WALES INTERNATIONAL: GAMES, SQUADS, TOURNAMENTS, CHAT - SUMMER TOUR & SEASON 2022/23

First topic message reminder :

Here it is:

Springbok team to face Wales in Cape Town:
15 – Damian Willemse (DHL Stormers) – 17 caps, 12 pts (1t, 2c, 1p)
14 – Cheslin Kolbe (Toulon) – 19 caps 18pts, 50pts (10t)
13 – Lukhanyo Am (Cell C Sharks) – 27 caps, 25 pts (5t)
12 – Damian de Allende (Wild Knights) – 59 caps, 35 pts (7t)
11 – Makazole Mapimpi (Cell C Sharks) – 26 caps, 100 pts (20t)
10 – Handre Pollard (Leicester Tigers) – 61 caps, 613 pts (6t, 83c, 131p, 4d)
9 – Jaden Hendrikse (Cell C Sharks) – 3 caps, 5 pts (1t)
8 – Jasper Wiese (Leicester Tigers) – 12 caps, 0 pts
7 – Pieter-Steph du Toit (Toyota Verblitz) – 59 caps, 25 pts (5t)
6 – Siya Kolisi (captain, Cell C Sharks) – 64 caps, 30 pts (6t)
5 – Lood de Jager (Wild Knights) – 57 caps, 25 pts (5t)
4 – Eben Etzebeth (Cell C Sharks) – 99 caps, 15 pts (3t)
3 – Frans Malherbe (DHL Stormers) – 47 caps, 5pts (1t)
2 – Bongi Mbonambi (Cell C Sharks) – 49 caps, 50 pts (10t)
1 – Trevor Nyakane (Racing 92) – 55 caps, 5pts (1t)

Replacements:
16 – Malcolm Marx (Kubota Spears) – 48 caps, 55 pts (11t)
17 – Steven Kitshoff (DHL Stormers) – 60 caps, 5pts (1t)
18 – Vincent Koch (Wasps) 33 caps, 0 pts
19 – Franco Mostert (Honda Heat) – 52 caps, 5pts (1t)
20 – Kwagga Smith (Shizuoka Blue Revs) – 20 caps, 5 pts (1t)
21 – Elrigh Louw (Vodacom Bulls) – 1 cap, 0pts
22 – Faf de Klerk (Canon Eagles) – 37caps, 25pts (5t)
23 – Willie le Roux (Toyota Verblitz) – 73 caps, 60 pts (12t)

mikey_dragon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:No ruck, and not a high tackle. Sour grapes from Crowley, particularly when he alluded to the box-kicking.

There's definitely an arm over the shoulder, looks high. Also the rule around that is that you can't be with a metre of it and be onside, brought in after the England Italy game, was that talked through? Owens was it?

It was cleared up on 'Chum V', Nigel Owens has been a regular. They wouldn't have mentioned it without consultation and then disclose the info on Live TV. If Crowley was Wales coach this board would be going into meltdown. People on here and social media elsewhere seem to have a Welsh Bee in their bonnet - if nobody likes this being pointed out I would suggest you stop.

So they didn't give anything as to why arm over shoulder wasn't considered high. And merely said there was no ruck but then ignored the rule tweak?

There was no offside. The offside line is created when a player is tackled, and one of their team-mates is over the ball - in other words a ruck. Italian player (I think it was a lock) was tackled, then popped the ball up to the 13 and then he was tackled. Hence, no offside. I'm not sure why you think there was a high tackle. I checked again and it wasn't even a seatbelt.

There is still a bit of crying going on over this, despite the ref being correct not to give a penalty try. There has been absolutely nothing about the red card offence on Wyn Jones though.

mikey_dragon wrote:There was no offside. The offside line is created when a player is tackled, and one of their team-mates is over the ball - in other words a ruck. Italian player (I think it was a lock) was tackled, then popped the ball up to the 13 and then he was tackled. Hence, no offside. I'm not sure why you think there was a high tackle. I checked again and it wasn't even a seatbelt.

There is still a bit of crying going on over this, despite the ref being correct not to give a penalty try. There has been absolutely nothing about the red card offence on Wyn Jones though.

Well the arm does go over the shoulder. Did they cover the fact that he makes the tackle from offside? I'm not bothered by whether they thought it was a ruck or not just whether they covered the offside.

