vogue
International Vice-Captain
Ha ha and yes...don't the English know the rules?? The Italians are playing with the heads of the English .
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Official Rugby Thread
- Thread starter KennyD
- Start date
MW1304
Cricketer Of The Year
Tbh Italy's tactics weren't the biggest problem with the first half. Despite the pointless questioning of the referee we'd managed to deal with it by the end. It was the atrocious decision-making when we had the openings, along with some terrible discipline when the defence was otherwise holding up fine.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
I'm on the train back from Twickenham now.
From the stands I thought Poitre had had a stroke, but the BBC is reporting that the Italians deliberately didn't commit anyone past the initial tackler, meaning a ruck wasn't formed and there was no offside.
I'll need to watch it again to be sure, but if that's correct it was tactical genius from Italy.
Made for a ****e game though, but.
From the stands I thought Poitre had had a stroke, but the BBC is reporting that the Italians deliberately didn't commit anyone past the initial tackler, meaning a ruck wasn't formed and there was no offside.
I'll need to watch it again to be sure, but if that's correct it was tactical genius from Italy.
Made for a ****e game though, but.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
"I'm sure Trevor Chappell would've been happy today."
Eddie Jones never knowingly understated.
I'm pleased we won, because it doesn't look (just) like sour grapes now.
He does sort of have a point. Italy exploited a loop hole that (I'll be honest here) I didn't even know existed. Kudos for the innovation and all, but having spent £104 for the privilege of watching it I genuinely hope the rules are tightened up because it was the worst game of rugby I've been to.
An expensive insight into what punters at the Adelaide Oval felt like in 32/33.
Eddie Jones never knowingly understated.
I'm pleased we won, because it doesn't look (just) like sour grapes now.
He does sort of have a point. Italy exploited a loop hole that (I'll be honest here) I didn't even know existed. Kudos for the innovation and all, but having spent £104 for the privilege of watching it I genuinely hope the rules are tightened up because it was the worst game of rugby I've been to.
An expensive insight into what punters at the Adelaide Oval felt like in 32/33.
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
That is really bad taste about Pinetree.
Also only 2 ABs. I know almost nothing about Ken Scotland: Is he better than George Nepia, Bob Scott or Don Clark? Gainsford was good, but ahead of Bert Cook? Ivor Jones instead of Maurice Brownlie and Kel Tremain?!
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
don't take the bait...
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Considering that England is famous for negative play that is a bit rich from fast Eddie. England forwards have been masters of destroying and slowing down ball by falling on it for years - Dooley, Winterbottom, Teague, Johnson, Back and Dallaglio and co were incredibly negative and disruptive. (Made Richie McCaw look like a saint). Anyway good to see Scotland playing decent rugby and the Irish still doing well. If England get the Grand Slam and the record for consecutive wins they'll deserve it (despite what some of my countrymen might day).
Fuller Pilch
Hall of Fame Member
Thanks. Note to self: don't feed...
Howe_zat
Audio File
A rant
I watched the game late and I am kind of floored by the difference between the reaction and what actually happened.
My first impression from player, coach and pundit comments was that Italy successfully disrupted England thanks to this tactic and, were it not for a late collapse, nearly beat them with it. Not just Jones having a bluster and fans excited to see England struggle either. O'Shea: "Everything we did was completely legal; I was incredibly proud of what the players put out there."
Then I watched the game and this isn't close to what happened. Firstly, England ran in six tries, more than they scored against Italy last year and twice as many as Wales scored against them earlier this year. That is a shellacking and there is no reason for O'Shea to be proud of his side's defence that continues to ship as many tries as the side facing them can construct.
It's true that Italy led at half time and that is because England played badly regardless of what was put in front of them. Italy didn't stop England scoring, England did. Throughout the first 20 minutes England's shoddy kicking and handling left them scoreless, and the very first mention of the no-ruck tactic on commentary happens after 22 minutes. Shortly afterwards Hartley and Haskell have that conversation with Poite, and England score three tries in the next 20 minutes, and would have had a fourth had May not dropped it. That butchered try is actually the video currently stickied on reddit to show everyone what Italy's tactics were and it shows them getting beaten. Italy did some things well, they scrummaged effectively in the first half, Gori and Parisse's link play was good, and obviously they had a moment of brilliance from Campagnaro. But their defence was poor. England gave away possession time and time again and whenever they didn't they scored.
