont know what to tell you.

I don't think you understand how the offside line works in rugby. If you do, how should it be changed and officiated to avoid a scenario like today? That isn't going to be such an easy answer.

Do referees? The average team must be offside 50 times a game.

Manu's Boxing Coach wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Manu's Boxing Coach wrote:Is it just pure coincidence that the irish became so invested in this thread half an hour into the game??

Not a pip before hand and now they are dominating the thread...

Clear wumming imo.

If you dont think there's a problem if a game of rugby is played without a defensive offside line, I dont know what to tell you.

I looked up the Rugby Rule book, and the Irish are still just about legal in it.  World Rugby will discuss our future in 2018 -  but for now, we're still legal tender.

Fair play... that did make me chuckle

But I do thnk there is an interesting debate to be had about Italy's tactics used in this game. Clearly legal, but if it continues how the game would be played could potentially be changed drastically and not for the better.

I just think, any claims that this opinion that we should look at the laws after this game is just the English whining stifles a much needed discussion, and reduces it to mere parochialism.

It won't continue - or it might be used a little but it has such a pointed risk that two sides of relatively equal merit won't bother chancing it.... they'll just back themselves in the conventional sense.

When it was used earlier - by the Chiefs was it? - I remember there were involved discussions about what might happen if other sides now catch the habit.  They never did - it's an easy thing to punish if you realise it's a tactic.  You can certainly punish it enough to have the users begin to doubt the policy - and then you even use that doubt against them as England did when they played Italy at their own game at one point.

I think it's an over-reaction.  I've said it a few times already, Eddie should have smirked and just given O'Shea that one.  It was never going to affect the result but there is no need for Italy to turn up and willingly accept humiliation.

Exactly, it is hard enough to officiate as it is.

For those proposing to change the laws regarding the offside line, I would be happy to hear the alternatives.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Manu's Boxing Coach wrote:Is it just pure coincidence that the irish became so invested in this thread half an hour into the game??

Not a pip before hand and now they are dominating the thread...

Clear wumming imo.

If you dont think there's a problem if a game of rugby is played without a defensive offside line, I dont know what to tell you.

I don't think you understand how the offside line works in rugby. If you do, how should it be changed and officiated to avoid a scenario like today? That isn't going to be such an easy answer.

I clearly stated I understood the rule. Did I not??

I've seen it done before in 7s tourneys I've played in, and I think it works then as it is in my opinion a deconstructed and looser form of 15s.

However, i think despite the rule being legal it has potentially damaging ramifications for rugby if players choosing not to engage in a ruck leads to no offisde rule.

Granted, this is the first time I've seen it and potentially it needs to be played out a bit more to see how teams adapt.

One idea potentially, although it might have holes in it is that if anyone engages in a ruck even just a singular attacking player a ruck has formed and therefore there is an offside line. Feel free to shoot holes in that though as that is literally off the top of my head.

It appears some folk on here cannot see how this tactic will evolve.
The idea that not entering rucks is high risk is nonsense - by simply positioning players immediately behind their defensive player who makes the tackle and can immediately hit the next player to pick up the ball on the gainline with pods of players coming round the sides as there is no offside line.

Would that make the Union game better ?

So if a player is tackled, a ruck is automatically created? So no more competing at the breakdown as the ruck would be immediately formed?

17-15 with 10 minutes left v Italy….cant wait to see the 2nd best team in world rugby play New Zealand.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:So if a player is tackled, a ruck is automatically created? So no more competing at the breakdown as the ruck would be immediately formed?

Maybe the term ruck is ill advised, as removing the potential for turnovers from the ruck would be damaging to the game.

But how about an offside line??

There is still the possiblity for a turnover but not the chaos of today's game.

Now once again, feel free to tell me where this can go wrong, its a sunday im tired and Im not completely thinking these through.

Recwatcher16 wrote:It appears some folk on here cannot see how this tactic will evolve.
The idea that not entering rucks is high risk is nonsense - by simply positioning players immediately behind their defensive player who makes the tackle and can immediately hit the next player to pick up the ball on the gainline with pods of players coming round the sides as there is no offside line.

Would that make the Union game better ?

So let them try because they are still at standing-point. So a player that lunges at them will have an advantage in the impact and then might already be offloading at his own takedown. But let's see how teams might try to use it in the way you suggest. All coaches knew about it or else they don't follow rugby and/or aren't very informed by assistants etc. So if it was a great option, why hasn't it been used so much?