As far as the red card offence, what you on about I terms of no mention? Certainly commented on here.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:There was no offside. The offside line is created when a player is tackled, and one of their team-mates is over the ball - in other words a ruck. Italian player (I think it was a lock) was tackled, then popped the ball up to the 13 and then he was tackled. Hence, no offside. I'm not sure why you think there was a high tackle. I checked again and it wasn't even a seatbelt.

There is still a bit of crying going on over this, despite the ref being correct not to give a penalty try. There has been absolutely nothing about the red card offence on Wyn Jones though.

Well the arm does go over the shoulder. Did they cover the fact that he makes the tackle from offside? I'm not bothered by whether they thought it was a ruck or not just whether they covered the offside.

As far as the red card offence, what you on about I terms of no mention? Certainly commented on here.

I think that was the point, wasn’t it? That it wasn’t a ruck so he couldn’t be offside. I.e. as it wasn’t a ruck Williams could tackle from anywhere and not need to get ‘back onside’. Or something like that.

TAFKA The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:There was no offside. The offside line is created when a player is tackled, and one of their team-mates is over the ball - in other words a ruck. Italian player (I think it was a lock) was tackled, then popped the ball up to the 13 and then he was tackled. Hence, no offside. I'm not sure why you think there was a high tackle. I checked again and it wasn't even a seatbelt.

There is still a bit of crying going on over this, despite the ref being correct not to give a penalty try. There has been absolutely nothing about the red card offence on Wyn Jones though.

Well the arm does go over the shoulder. Did they cover the fact that he makes the tackle from offside? I'm not bothered by whether they thought it was a ruck or not just whether they covered the offside.

As far as the red card offence, what you on about I terms of no mention? Certainly commented on here.

I think that was the point, wasn’t it? That it wasn’t a ruck so he couldn’t be offside. I.e. as it wasn’t a ruck Williams could tackle from anywhere and not need to get ‘back onside’. Or something like that.

Have they changed the laws again then? That was my point earlier after the England Italy game law 14 (tackles) was changed so that the offside law isn't merely drawn by rucks. Sounds as if this wasn't known by the programme?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TAFKA The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:There was no offside. The offside line is created when a player is tackled, and one of their team-mates is over the ball - in other words a ruck. Italian player (I think it was a lock) was tackled, then popped the ball up to the 13 and then he was tackled. Hence, no offside. I'm not sure why you think there was a high tackle. I checked again and it wasn't even a seatbelt.

There is still a bit of crying going on over this, despite the ref being correct not to give a penalty try. There has been absolutely nothing about the red card offence on Wyn Jones though.

Well the arm does go over the shoulder. Did they cover the fact that he makes the tackle from offside? I'm not bothered by whether they thought it was a ruck or not just whether they covered the offside.

As far as the red card offence, what you on about I terms of no mention? Certainly commented on here.

I think that was the point, wasn’t it? That it wasn’t a ruck so he couldn’t be offside. I.e. as it wasn’t a ruck Williams could tackle from anywhere and not need to get ‘back onside’. Or something like that.

Have they changed the laws again then? That was my point earlier after the England Italy game law 14 (tackles) was changed so that the offside law isn't merely drawn by rucks. Sounds as if this wasn't known by the programme?

Well, you seem like you’re absolutely busting to tell us all about this new law and how you’ve got the inside scoop!…….so go ahead and spell it out. In baby steps please, as I’m a bit ‘old guard’ now. A link to the law changes would be a real help too, so I can get my head around them. Thanks, 7.5.

Law 14. Its quite an old one now though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TAFKA The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:There was no offside. The offside line is created when a player is tackled, and one of their team-mates is over the ball - in other words a ruck. Italian player (I think it was a lock) was tackled, then popped the ball up to the 13 and then he was tackled. Hence, no offside. I'm not sure why you think there was a high tackle. I checked again and it wasn't even a seatbelt.

There is still a bit of crying going on over this, despite the ref being correct not to give a penalty try. There has been absolutely nothing about the red card offence on Wyn Jones though.

Well the arm does go over the shoulder. Did they cover the fact that he makes the tackle from offside? I'm not bothered by whether they thought it was a ruck or not just whether they covered the offside.

As far as the red card offence, what you on about I terms of no mention? Certainly commented on here.

