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)

Rugby Fan wrote:

robbo277 wrote:...Note, a ruck is formed by a player coming into physical contact with an opponent. So Haskell grabbing an Italian player constitutes physical contact and then a ruck. When the ruck is set, the Italian player freeing himself doesn't make it a tackle again...

Nigel Owens told Brian Moore yesterday that grabbing an opposition player is not enough to make it a ruck.

I think that was a major source of confusion.

The "grab a player, make it a ruck" strategy was one which some Super Rugby refs allowed. They weren't sympathetic to the ruckless tactic, so leaned towards giving the other team wide options to counter it. That's why Haskell was trying it, and why  someone on commentary also suggested it.

Owens says referees have had discussions about the ruckless tactic, and it sounds like they concluded grab-a-player was too wide a definition. He says he would need more substantive contact than touching to call a ruck.

So, what we got was Haskell trying a tactic which other referees had approved, only to find Poite didn't.

Really good information, thanks for sharing because I hadn't seen any of that.

It does appear that it's at odds with the laws though, and maybe now it's happened in an International game World Rugby will clarify the position.

Scottrf wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

robbo277 wrote:...Note, a ruck is formed by a player coming into physical contact with an opponent. So Haskell grabbing an Italian player constitutes physical contact and then a ruck. When the ruck is set, the Italian player freeing himself doesn't make it a tackle again...

Nigel Owens told Brian Moore yesterday that grabbing an opposition player is not enough to make it a ruck.

I think that was a major source of confusion.

The "grab a player, make it a ruck" strategy was one which some Super Rugby refs allowed. They weren't sympathetic to the ruckless tactic, so leaned towards giving the other team wide options to counter it. That's why Haskell was trying it, and why  someone on commentary also suggested it.

Owens says referees have had discussions about the ruckless tactic, and it sounds like they concluded grab-a-player was too wide a definition. He says he would need more substantive contact than touching to call a ruck.

So, what we got was Haskell trying a tactic which other referees had approved, only to find Poite didn't.

And this is why refereeing can be frustrating, because they have their own interpretation which has no basis in the laws.

The laws require physical contact, and nothing else, whatever Owens wants to see.

B ut then joing a rtuck is only legal if you do it in a certain way. So having players able to grab others to form a ruck could in theory means they have commited penalty by being grabbed ...which is absrurd.

The laws are not a computer script. Although they may are written in a precise language they cant possibly cover every evventually with " put this in get this out" binary answer. They are written withs pecific contexts in mind.

The tackle/ruck laws are written with the idea that people will want to contest the ball in mind ...since that is one of the founding principles of the game. At heart rugby is a a series of plays punctuated by contests for the ball. If we take that away then its no longer the game the laws were written with the intention of providing.


Referees are not midless automotons asked to blindly follow the literal interpretation of a set of exacting rules which cover all situations. They are given the laws and asked to enable a safe, fair and flowing game. This is true of all sports.

Intepretation will always be there, niot just of what actually happened but also in how to control that to provide a safe fair and flowing game.
Converstaions go on between the referees and various bodies all the time. Different unions and comeptitions ask their referees to focus on slightly different things. World rugby is contatntly issueing new guidance, reminders and "cracking down" on certain things. Its not coming out of the ether or just made up by one individuals ego.

But yes sometimes theres inconsitences, or situations which really havent been thought about clearly enough because they happene so rarely. There are times when refs just have to make a call. If its later decided by the relevant authorities once they have considered it and taken more opinions on board that they dont want it that way, fine....it gets changed. That doesnt mean the referee at the time was wrong, they just made a call.

Its also why players sometimes get confused and frustarted. Haskell no doubt knew about this since it happened in super rugby around his time, so he wouldve been taught the grab counter. It doenst mean Poite got it wrong, or that Haskell didnt know the laws; just that its not clear or consitent how it should be reffed not matter how many armchair experts are suddenly pretending they knew the intracies of this all along. The studio pundits at least had the decency to admit they were looking it up on the fly.

World rugby have already said they will issue a clarification on the general subject, hopefuly that will cover the grabbing players to form a ruck question.

Unfortunately a lot of their interpretations directly contradict the laws. Referees give scrum penalties before the ball has been fed all the time (when it's not yet a scrum). The feed of the scrum is almost never correct (evidenced in Northampton-Worcester where Worcester fell apart when they accidentally fed straight and had to hook the ball).

Does anyone know if Farrell got cited?

Penalties and free kicks can be given before the ball is put in

Front rows coming together.  First, the referee marks with a foot the place where the scrum is to be formed. Before the two front rows come together they must be standing not more than an arm’s length apart. The ball is in the scrum half’s hands, ready to be thrown in. The front rows must crouch so that when they meet, each player’s head and shoulders are no lower than the hips. The front rows must interlock ear against ear so that no player’s head is next to the head of a team-mate.