Recwatcher16 wrote:It appears some folk on here cannot see how this tactic will evolve.
The idea that not entering rucks is high risk is nonsense - by simply positioning players immediately behind their defensive player who makes the tackle and can immediately hit the next player to pick up the ball on the gainline with pods of players coming round the sides as there is no offside line.

Would that make the Union game better ?

I wonder why it didn't evolve in Super Rugby then when it was used 2-3 years ago. Perhaps because it was an easy tactic to adapt to?

Not sure how it is nonsense. There are limited players in the defensive line. It creates gaps all over the shop and any half decent team would exploit it. All it takes is a player to look up and recognise where the space is.

Flip me, even the tackled player can literally just get back up, pick the ball and run continually. Hughes did it once and made good ground.

Manu's Boxing Coach wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:So if a player is tackled, a ruck is automatically created? So no more competing at the breakdown as the ruck would be immediately formed?

Maybe the term ruck is ill advised, as removing the potential for turnovers from the ruck would be damaging to the game.

But how about an offside line??

There is still the possiblity for a turnover but not the chaos of today's game.

Now once again, feel free to tell me where this can go wrong, its a sunday im tired and Im not completely thinking these through.

There is an offside line. If you want to try and create one where there isn't a ruck, I don't even know where you would start.

As I stated earlier Secret, this could be another step towards a RL style game, when there is minimal competition to the tackle. Rucks, mauls and set piece are fundamental to the Union game. I don't think they should be messed with and abused.

SecretFly wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:It appears some folk on here cannot see how this tactic will evolve.
The idea that not entering rucks is high risk is nonsense - by simply positioning players immediately behind their defensive player who makes the tackle and can immediately hit the next player to pick up the ball on the gainline with pods of players coming round the sides as there is no offside line.

Would that make the Union game better ?

So let them try because they are still at standing-point.  So a player that lunges at them will have an advantage in the impact and then might already be offloading at his own takedown.  But let's see how teams might try to use it in the way you suggest.  All coaches knew about it or else they don't follow rugby and/or aren't very informed by assistants etc.  So if it was a great option, why hasn't it been used so much?

Exactly; let the tactic "evolve" all it wants, it is easy to see many ways of combatting it. If we see this tactic used again by any team in this six nations I would be surprised. You can use it once in a blue moon, but players should be able to adapt after the first incident...

Recwatcher16 wrote:As I stated earlier Secret, this could be another step towards a RL style game, when there is minimal competition to the tackle. Rucks, mauls and set piece are fundamental to the Union game. I don't think they should be messed with and abused.

RL you need to retreat from the tackle area no? Until that law is brought into union I think we will be fine...

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Manu's Boxing Coach wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:So if a player is tackled, a ruck is automatically created? So no more competing at the breakdown as the ruck would be immediately formed?

Maybe the term ruck is ill advised, as removing the potential for turnovers from the ruck would be damaging to the game.

But how about an offside line??

There is still the possiblity for a turnover but not the chaos of today's game.

Now once again, feel free to tell me where this can go wrong, its a sunday im tired and Im not completely thinking these through.

There is an offside line. If you want to try and create one where there isn't a ruck, I don't even know where you would start.

An offside line is created when a player is tackled to the ground.

Recwatcher16 wrote:As I stated earlier Secret, this could be another step towards a RL style game, when there is minimal competition to the tackle. Rucks, mauls and set piece are fundamental to the Union game. I don't think they should be messed with and abused.

I agree. Which is why we shouldn't touch the rules.

Manu's Boxing Coach wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Manu's Boxing Coach wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:So if a player is tackled, a ruck is automatically created? So no more competing at the breakdown as the ruck would be immediately formed?

Maybe the term ruck is ill advised, as removing the potential for turnovers from the ruck would be damaging to the game.

But how about an offside line??

There is still the possiblity for a turnover but not the chaos of today's game.

Now once again, feel free to tell me where this can go wrong, its a sunday im tired and Im not completely thinking these through.

There is an offside line. If you want to try and create one where there isn't a ruck, I don't even know where you would start.

An offside line is created when a player is tackled to the ground.

Apparently that is only in the immediate vicinity of the tackle area (which I don't quite get). The rest of the players can stand wherever they like, if there is no ruck formed.

Just got back from the game, to say we have a poor 1st half would be the understatement of the year. Poite had the worst game I have ever seen him have, Mr. Inconsistent. A tackle is made, shouts "tackle", the Italians all flood through, but another English player joins the tackled/er and therefore a ruck is formed, he sometimes shouted ruck and other times didn't and didn't penalise at any time. At one time the Italian 21 was standing behind Care waiting for him to pick up the ball when there were at least 6 players in the ruck.