I think that was the point, wasn’t it? That it wasn’t a ruck so he couldn’t be offside. I.e. as it wasn’t a ruck Williams could tackle from anywhere and not need to get ‘back onside’. Or something like that.

Have they changed the laws again then? That was my point earlier after the England Italy game law 14 (tackles) was changed so that the offside law isn't merely drawn by rucks. Sounds as if this wasn't known by the programme?

The fact the player popped the ball up means it is open play, i.e the same as if he had off loaded in a tackle.

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TAFKA The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:There was no offside. The offside line is created when a player is tackled, and one of their team-mates is over the ball - in other words a ruck. Italian player (I think it was a lock) was tackled, then popped the ball up to the 13 and then he was tackled. Hence, no offside. I'm not sure why you think there was a high tackle. I checked again and it wasn't even a seatbelt.

There is still a bit of crying going on over this, despite the ref being correct not to give a penalty try. There has been absolutely nothing about the red card offence on Wyn Jones though.

Well the arm does go over the shoulder. Did they cover the fact that he makes the tackle from offside? I'm not bothered by whether they thought it was a ruck or not just whether they covered the offside.

As far as the red card offence, what you on about I terms of no mention? Certainly commented on here.

I think that was the point, wasn’t it? That it wasn’t a ruck so he couldn’t be offside. I.e. as it wasn’t a ruck Williams could tackle from anywhere and not need to get ‘back onside’. Or something like that.

Have they changed the laws again then? That was my point earlier after the England Italy game law 14 (tackles) was changed so that the offside law isn't merely drawn by rucks. Sounds as if this wasn't known by the programme?

The fact the player popped the ball up means it is open play, i.e the same as if he had off loaded in a tackle.

Thought about that initially but you can see that last tackle the player picks up from the floor. Doesn't sound as if that was even discussed on Scrum though; merely focusing on whether it was a ruck? Certainly the ref when speaking on Saturday was solely focused on the fact a ruck hadn't formed, as was Mikey above.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TAFKA The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:There was no offside. The offside line is created when a player is tackled, and one of their team-mates is over the ball - in other words a ruck. Italian player (I think it was a lock) was tackled, then popped the ball up to the 13 and then he was tackled. Hence, no offside. I'm not sure why you think there was a high tackle. I checked again and it wasn't even a seatbelt.

There is still a bit of crying going on over this, despite the ref being correct not to give a penalty try. There has been absolutely nothing about the red card offence on Wyn Jones though.

Well the arm does go over the shoulder. Did they cover the fact that he makes the tackle from offside? I'm not bothered by whether they thought it was a ruck or not just whether they covered the offside.

As far as the red card offence, what you on about I terms of no mention? Certainly commented on here.

I think that was the point, wasn’t it? That it wasn’t a ruck so he couldn’t be offside. I.e. as it wasn’t a ruck Williams could tackle from anywhere and not need to get ‘back onside’. Or something like that.

Have they changed the laws again then? That was my point earlier after the England Italy game law 14 (tackles) was changed so that the offside law isn't merely drawn by rucks. Sounds as if this wasn't known by the programme?

The fact the player popped the ball up means it is open play, i.e the same as if he had off loaded in a tackle.

Thought about that initially but you can see that last tackle the player picks up from the floor. Doesn't sound as if that was even discussed on Scrum though; merely focusing on whether it was a ruck? Certainly the ref when speaking on Saturday was solely focused on the fact a ruck hadn't formed, as was Mikey above.

Apologies, I went on the popped up comment from Mikey.

Have had a look again, I can't say that ruck has been formed as there was no one over the ball, therefore there is no offside line for me.

The height of the tackle isn't really an issue for me.

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TAFKA The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:There was no offside. The offside line is created when a player is tackled, and one of their team-mates is over the ball - in other words a ruck. Italian player (I think it was a lock) was tackled, then popped the ball up to the 13 and then he was tackled. Hence, no offside. I'm not sure why you think there was a high tackle. I checked again and it wasn't even a seatbelt.

There is still a bit of crying going on over this, despite the ref being correct not to give a penalty try. There has been absolutely nothing about the red card offence on Wyn Jones though.

Well the arm does go over the shoulder. Did they cover the fact that he makes the tackle from offside? I'm not bothered by whether they thought it was a ruck or not just whether they covered the offside.

As far as the red card offence, what you on about I terms of no mention? Certainly commented on here.