ESPN headline right now - "Italy silence doubters with ruckless riddle". The article is full of praise for a defence that was fortunate to only let through six tries. Guardian article on the same topic - "England caught cold by Italian rules of engagement" and claiming "it worked a treat." The last time England conceded six tries in a match was the SA tour in 2007. Guardian writers on that day - "In 101 years of fixtures with the Boks, weakened team or not, there has never been a hiding on this scale. With injury and illness also stalking the squad, there is a case for halting the tour on humanitarian grounds. Even the locals are starting to sympathise, comparing the occasion to watching a little old lady being mugged of her pension money."
It's baffling. I don't really care for the supposed breaking of the spirit of the laws idea, or it suddenly becoming the new thing for sides to pull off, because on the evidence of this game it doesn't actually work. But I feel like the only one who noticed. As an aside I can understand why Jones would get all blustery about it as he'd rather have people talking about dodgy tactics than England's ****** handling. Why writers and other parties are getting excited over it is beyond me.
I watched the game late and I am kind of floored by the difference between the reaction and what actually happened.
My first impression from player, coach and pundit comments was that Italy successfully disrupted England thanks to this tactic and, were it not for a late collapse, nearly beat them with it. Not just Jones having a bluster and fans excited to see England struggle either. O'Shea: "Everything we did was completely legal; I was incredibly proud of what the players put out there."
Then I watched the game and this isn't close to what happened. Firstly, England ran in six tries, more than they scored against Italy last year and twice as many as Wales scored against them earlier this year. That is a shellacking and there is no reason for O'Shea to be proud of his side's defence that continues to ship as many tries as the side facing them can construct.
It's true that Italy led at half time and that is because England played badly regardless of what was put in front of them. Italy didn't stop England scoring, England did. Throughout the first 20 minutes England's shoddy kicking and handling left them scoreless, and the very first mention of the no-ruck tactic on commentary happens after 22 minutes. Shortly afterwards Hartley and Haskell have that conversation with Poite, and England score three tries in the next 20 minutes, and would have had a fourth had May not dropped it. That butchered try is actually the video currently stickied on reddit to show everyone what Italy's tactics were and it shows them getting beaten. Italy did some things well, they scrummaged effectively in the first half, Gori and Parisse's link play was good, and obviously they had a moment of brilliance from Campagnaro. But their defence was poor. England gave away possession time and time again and whenever they didn't they scored.
ESPN headline right now - "Italy silence doubters with ruckless riddle". The article is full of praise for a defence that was fortunate to only let through six tries. Guardian article on the same topic - "England caught cold by Italian rules of engagement" and claiming "it worked a treat." The last time England conceded six tries in a match was the SA tour in 2007. Guardian writers on that day - "In 101 years of fixtures with the Boks, weakened team or not, there has never been a hiding on this scale. With injury and illness also stalking the squad, there is a case for halting the tour on humanitarian grounds. Even the locals are starting to sympathise, comparing the occasion to watching a little old lady being mugged of her pension money."
It's baffling. I don't really care for the supposed breaking of the spirit of the laws idea, or it suddenly becoming the new thing for sides to pull off, because on the evidence of this game it doesn't actually work. But I feel like the only one who noticed. As an aside I can understand why Jones would get all blustery about it as he'd rather have people talking about dodgy tactics than England's ****** handling. Why writers and other parties are getting excited over it is beyond me.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
I confess to not having watched the game but even looking at the scorecard I was confused.
I don't think a rule change is necessary, btw. I can think of 3 ways to overcome that tactic on the spot. Beginning is the fact that if you don't contest the ruck you more than likely won't gain possession of the ball...this ain't rugby league. A side can easily tell their props to run straight up the guts.
I don't think a rule change is necessary, btw. I can think of 3 ways to overcome that tactic on the spot. Beginning is the fact that if you don't contest the ruck you more than likely won't gain possession of the ball...this ain't rugby league. A side can easily tell their props to run straight up the guts.
Howe_zat
Audio File
Well the punters at Adelaide saw their team lose, which does lead to one or two sparks going off in the Australian psyche.