Hartley asked him for his interpretation of when a ruck was formed and he would not give it, not my job to teach you the Laws was his attitude.

Despite that, England were still poo poo. Haskell was not the Haskell we have come to expect and needs to be benched again until he is. Hughes was non-existent. I won't both mentioning all Farrell's mistakes, but maybe the 50 caps got to him. May could not get into the game, the couple of times the ball got to his wing, it was with brown and the usual happened, he took the contact.

Strange that Lawes packed down again at 6 and Itoje at 5, if they are going to play there, change there number around.

2nd half much better, the pick and go forced the Italians to commit and the gaps opened up. Youngs kicking was more accurate than Cares, Ford didn't receive man and ball and the England backs savaged them. Nowell was a bit special, he popped up everywhere, his low centre of gravity helps him blast through blocks of players where May being taller would get scythed down.

Expect a couple of sitings for high tackles on Lawes and I think Youngs.

Daly does look class, I would be happy to see him replace Brown, who was defensively solid, but doesn't have the pace to capitalise on the space balls kicked too long offer.

Overall another 6/10 performance, we should really be seeing 8/10 by now.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:
Strange that Lawes packed down again at 6 and Itoje at 5, if they are going to play there, change there number around.

Why when Itoje is playing on the flank in the loose?

Oh well, at least Italy's tactics takes the spotlight off just how dire England were in the first 20 minutes, they were embarrassing to watch.

Embarrassing - but bonus point.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Just got back from the game, to say we have a poor 1st half would be the understatement of the year. Poite had the worst game I have ever seen him have, Mr. Inconsistent. A tackle is made, shouts "tackle", the Italians all flood through, but another English player joins the tackled/er and therefore a ruck is formed, he sometimes shouted ruck and other times didn't and didn't penalise at any time. At one time the Italian 21 was standing behind Care waiting for him to pick up the ball when there were at least 6 players in the ruck.

Hartley asked him for his interpretation of when a ruck was formed and he would not give it, not my job to teach you the Laws was his attitude.

Despite that, England were still poo poo. Haskell was not the Haskell we have come to expect and needs to be benched again until he is. Hughes was non-existent. I won't both mentioning all Farrell's mistakes, but maybe the 50 caps got to him. May could not get into the game, the couple of times the ball got to his wing, it was with brown and the usual happened, he took the contact.

Strange that Lawes packed down again at 6 and Itoje at 5, if they are going to play there, change there number around.

2nd half much better, the pick and go forced the Italians to commit and the gaps opened up. Youngs kicking was more accurate than Cares, Ford didn't receive man and ball and the England backs savaged them. Nowell was a bit special, he popped up everywhere, his low centre of gravity helps him blast through blocks of players where May being taller would get scythed down.

Expect a couple of sitings for high tackles on Lawes and I think Youngs.

Daly does look class, I would be happy to see him replace Brown, who was defensively solid, but doesn't have the pace to capitalise on the space balls kicked too long offer.

Overall another 6/10 performance, we should really be seeing 8/10 by now.

There is no ruck until at least one player from each side is in competing and no offside line until there is a ruck. Its not a new tactic - Glasgow and Scotland use it sometimes and its used in the super 15

Ref was bang on - its not his place and indeed would be very wrong for him to teach the england side the laws. He can say " No offside as no ruck was formed" he would be wrong to explain how a ruck is formed.

those of you whining about this - just think what would happen if an offiside line is formed at a tackle you would not be able to defend in open play. Its a well known and well used Tactic.

Eddie Jones had a sulk to the media afterwards

Hilarious

TJ wrote:
There is no ruck until at least one player from each side is in competing and no offside line until there is a ruck.  Its not a new tactic - Glasgow and Scotland use it sometimes and its used in the super 15

Ref was bang on - its not his place and indeed would be very wrong for him to teach the england side the laws.  He can say " No offside as no ruck was formed" he would be wrong to explain how a ruck is formed.

those of you whining about this - just think what would happen if an offiside line is formed at a tackle you would not be able to defend in open play.  Its a well known and well used Tactic.  

That's all well and good if it's what was happening but the majority of the time it was not, Poite was completely clueless as to what to do and in fact Haskell, Hartley and Launchbury were all spot on with what they were saying.

ebop wrote:Eddie Jones had a sulk to the media afterwards

Hilarious

NZ never do that eh.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:
Strange that Lawes packed down again at 6 and Itoje at 5, if they are going to play there, change there number around.

Why when Itoje is playing on the flank in the loose?

He's playing the same role he does when wearing 5. Especially with Haskell back starting.