I think that was the point, wasn’t it? That it wasn’t a ruck so he couldn’t be offside. I.e. as it wasn’t a ruck Williams could tackle from anywhere and not need to get ‘back onside’. Or something like that.

Have they changed the laws again then? That was my point earlier after the England Italy game law 14 (tackles) was changed so that the offside law isn't merely drawn by rucks. Sounds as if this wasn't known by the programme?

The fact the player popped the ball up means it is open play, i.e the same as if he had off loaded in a tackle.

Thought about that initially but you can see that last tackle the player picks up from the floor. Doesn't sound as if that was even discussed on Scrum though; merely focusing on whether it was a ruck? Certainly the ref when speaking on Saturday was solely focused on the fact a ruck hadn't formed, as was Mikey above.

Apologies, I went on the popped up comment from Mikey.

Have had a look again, I can't say that ruck has been formed as there was no one over the ball, therefore there is no offside line for me.

The height of the tackle isn't really an issue for me.

I agree on the ruck. There is an offside though as the tackle is made and the attacker picks the ball up. Anyone making a tackle has to come from an onside position.

It was an offload from the guy off the floor.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Law 14. Its quite an old one now though.

Talk us through your reasoning then, Nige.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

I agree on the ruck. There is an offside though as the tackle is made and the attacker picks the ball up. Anyone making a tackle has to come from an onside position.

World Rugby wrote:In a tackle or ruck situation, offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.

No one was on their feet over the ball.

7.5 I don't see why you keep asking this question, we already cleared it up?

Was Bruno's forearm smash a red card offence? That's debatable, but the answer is probably a yes. Nobody debating that one though as far as I can tell.

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

I agree on the ruck. There is an offside though as the tackle is made and the attacker picks the ball up. Anyone making a tackle has to come from an onside position.

World Rugby wrote:In a tackle or ruck situation, offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.

No one was on their feet over the ball.

There was. The guy who picked the ball up.

TAFKA/Oracle (change of name of different person?) The ball was on the floor at that last point. There's an offside line drawn. Ref didn't consider that. Was that specifically talked through on Scrum as Mikey said they said it was fine because there was no ruck?

If Owen Williams is offside when tracking back and making a tackle, then no one in rugby would be able to make a tackle from behind. Yet that is a key part of chasing back and something we see in every game.

The Italy player is tackled and pops the ball up from the floor to the next attacking Italian player, who is caught by Owen Williams. As no player was over the ball at the tackle before it was popped up there was no ruck, so Owen Williams does not need to come round the back and enter the ruck through the gate. In other words, it was open play.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

I agree on the ruck. There is an offside though as the tackle is made and the attacker picks the ball up. Anyone making a tackle has to come from an onside position.

World Rugby wrote:In a tackle or ruck situation, offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.

No one was on their feet over the ball.

There was. The guy who picked the ball up.

TAFKA/Oracle (change of name of different person?) The ball was on the floor at that last point. There's an offside line drawn. Ref didn't consider that. Was that specifically talked through on Scrum as Mikey said they said it was fine because there was no ruck?

No, he wasn't over the ball, as the ball isn't in the ruck there is no offside line.

The ball is out so it is open play.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

I agree on the ruck. There is an offside though as the tackle is made and the attacker picks the ball up. Anyone making a tackle has to come from an onside position.

World Rugby wrote:In a tackle or ruck situation, offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.

No one was on their feet over the ball.

There was. The guy who picked the ball up.

TAFKA/Oracle (change of name of different person?) The ball was on the floor at that last point. There's an offside line drawn. Ref didn't consider that. Was that specifically talked through on Scrum as Mikey said they said it was fine because there was no ruck?

Same person.  New account after deleting the old one.  I take it you're not a Prince fan then!

TAFKA The Oracle wrote:If Owen Williams is offside when tracking back and making a tackle, then no one in rugby would be able to make a tackle from behind.  Yet that is a key part of chasing back and something we see in every game.  

The Italy player is tackled and pops the ball up from the floor to the next attacking Italian player, who is caught by Owen Williams.  As no player was over the ball at the tackle before it was popped up there was no ruck, so Owen Williams does not need to come round the back and enter the ruck through the gate.  In other words, it was open play.

I don't think the ball is popped up at all, it was at the previous tackle but not the last. Therefore the ball is on the floor and there is an Italian there.