Sanction: Free Kick

The referee will call "crouch" and then "bind". The front rows crouch and using their outside arm each prop must bind. A loose-head prop must bind on the opposing tight-head prop by placing the left arm inside the right arm of the tight head and gripping the tight-head prop’s jersey on the back or side. A tight-head prop must bind on the opposing loose-head prop by placing the right arm outside the left upper arm of the opposing loose-head prop and gripping the loose-head prop’s jersey with the right hand only on the back or side. The props must not grip the opponent’s chest, arm, sleeve or collar. Following a pause, the referee will then call "set" when the front rows are ready. The front rows may then engage. The “set” call is not a command but an indication that the front rows may come together when ready. The sanction for any infringement will be a free kick.

Sanction: Free Kick

A crouched position is the extension of the normal stance by bending the knees sufficiently to move into the engagement without a charge.

Charging.  A front row must not form at a distance from its opponents and rush against them or pull them. This is dangerous play.

Sanction: Penalty kick

I was talking scrum penalties not engagement penalties. Props taking a knee, or collapsing the scrum.

The Great Aukster wrote:Does anyone know if Farrell got cited?

For what?

Everybody (except Gori?) agreed the body check was OK

Point I'll make again. Didn't matter that Poite got all (or most of !) the calls right. The fact is that the players were waiting on him to make a call - and that delay every time helped to kill the 1st half.

lostinwales wrote:Point I'll make again. Didn't matter that Poite got all (or most of !) the calls right. The fact is that the players were waiting on him to make a call - and that delay every time helped to kill the 1st half.

You have to admit though that even with the confusion around what Italy were doing, and England possibly not getting a rhythm because of it - even with that, I still think England entered the game with very little full-on aggression and quite slowly for them.  They seemed to think time was on their hands, even in terms of getting that massive score that they felt sure they were going to get.  Had they punched harder quicker then I think the Italian ploy would have been buried regardless of English players being bemused by the rules that let the Italians do what they were doing. A bit like the Scottish/Irish game in that regard.

Yes I'd agree with that ... although I don't think its just a case of the England players being bemused by the laws as even the referees can't seem to agree and instead decide to put their own individual spin on what they think rather than what's actually written in the law books ...

The Great Aukster wrote:Does anyone know if Farrell got cited?

He absolutely should be! Outrageous that he was allowed to stay on!





So, what did he do? o0

Munchkin wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Does anyone know if Farrell got cited?

He absolutely should be! Outrageous that he was allowed to stay on!





So, what did he do? o0

He tackled Murray (not allowed) in the final game when England claimed the slam. Still... Minority Report. Ban him now!

lostinwales wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Does anyone know if Farrell got cited?

For what?

Everybody (except Gori?) agreed the body check was OK

Nope - Poite got that one wrong. Gori made a meal of it which is why I think it wasn't given but you could clearly see Farrell turn into him. However citing is pointless as it was only a pen not even a yellow. To me tho it showed Farrell losing his composure

Absolutely nothing wrong with it, Gori ran into him quite clearly.

TJ wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Does anyone know if Farrell got cited?

For what?

Everybody (except Gori?) agreed the body check was OK

Nope - Poite got that one wrong.  Gori made a meal of it which is why I think it wasn't given but you could clearly see Farrell turn into him.  However citing is pointless as it was only a pen not even a yellow.  To me tho it showed Farrell losing his composure

We need to punish players like Gori for this. Like Hogg and Habana before him he tried to milk a soft penalty.

Cyril wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Does anyone know if Farrell got cited?

He absolutely should be! Outrageous that he was allowed to stay on!





So, what did he do? o0

He tackled Murray (not allowed) in the final game when England claimed the slam. Still... Minority Report. Ban him now!

ah no, a ban would be too harsh. Maybe a stern warning .... after a good kicking. I mean, it's not like he booted him in the head, is it?

Ha ha. Never had have have brought

lostinwales wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Does anyone know if Farrell got cited?

For what?

Everybody (except Gori?) agreed the body check was OK

Not everyone - according to the Telegraph on Farrell:
"Poor in his kicking from hand, uncertain in defence and fleetingly petulant, not least when he shoulder-barged Edoardo Gori to take the Italian scrum-half out of the game, he had a 50th to forget."

So Oliver Brown obviously didn't think the body check was OK.

TJ wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Does anyone know if Farrell got cited?

For what?

Everybody (except Gori?) agreed the body check was OK

Nope - Poite got that one wrong.  Gori made a meal of it which is why I think it wasn't given but you could clearly see Farrell turn into him.  However citing is pointless as it was only a pen not even a yellow.  To me tho it showed Farrell losing his composure

Now TJ, I know you do not rate Farrell but that is rubbish.

Farrell did not change his line. Gori was running into him and Farrell turned his shoulder into him to protect himself. There is no rule demanding that you allow a player to run into your chest and potentially injure you or that you get out of their way.

Gori went down like he had been shot. Sadly that sort of thing is creeping into Rugby. A good example was set by Farrell when he was hit very late against Wales and he just got up and played on.

Exiledinborders wrote:...There is no rule demanding that you allow a player to run into your chest and potentially injure you or that you get out of their way...

There's also no rule that you have to look apologetic when someone clatters into you and falls down. I think most people who believe Farrell did something illegal are just confused by the way he looked quietly satisfied with the outcome.

Farrell likes the physical side of the game, yes that can make him come across as a knob at times but in this instance he did nothing wrong.