In the previous rounds he'd been targeting forward runners more in defence and attacking the breakdown less - i.e. Haskell's defensive role. In attack he'd been carrying a touch less and looking to be first support player at the breakdown more - Haskell's attacking role.

There was a slight change there with Haskell and Robshaw missing but not a big tactical shift. It was more a case of a forward with a work rate to challenge those two flankers picking up the slack for some of their duties with them unavailable. There was a chance but it wasn't huge.

With Haskell starting Itoje was back to his lock role though. He was carrying around the corner as usual, defending the fringes hard and when the ball shifted one out to a forward just beyond the fringe defence he was floating behind the ruck looking to attack the ball or set-up back at guard for the next phase.

He's also been utilised in the exact same role in the line-out - secondary jumper and often Lawes rear lifter.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

TJ wrote:
There is no ruck until at least one player from each side is in competing and no offside line until there is a ruck.  Its not a new tactic - Glasgow and Scotland use it sometimes and its used in the super 15

Ref was bang on - its not his place and indeed would be very wrong for him to teach the england side the laws.  He can say " No offside as no ruck was formed" he would be wrong to explain how a ruck is formed.

those of you whining about this - just think what would happen if an offiside line is formed at a tackle you would not be able to defend in open play.  Its a well known and well used Tactic.  

That's all well and good if it's what was happening but the majority of the time it was not, Poite was completely clueless as to what to do and in fact Haskell, Hartley and Launchbury were all spot on with what they were saying.

simple nonsense. Poite was spot on and it was the england players were clueless. I didn't see the whole game but I saw this happen a fair amount and you could see 3 England players crouching over a guy on the ground and no Italians contesting on their feet. So no ruck is formed. You need to have a look at the laws

It's completely legal what they were doing, but just a negative tactic. The sort of thing Sarries did 2 - 3 years ago and everyone complained they were boring.

here is some more analysis of it
http://www.the42.ie/analysis-chiefs-super-rugby-tactics-2013507-Mar2015/

It's not really something you can comment on if you've not seen the whole game is it TJ, some of the time they were committing no men to the breakdown so no ruck but the majority of the time they were committing then retreating after the fact. Poite had no clue what was going on half the time and treated every situation the same, it's a point that Launchbury and Haskell both made to him.

They weren't in the ruck then were they - look at the analysis above

Sometimes they weren't and sometimes they were, unfortunately you've not watched the game so can't really pass comment, seeing a couple of instances of them legally doing it doesn't give an indication of the whole game.

TJ wrote:They weren't in the ruck then were they - look at the analysis above

There were a couple of occasions where a second italian did engage, which creates a ruck, before withdrawing. I can only assume Poite did not see the engagement and subsequent moving away as once the ruck is created it cannot be uncreated simply by withdrawing the players.

However most of the time Italy had their discipline spot on.


Whinging that the opposition had the temerity to play the game a different way to that you wanted is pretty pathetic mind. (Though tin the past law changes have occurred following such whinges - see Australia and the rolling maul a fair few years back)

I felt it was very clever from O'Shea but was also a negative attempt to disrupt the game - it was like watching a boxer duck punches without throwing any back himself. Was quite amusing that the English players really weren't sure what to do though.

I don't think it's something that we will see too much of in the future given the vast amount of flak it's created.

Once England had been advised how to deal with it they scored 4 tries. If that tactic hadn't have been used in the first half and Italy played like they had in the Ireland game, it probably would have been a similar thumping. O'Shea wanted to spare some blushes and did exactly that.

tj, your analyses are of other games.

the reality is, it's not the tactic a team hoping to win are likely to employ consistently, so it's a spoiling tactic that people need to overcome. i think its great if used sparingly. and teams need to be mentally agile enough to decide how to counter it to best effect very quickly.

Italy really took England by surprise in the first half. I could not understand what was going on, is it ruck , is it free play( tackle only) what the hell was happening.

I thought this is the game that is going to spoil England's run of wins. But like in the other 2 games they find away to win in the second half.

They will have to play better against Scotland though. The way Scotland are playing at the moment could well be England's banana skin.

But credit must go to Italy for the way they hung on in that first half, and made life difficult for England to get any momentum. like Conna osha  said we (Italy) are not here to make up the numbers.

Tough game but well played England for  the way you came back and won.

The Italian song and dance routine only works if you win. If you’re well beaten then it’s a fail with a comedy angle thrown in for good measure. Sorry Italy you’re still poor. As for the half-head who say we didn’t adapt. Last I heard it’s an 80 minute game, and a bonus point win, top of the table, unbeaten and only team on for a GS, says differently.