Just intrigued to hear if Scrum did discuss that aspect?

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

I agree on the ruck. There is an offside though as the tackle is made and the attacker picks the ball up. Anyone making a tackle has to come from an onside position.

World Rugby wrote:In a tackle or ruck situation, offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.

No one was on their feet over the ball.

There was. The guy who picked the ball up.

TAFKA/Oracle (change of name of different person?) The ball was on the floor at that last point. There's an offside line drawn. Ref didn't consider that. Was that specifically talked through on Scrum as Mikey said they said it was fine because there was no ruck?

No, he wasn't over the ball, as the ball isn't in the ruck there is no offside line.

The ball is out so it is open play.

I see that last tackle as a completed one with the ball on the floor before it's picked up by the Italian.

TAFKA The Oracle wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

I agree on the ruck. There is an offside though as the tackle is made and the attacker picks the ball up. Anyone making a tackle has to come from an onside position.

World Rugby wrote:In a tackle or ruck situation, offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.

No one was on their feet over the ball.

There was. The guy who picked the ball up.

TAFKA/Oracle (change of name of different person?) The ball was on the floor at that last point. There's an offside line drawn. Ref didn't consider that. Was that specifically talked through on Scrum as Mikey said they said it was fine because there was no ruck?

Same person.  New account after deleting the old one.  I take it you're not a Prince fan then!

I am not so well over my head!

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

I agree on the ruck. There is an offside though as the tackle is made and the attacker picks the ball up. Anyone making a tackle has to come from an onside position.

World Rugby wrote:In a tackle or ruck situation, offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.

No one was on their feet over the ball.

There was. The guy who picked the ball up.

TAFKA/Oracle (change of name of different person?) The ball was on the floor at that last point. There's an offside line drawn. Ref didn't consider that. Was that specifically talked through on Scrum as Mikey said they said it was fine because there was no ruck?

No, he wasn't over the ball, as the ball isn't in the ruck there is no offside line.

The ball is out so it is open play.

I see that last tackle as a completed one with the ball on the floor before it's picked up by the Italian.

Yes the tackle is completed but there is no ruck to have the ball not out so to speak.

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

I agree on the ruck. There is an offside though as the tackle is made and the attacker picks the ball up. Anyone making a tackle has to come from an onside position.

World Rugby wrote:In a tackle or ruck situation, offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.

No one was on their feet over the ball.

There was. The guy who picked the ball up.

TAFKA/Oracle (change of name of different person?) The ball was on the floor at that last point. There's an offside line drawn. Ref didn't consider that. Was that specifically talked through on Scrum as Mikey said they said it was fine because there was no ruck?

No, he wasn't over the ball, as the ball isn't in the ruck there is no offside line.

The ball is out so it is open play.

I see that last tackle as a completed one with the ball on the floor before it's picked up by the Italian.

Yes the tackle is completed but there is no ruck to have the ball not out so to speak.

So the only thing to note is whether people think the ball is on the ground after that tackle. For me it is.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/15

Law 15:

Forming a ruck

A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
Players involved in all stages of the ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower than their hips.

Joining a ruck:

An arriving player must be on their feet and join from behind their offside line.
A player may join alongside but not in front of the hindmost player.
A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.
Players must join the ruck or retire behind their offside line immediately
Players who have previously been part of the ruck may rejoin the ruck, provided they do so from an onside position.

From the replay there was not one player from each team in contact and on their feet. There was no binding onto a team mate or opposition. So no ruck.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

I agree on the ruck. There is an offside though as the tackle is made and the attacker picks the ball up. Anyone making a tackle has to come from an onside position.

World Rugby wrote:In a tackle or ruck situation, offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.

No one was on their feet over the ball.

There was. The guy who picked the ball up.

TAFKA/Oracle (change of name of different person?) The ball was on the floor at that last point. There's an offside line drawn. Ref didn't consider that. Was that specifically talked through on Scrum as Mikey said they said it was fine because there was no ruck?

No, he wasn't over the ball, as the ball isn't in the ruck there is no offside line.

The ball is out so it is open play.

I see that last tackle as a completed one with the ball on the floor before it's picked up by the Italian.

Yes the tackle is completed but there is no ruck to have the ball not out so to speak.

So the only thing to note is whether people think the ball is on the ground after that tackle. For me it is.