And full respect to him, when others do the same back he just gets on with it, he's no Hogg, Habana, Gori (or most French players) who act like they've been shot.

You saw from the tackle he took from Moriarty he can get on with it with the same smile when om the other side of things.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You saw from the tackle he took from Moriarty he can get on with it with the same smile when om the other side of things.

Is there a difference smiling when no one is injured and smiling when a player has had to leave the pitch?

He was smiling when the player left the pitch? Thought it was after he crumpled.in a heap after running into a static Farrell. Not on if that is the case.

Agreed

Was it the case Farrell was smiling as he was carried off injured?

Farrell looked like he was smiling after he missed a kick, but it is just the way his gumshield looks.

Now maybe he was smiling as an injured player left the pitch, maybe he was smiling because an injured player was leaving the pitch. If so, not good - but I have no idea if that is the case. I do firmly believe however that there are people who dislike the lad and will use any chance to metaphorically crucify him - even to the extent of creating "fake news".



PS do we need an appendix to Godwin's Law to enable us to pillory anyone talking about "Fake News"?

Yeah grimacing or breathing look pretty much like a smile with a gumshield in.

Gori looked for contact so, while no-one likes to see a player injured, it was his own fault for trying to milk a penalty.

There was a fair bit of 'wounded soldiers' going on with Italian players. With Parisse's captaincy style they're becoming difficult to like these days.

Cyril wrote:Gori looked for contact so, while no-one likes to see a player injured, it was his own fault for trying to milk a penalty.

There was a fair bit of 'wounded soldiers' going on with Italian players. With Parisse's captaincy style they're becoming difficult to like these days.

Ironic from a fan of Hartley, Farrell and Eddie Jones.

Farrell has shown a touch of petulance following a yellow last year though my memory fails me as to who it went to but the others don't to tend to flap or appeal like Parisse .

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Cyril wrote:Gori looked for contact so, while no-one likes to see a player injured, it was his own fault for trying to milk a penalty.

There was a fair bit of 'wounded soldiers' going on with Italian players. With Parisse's captaincy style they're becoming difficult to like these days.

Ironic from a fan of Hartley, Farrell and Eddie Jones.

Nobody likes England. I'm fully aware of that

Still, you've got players like Murray (the whinger), Healy (the stamper), Heaslip (the knee-er) and O'Brien (the squeaker). Best seems like a nice guy but I wouldn't have him in my darts team.

Cyril wrote:Best seems like a nice guy but I wouldn't have him in my darts team.

All of those players would walk into the current England team except possibly Healy would be on the bench.

Murray > Care/Youngs
Mako > Healy/Marler
Heaslip > Hughes
O'Brien > Haskell or any other England 7
Best > Hartely

I think you fancy Best a little bit Cyril. You love talking about him.

And best who wouldn't make the bench.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And best who wouldn't make the bench.

I know, he would start ahead of Hartley who has been the weakest hooker in the championship.

Nah.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Farrell has shown a touch of petulance following a yellow last year though my memory fails me as to who it went to but the others don't to tend to flap or appeal like Parisse .

When Farrell was hit late against Wales he just got up and played on. In contrast Gori looked like he had been shot when he ran into Farrell.

Exiledinborders wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Farrell has shown a touch of petulance following a yellow last year though my memory fails me as to who it went to but the others don't to tend to flap or appeal like Parisse .

When Farrell was hit late against Wales he just got up and played on. In contrast Gori looked like he had been shot when he ran into Farrell.

You mean when he had to go off for a HIA and didn't return?

Its fair to sday both are being unfairly critisized in the Farrell incidence.

Farrell had avoided charging the kicker and just turned his shoulder in to take the impact. It was rightly looked at by the officials on the replay and deemed to not be a problem. Gori looked like he went down like a sack of cack but was genuinely injured. It happenes sometimes. Farells reaction was pretty understandable at the time, Gori had ran into him quite possibly delibertely looking for the penalty (it certainly woudl be perceived that way by Farrell) and given the context of the game wouldve appeared cynical to him. Hence his reactions after the incident and as it was being reviewed by the officials are pretty understandable in the context as it wouldvve played out to him.

As it transpires what actually happened was a bunch of people played rugby and there wasnt any actual drama except onthe internet.

The problem with your argument though is that if Farrell goes the other way he avoids contact so he went looking to make contact which isn't exactly an offence within limits, what baffles me is the TMO saying Farrell stood still which wasn't true

He didn't move to create the contact and even spun away to take impact away.

He spun to his left which was the line Gori was taking, he spins right theres no contact and used his shoulder to do it

Maybe hes like Zoolander

Gooseberry wrote:Maybe hes like Zoolander

Spinning right would lead to more force in the collision.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Spinning right would lead to more force in the collision.

No it takes him away from Gori, so no contact

What was going on with Lawes packing down in the back row and Itoje scrumming in the 2nd row!
When I first saw it I thought they were alternating offensive and defensive scrums - but generally this was the positioning for all scrums.
I thought we were done with the experimentation of Lawes on the flank!

This is a stationary spin gori was running into him no matter what.