However, too many penalties and a below par performance says this team is very definitely beatable. We’ll have to see if anyone in the NH can do it.

the truth is, this all just highlights a major problem with rugby. that most of the laws are impenetrable to most of the people watching. it's a real shame as its the best game on the planet. but the laws are too technical, and subject to interpretation, to make the game ever as instantly appealing and understandable as football, american football, etc, etc.

offside vs ruck vs maul vs 1st tackler vs tacker assist vs gate vs side entry vs neck roll vs going over the top vs hands on the ground vs not rolling away vs holding on

it's almost as if you have to have played recently, or be completely up to date on the latest intepretations of laws, in order to understand wtf is going on!!!!

majesticimperialman wrote: like Conna osha  said we (Italy) are not here to make up the numbers.

A man of his word at ruck time anyway..........

SecretFly wrote:

majesticimperialman wrote: like Conna osha  said we (Italy) are not here to make up the numbers.

A man of his word at ruck time anyway..........

Well played.

Yes, very happy with that result - more or less what was required. Fair play to the Italians for trying something unusual and well done to England for adapting to it. Scotland will be a stern test and I'm pleased that England aren't away to them - a very dangerous looking team.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:As for the half-head who say we didn’t adapt.

Not sure many have said that England failed to adapt but rather the players failed to adapt without the half-time instruction. Once it was clear that Poite was not going to be persuaded that some of the tackles were developing into rucks the on field leaders really did need to come up with a solution of their own.

While Hartley should get some credit fro being able to talk to Poite in such a way as to not upset him and in general keep him onside, that pails into insignificance really when he was powerless to come up with a solution or to prevent Care and Farrell panicking.

Of the starting XV, for me only the locks and Daly improved their reputation. Itoje was decent but if he was a back rower shoudl share some of the responsibility along with Haskell and Hughes for failing to find a solution in the first 40.

Good
Launchbury, Lawes, Daly, most of the bench.

OK
Marler, Itoje

Meh
Haskell, Ford, Care, Te'o, May, Brown

Poor
Hartley, Cole, Farrell

really Poor
Hughes

quinsforever wrote:the truth is, this all just highlights a major problem with rugby. that most of the laws are impenetrable to most of the people watching. it's a real shame as its the best game on the planet. but the laws are too technical, and subject to interpretation, to make the game ever as instantly appealing and understandable as football, american football, etc, etc.

As always, the option is always there to truly dumb down all the rules to make the game more appealing to those that for now don't like it, are not interested in it or who can't understand it enough.  But in doing so, we risk turning the game into a game the Union purists (who think it the best game on the planet) end up hating.  So in order to collect asswholes who never could handle the complexity, and therefore could never warm to the game, we should risk turning away fans who can't fathom the popularity of the ultra easy to follow League game.

It's either the best game on the planet or it isn't.  I think it is.  Where else could you find a discussion on a game that so little resembled the games the day before?  I love that aspect.

i do worry about the importance of "playing to the referee" though Fly. If the laws were clear, how can they be interpreted so many different ways? that also implies teams are likely to start our explicitly trying to "bend" the laws to their advantage until the ref says otherwise.

for me thats not rugby. rugby is the contest, the physicality, speed, skill, setpieces, etc etc. Not who adapted better to the refereees interpretation.

and this in no way relates to todays match. which wasnt really close. but was technically interesting.

unfortunatly a lot of the rugby laws become a matter of opinion not fact - how long do you allow a player to compete at the breakdown / hold on on the ground. Mitrea gives almost no time. Lacey gave a lot.

i completely agree TJ. makes it hard to explain to the casual viewer.

if there was big money in rugby, can you imagine players and coaches would put up with this kind or relatively arbitrary arbitral perfromance?

On a serious note.  Just thinking back and yes, in a way Italy helped themselves not be humiliated - grand. Job done. And they had a right to do everything in that regard that was within the rules of the game.  BUT, did they also harm themselves in that end game?  They were sliced through like hot butter when England turned it on.  

Now the main reason for that is that England have the ammo - boy do they have the ammo when they get into a rhythm and they did enough in that second half to do what they needed and did it with class.  But I think the Italians had invested so much time on their little trick that I'm not sure they gave any thought at all to what they'd do when the English worked it out.  
The white flag was hoisted when the game was up on their trick.  So how long in real terms did O'Shea think the trick would hold out for?  Surely he didn't plan on it getting as long as it did.  What else had he in his bag to deal with perhaps 3/4 of a game?  
So maybe O'Shea did Italy a little bit of a disservice in focusing on the trick to the detriment of the 'conventional' stuff.  Just a thought.