People have to be over the ball, no one is. The tackler has remained on the floor & the carrier is in front of the ball.

I'd love to stay & debate this all day with you but if you can't grasp this I'm not sure there is any point.

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

I agree on the ruck. There is an offside though as the tackle is made and the attacker picks the ball up. Anyone making a tackle has to come from an onside position.

World Rugby wrote:In a tackle or ruck situation, offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.

No one was on their feet over the ball.

There was. The guy who picked the ball up.

TAFKA/Oracle (change of name of different person?) The ball was on the floor at that last point. There's an offside line drawn. Ref didn't consider that. Was that specifically talked through on Scrum as Mikey said they said it was fine because there was no ruck?

No, he wasn't over the ball, as the ball isn't in the ruck there is no offside line.

The ball is out so it is open play.

I see that last tackle as a completed one with the ball on the floor before it's picked up by the Italian.

Yes the tackle is completed but there is no ruck to have the ball not out so to speak.

So the only thing to note is whether people think the ball is on the ground after that tackle. For me it is.

People have to be over the ball, no one is. The tackler has remained on the floor & the carrier is in front of the ball.

I'd love to stay & debate this all day with you but if you can't grasp this I'm not sure there is any point.

The guy picking the ball up, is on his feet over the ball. I grasp that you're saying there's no ruck (as presumably you mean a Welsh player by this 'People have to be over the ball, no one is'). But fair enough. Would still like to know whether the Scrum programme talked about this though or merely said there was no ruck and didn't think about the other more pertinent law.

There you can see the ball just about in the 13's hands before the Italy player hits the ground. No Welsh players to form the ruck. No Italian players binding on to anyone. No one over the ball. The Italian player to the left falls over the tackle area and is out of the game leaving just Italian 13 and Owen Williams who is tracking back.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

I agree on the ruck. There is an offside though as the tackle is made and the attacker picks the ball up. Anyone making a tackle has to come from an onside position.

World Rugby wrote:In a tackle or ruck situation, offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.

No one was on their feet over the ball.

There was. The guy who picked the ball up.

TAFKA/Oracle (change of name of different person?) The ball was on the floor at that last point. There's an offside line drawn. Ref didn't consider that. Was that specifically talked through on Scrum as Mikey said they said it was fine because there was no ruck?

No, he wasn't over the ball, as the ball isn't in the ruck there is no offside line.

The ball is out so it is open play.

I see that last tackle as a completed one with the ball on the floor before it's picked up by the Italian.

Yes the tackle is completed but there is no ruck to have the ball not out so to speak.

So the only thing to note is whether people think the ball is on the ground after that tackle. For me it is.

People have to be over the ball, no one is. The tackler has remained on the floor & the carrier is in front of the ball.

I'd love to stay & debate this all day with you but if you can't grasp this I'm not sure there is any point.

The guy picking the ball up, is on his feet over the ball. I grasp that you're saying there's no ruck (as presumably you mean a Welsh player by this 'People have to be over the ball, no one is'). But fair enough. Would still like to know whether the Scrum programme talked about this though or merely said there was no ruck and didn't think about the other more pertinent law.

He isn't as he isn't bound to the tackler!

As for Scrum V, watch the bloody programme on iPlayer then.

From the angle, there was no ruck or player over the ball. The ball came from the lock to the Italian 13, open play. This was also picked up on by an impartial panel on Scrum V.

TAFKA The Oracle wrote:

There you can see the ball just about in the 13's hands before the Italy player hits the ground.  No Welsh players to form the ruck. No Italian players binding on to anyone.  No one over the ball.  The Italian player to the left falls over the tackle area and is out of the game leaving just Italian 13 and Owen Williams who is tracking back.

And I think the ball hits the floor and doesn't get passed out of the tackle.

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

I agree on the ruck. There is an offside though as the tackle is made and the attacker picks the ball up. Anyone making a tackle has to come from an onside position.

World Rugby wrote:In a tackle or ruck situation, offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.

No one was on their feet over the ball.

There was. The guy who picked the ball up.

TAFKA/Oracle (change of name of different person?) The ball was on the floor at that last point. There's an offside line drawn. Ref didn't consider that. Was that specifically talked through on Scrum as Mikey said they said it was fine because there was no ruck?

No, he wasn't over the ball, as the ball isn't in the ruck there is no offside line.