England played badly and still won by miles, so this tactical masterpiece may need some work. While Italy's strategy might have contributed towards the game not being worth your hard earned I'd argue England's handling is probably the thing to send the bill to.
Howe_zat
Audio File
yep
Consider exhibit A
https://streamable.com/ba9f2
- Italy make full use of no-ruck tactics for several phases
- England take it 30m upfield by going straight over the top which is what you are supposed to do in that situation
- Overlap successfully constructed
- May drops it
Italy's defending strategy is not what's causing the lack of points here
Also notice this is after 20 minutes' play, the idea England were completely stifled by this defending for the entire first half is total fiction. England barely had the ball!
Consider exhibit A
https://streamable.com/ba9f2
- Italy make full use of no-ruck tactics for several phases
- England take it 30m upfield by going straight over the top which is what you are supposed to do in that situation
- Overlap successfully constructed
- May drops it
Italy's defending strategy is not what's causing the lack of points here
Also notice this is after 20 minutes' play, the idea England were completely stifled by this defending for the entire first half is total fiction. England barely had the ball!
Howe_zat
Audio File
Yeah the game was closer than the Ireland one, because England were less clinical and kicked like sewage. That's it though. It wasn't even closer than the Wales one where Italy also led at half time.
Rugby writers and fans have collectively had this dream where there's this great success of cunning new defensive strategy because that's just more interesting to talk about?
I'm tempted to stick it in grecian's 'stories' thread.
Rugby writers and fans have collectively had this dream where there's this great success of cunning new defensive strategy because that's just more interesting to talk about?
I'm tempted to stick it in grecian's 'stories' thread.
BoyBrumby
Englishman
The non-rucking tactic was a success inasmuch as it interrupted England's game.
Ultimately Italy fell off a cliff in the last ten minutes, as is their wont, but they had been competitive until then.
Lots of other parts of the English machine weren't working either: Farrell had a absolute Barry, Cole was given a touch up in the scrum and Hughes seemed unable to approach the ball carrier without conceding a penalty, but the decision not to compete for the ball and instead stop the scrum half's distribution definitely had an affect in amplifying the turgid spectacle.
There's nothing in the laws against it (although one notes O'Shea felt the need to run it past Poitre before the game) but it is primarily a spoiling tactic and I don't seriously think anyone would argue it added anything to the game from an entertainment point of view.
Italy don't have a duty to entertain, of course, but in a climate where their continued uncontested participation in the tournament is seriously being questioned, they haven't won themselves any friends round Twickenham.
Ultimately Italy fell off a cliff in the last ten minutes, as is their wont, but they had been competitive until then.
Lots of other parts of the English machine weren't working either: Farrell had a absolute Barry, Cole was given a touch up in the scrum and Hughes seemed unable to approach the ball carrier without conceding a penalty, but the decision not to compete for the ball and instead stop the scrum half's distribution definitely had an affect in amplifying the turgid spectacle.
There's nothing in the laws against it (although one notes O'Shea felt the need to run it past Poitre before the game) but it is primarily a spoiling tactic and I don't seriously think anyone would argue it added anything to the game from an entertainment point of view.
Italy don't have a duty to entertain, of course, but in a climate where their continued uncontested participation in the tournament is seriously being questioned, they haven't won themselves any friends round Twickenham.
Howe_zat
Audio File
Teams have also countered it by grabbing defenders and pulling them into the ruck. Poite stopped that which is where the confusion came in. Eventually they just went for running over them anyway.
I can't buy that it made Farrell miss kicks or May knock on within sight of the line though. England could and should have been fine, even if they couldn't go wide. And in the end I suppose they were, but it's really their own fault they didn't put up a big score.
I can't buy that it made Farrell miss kicks or May knock on within sight of the line though. England could and should have been fine, even if they couldn't go wide. And in the end I suppose they were, but it's really their own fault they didn't put up a big score.
Howe_zat
Audio File
here
Launchbury forces contact with the defender to create an offside line but the ref doesn't blow for offside. Hartley and Haskell later ask why, and are told that they can't now do this.
So probably the reason things are stood out compared to examples from Super Rugby is that Poite decided not only could Italy have no rucks but England couldn't have the standard counter to it either, so no wonder it took them a little while to figure out what was what.