[2017 RBS Six Nations] Round 3: England vs Italy (26/02/2017)

[Leonormous Boozer]

And yet when the SH teams couldn't deal with England's mauling tactics from the 2003 squad they whinged until the rules got changed... Funny that.

That's salty! The rule doesn't need to be touched, punishing teams that aren't good enough to do anything with uncontested possession is totally fair. Its like calling for the choke tackle rule to be changed, how do you penalise getting isolated then, if all the rules favour the attacking side the integrity of the sport more than anything Italy did today. Flair alone should not equal success.

 

[TobesHodges]

Andy Saull Twitter - "No ruck means you don't have to 'use the ball'. Italy not allowed within 1m of the ball, so England should simply just do nothing & win 5-3!" Genius.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Come on guys, this banter is terrible, step away from the keyboards.

I think the key point is if that if England had handled the tactic better, Italy would probably have stopped doing it early on. Then we wouldn't be talking about it at all. So the fact that the whole game became about that was because of how slow we were to adapt. Our fault.

What actually baffles me is that every single player on the field has played against teams with varying extents of breakdown competition. It's a spectrum not too poles, and in rugby very often teams just don't committ to the breakdown. Ok so literally committing no-one to the ruck is different because it means there's no offside line. But the way you counter it is precisely the same as you would if the opposition only commits a few men to the breakdown.

TL;DR Italy's tactics were just an extreme version of a known approach. It's very worrying we were that baffled by it.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

You already used that one, must do better. The only chip is on that shoulder of yours.

Don't think I have in this thread have I?

Also those aren't chips on my shoulders there called traps.

Although being Irish I guess you are not used to your players having big enough shoulders to carry your hopes and expectations.

Signed 2003 Rugby World Cup.

 

[westernforce]

i can safely say if england play like they did today against the scots or ireland they will be beaten

 

[ratsapprentice]

 

[McTallshort]

Whatever people's opinion of EJ is please remember one thing: he couldn't give a toss about your hand wringing so save your breath

 

[TobesHodges]

So as a ruck wasn't formed, England didn't have to use it, which meant they could have stayed in their ruck positions for as long as they want until Italy MUST put a player in to form a ruck, which would have made everyone offside? England never had to play the ball!!

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

That's salty! The rule doesn't need to be touched, punishing teams that aren't good enough to do anything with uncontested possession is totally fair. Its like calling for the choke tackle rule to be changed, how do you penalise getting isolated then, if all the rules favour the attacking side the integrity of the sport more than anything Italy did today. Flair alone should not equal success.

Hardly salty, I'm not advocating rule change. There are ways to deal with that tactic and, apart from 10 mins at the start of the 2nd half, England did not consistently do it. In fact they seemed to forget about it and reverted to being caught out again after scoring 2 tries in quick succession when they changed their tactics... That's the worst part. If you have found out the counter, why the **** do you stop using it and reverting to what you know doesn't work!? The fact is rule changes have happened in the past due to whinging and those doing the whinging have overwhelmingly been from the SH. Look at the majority of modern rule changes, they have been pushed by the SH onto the NH to change the game to suit how the SH like to play.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

So as a ruck wasn't formed, England didn't have to use it, which meant they could have stayed in their ruck positions for as long as they want until Italy MUST put a player in to form a ruck, which would have made everyone offside? England never had to play the ball!!

correct

 

[Groundhog]

Whatever people's opinion of EJ is please remember one thing: he couldn't give a toss about your hand wringing so save your breath

Whatever people think about Conor O'Shea just remember: He couldn't give a toss about Eddie's hand wringing so he should save his breath.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Their next tactical revelation will be that if they don't committ 23 men against France in two weeks, they can't lose by 50 points! The Nobel prize for rugby should be a thing.

 

[Jockstap]

Don't think I have in this thread have I?

Also those aren't chips on my shoulders there called traps.

Although being Irish I guess you are not used to your players having big enough shoulders to carry your hopes and expectations.

Signed 2003 Rugby World Cup.

Fine, you win. I'm a sucker for a Johnny Bravo gif.

 

[McTallshort]

I quite like Connor O'Shea

 

[ratsapprentice]

What actually baffles me is that every single player on the field has played against teams with varying extents of breakdown competition. It's a spectrum not too poles, and in rugby very often teams just don't committ to the breakdown. Ok so literally committing no-one to the ruck is different because it means there's no offside line. But the way you counter it is precisely the same as you would if the opposition only commits a few men to the breakdown.

TL;DR Italy's tactics were just an extreme version of a known approach. It's very worrying we were that baffled by it.

Exactly!!!

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Whatever people think about Conor O'Shea just remember: He couldn't give a toss about Eddie's hand wringing so he should save his breath.

Eddie doesn't do it for COS benefit though. He does it for the media's benefit he will feed them that line and for the next 2 weeks the media will be talking about Italy's tactics rather than England playin like crap.

Similar to his comments about Scotland being confident and having expectations now.

It is all designed to take the pressure off and diverting it elsewhere something Lancaster didn't do and Johnson mess up by putting all the pressure on himself by making silly comments.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Completely agree Tigs, I think Jones is probably ****** at the players, and specifically Hartley and Haskell.

They shat the bed and he knows it.

 

[martinspoonboy1]

On the issue of the tactics, world rugby will issue new laws as its not in keeping with the way they want the game to be played and more importantly spectated. The bringing in of bonus points in the 6n is a clear indication that attacking rugby is what is favoured. This tactic turns the game into a sludge fest. But for now it's how teams will adapt to it. And England finally got there about 55 mins in. Any other team playing Italy now will know it's on the table and have a plan set out accordingly. Good tactic, but I'd be surprised if it's a legal one by next 6n!

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Completely agree Tigs, I think Jones is probably ****** at the players, and specifically Hartley and Haskell.

They shat the bed and he knows it.

Yeh you just have to see his reactions during the game to know he will be going ham on them.

Players like Hartley, Haskell and Care are old enough and experienced enough to change the game plan but clearly show lack of any rugby nous.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Hardly salty, I'm not advocating rule change. There are ways to deal with that tactic and, apart from 10 mins at the start of the 2nd half, England did not consistently do it. In fact they seemed to forget about it and reverted to being caught out again after scoring 2 tries in quick succession when they changed their tactics... That's the worst part. If you have found out the counter, why the **** do you stop using it and reverting to what you know doesn't work!? The fact is rule changes have happened in the past due to whinging and those doing the whinging have overwhelmingly been from the SH. Look at the majority of modern rule changes, they have been pushed by the SH onto the NH to change the game to suit how the SH like to play.

can you explain the 2003 maul law changes?

i was 9 and living in america when it happened