The ball is out so it is open play.

I see that last tackle as a completed one with the ball on the floor before it's picked up by the Italian.

Yes the tackle is completed but there is no ruck to have the ball not out so to speak.

So the only thing to note is whether people think the ball is on the ground after that tackle. For me it is.

People have to be over the ball, no one is. The tackler has remained on the floor & the carrier is in front of the ball.

I'd love to stay & debate this all day with you but if you can't grasp this I'm not sure there is any point.

The guy picking the ball up, is on his feet over the ball. I grasp that you're saying there's no ruck (as presumably you mean a Welsh player by this 'People have to be over the ball, no one is'). But fair enough. Would still like to know whether the Scrum programme talked about this though or merely said there was no ruck and didn't think about the other more pertinent law.

He isn't as he isn't bound to the tackler!

As for Scrum V, watch the bloody programme on iPlayer then.

I assume then that they didn't and merely focused on the question of ruck and not. Which is what the ref incorrectly looked at.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

I agree on the ruck. There is an offside though as the tackle is made and the attacker picks the ball up. Anyone making a tackle has to come from an onside position.

World Rugby wrote:In a tackle or ruck situation, offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.

No one was on their feet over the ball.

There was. The guy who picked the ball up.

TAFKA/Oracle (change of name of different person?) The ball was on the floor at that last point. There's an offside line drawn. Ref didn't consider that. Was that specifically talked through on Scrum as Mikey said they said it was fine because there was no ruck?

No, he wasn't over the ball, as the ball isn't in the ruck there is no offside line.

The ball is out so it is open play.

I see that last tackle as a completed one with the ball on the floor before it's picked up by the Italian.

Yes the tackle is completed but there is no ruck to have the ball not out so to speak.

So the only thing to note is whether people think the ball is on the ground after that tackle. For me it is.

People have to be over the ball, no one is. The tackler has remained on the floor & the carrier is in front of the ball.

I'd love to stay & debate this all day with you but if you can't grasp this I'm not sure there is any point.

The guy picking the ball up, is on his feet over the ball. I grasp that you're saying there's no ruck (as presumably you mean a Welsh player by this 'People have to be over the ball, no one is'). But fair enough. Would still like to know whether the Scrum programme talked about this though or merely said there was no ruck and didn't think about the other more pertinent law.

He isn't as he isn't bound to the tackler!

As for Scrum V, watch the bloody programme on iPlayer then.

I assume then that they didn't and merely focused on the question of ruck and not. Which is what the ref incorrectly looked at.

Assume all you want, I didn't watch the programme.

No need to get all excited, over an event that happened 4 days ago. We will just give Italy the try and then chalk off the one they did score, where their 11 assisted. After all, he should never have been still on the pitch.

Seems the fairest outcome for all.

RiscaGame wrote:No need to get all excited, over an event that happened 4 days ago. We will just give Italy the try and then chalk off the one they did score, where their 11 assisted. After all, he should never have been still on the pitch.

Seems the fairest outcome for all.

Ha. I know some take talking about decisions as a slight on their team, but it's just enjoyable. And check the match thread of anyone doubts my sincerity as I was saying it should be a red and criticising Dickson's input on that!

Back 3 is good IMO, but elsewhere... Does Gats have a clue on what he is doing?

I'm struggling with the idea of Nick Tompkins being brought in to shore up the defence.

I actually give up!!

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I'm struggling with the idea of Nick Tompkins being brought in to shore up the defence.

I think perhaps it's more the understanding of centre play in defence at this level. The centre pairing against Italy, while full of potential, were like a revolving door in defence. I'm guessing Gats sees a less porous defence with Tompkins and North. Webb-Biggar-Tompkins-North: maybe they'll have a better way of working as a defensive unit from more time at this level, and will not leave such big gaps between each other? I'm going to name drop Sam Larner on Twitter again. He did a good bit of analysis about 'connectivity'. See link here: https://twitter.com/SamLStandsUp/status/1635393268136689664. Maybe Gats sees better 'connectedness' with these guys than with the young guns and is hoping that will reduce French breaks through the middle. I'm OK with Tompkins actually. He's been in good form for Sarries. Not sure on North though. Don't think he's been in that much form lately.

Or to put it another way..... he's gone for damage limitation!

I guess it means our midfield is going to get run over rather than run through.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I guess it means our midfield is going to get run over rather than run through.

Yes, might slow the French up a bit! A speed bump, if you will

On the other selections - Christ, I'm really struggling with some:

I love Wainwright but he's played a few hardly anything in 2 months so no way will he be match fit.
AWJ should be nowhere near the squad. Beard has shown very little. The physicality of the French will surely be too much for the two of them?
Tips and Faletau - OK.
Front row I can live with.
Webb - yes. Reward his good showing last week.
Biggar - why? He's been poor.
Centres - as above - Tompkins I can see but North not for me.
Adams needs a good match as he's not been great for Wales lately but was/is having a good season form the Blues holding the record for consecutive tries in matches at one point so hopefully he can show some of that.
Dyer - has look lively and at least puts the effort in. That try against Italy was all because he chased as hard as he could. Was nowhere to be seen when Webb kicked it! To have any chance against the French we need to get up in their faces and give them less time. So Dyer brings something there, e.g. at restarts.
Rees-Zammit - love him but FB is experimental for him at this level, and to do it against the top 2 team in the world is very risky! Would love to see him attack from deep. However, when he was FB recently his instruction seemed to be to kick everything. What an effing waste of one of our only genuine attacking threats! Needs to be used correctly.

Prediction - OK I'm opening myself up massively to ridicule if I get this spectacularly wrong, but I'm going to say:

France to win but Wales to frustrate them, give them a headache, cause one or two problems = France win but within 10 points.

Biggar's been lippy even by his standards lately, which isn't a good look even if you're playing well, which as you say, he isn't. Likewise, Josh Adams needs to spend less time playing Billy Big B0llocks. I really don't like him.

TAFKA The Oracle wrote:Prediction - OK I'm opening myself up massively to ridicule if I get this spectacularly wrong, but I'm going to say:

France to win but Wales to frustrate them, give them a headache, cause one or two problems =  France win but within 10 points.

Its certainly possible - Wales and Gatland do seem to be able to do that. As a Scotland fan I have suffered enough from it over the years

TJ wrote:

TAFKA The Oracle wrote:Prediction - OK I'm opening myself up massively to ridicule if I get this spectacularly wrong, but I'm going to say:

France to win but Wales to frustrate them, give them a headache, cause one or two problems =  France win but within 10 points.

Its certainly possible - Wales and Gatland do seem to be able to do that. As a Scotland fan I have suffered enough from it over the years

Yes but this is France, not Scotland. Against Scotland it’s meant, historically, we’ve usually been the stronger/better team. So rather than just trying to do damage limitation we’ve been able to contain Scotland and then pounce and score more points. The aim was not damage limitation. The aim was to contain and press on to win. Against France it will not be enough to trouble them and I think we’ll just be holding the flood gates back as much as possible.

*to add and to be clear, I’m talking historically. The 2023 Scotland are obviously a much more difficult proposition

Of course France need as big a bonus-point win as they can manage, but I don't think they'll be afraid to score in multiples of three if they have to. They'll know that they're bound to get the try bonus point over the 80 minutes, there's no rush in that respect. Ramos is a very good goalkicker (with Jaminet on the bench). If we're not disciplined, then they'll happily get the game won through the boot and then cut loose.

The alternative scenario is that they find tries so easy to score that Ramos only scores in multiples of two...

I wasn't particularly bothered about tomorrow anyway, but am now even more nonplussed.

Strange selection, to top off all of the rest of them. It's as if Cement Head is not concerned about the tournament, now he has avoided defeat to Italy.

Front row is what it is. Hopefully Ken isn't allowed to blow through his hoop for so long this week though.
Second row is crazy. We are underpowered with Beard and now we have made it even more underpowered. I would've tested Rhys Davies for this game.
Back row. Wainwright shouldn't be in the Six Nations squad, yet alone starting. I also don't think Tipuric should be in the 23 either, it should be Morgan or Reffell at 7.
9 is fine, 10 not.
Centres. I don't see the point in North.
Back three. I know it's a backwards step playing Halfpenny, but I would've done for this and not played LRZ at 15 for this game. I would've benched/dropped Adams, who has somehow started every game this Six Nations.

Bench isn't bad. I think Leon Brown could've done with an appearance on the bench again, seeing as this tournament is a write off. Same as Carre really (though at least he had a few). Not really developing two young props otherwise.