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

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Is the game worth watching? I was at Wembley yesterday so couldn't catch the game.

Yes. A fairly unique match.

 

[martinspoonboy1]

Think we might well have learnt more from this match than if we walked it. Still got the bonus point and pretty much thumped them. So not a bad result from an English point of view.

 

[Scotty]

England fwds not quite performing in 6N not giving quick ball to the backs so not able to have the spark that they did before, i think that is the loss of mako, billy, robshaw and kruis. All were playing really well . Loss of all them leaves launch itoje lawes hask hughes. All good all earned a right to be in the team but a couple should be benchers. Hughes? Not ready for first choice.
With kruis/robshaw, fit launch on bench. Lawes out unfortunatly
Mako puts marler to the bench,

We are a strong team with lots of depth yet not performing well because our top form forwards are injured unfortunatly.

Does anyone disagree? Or have other reasons for dip in form this 6N ??

 

[johnmac99]

I've jumped to the end (currently) so I can make a post, so if I duplicate something someone else has said, I apologise.

The breakdown is a colloquial term for the short period of open play immediately after a tackle and before and during the ensuing ruck.

In 2009 the IRB HP Referees and Tier One Rugby Coaches agreed that the laws of the game of Rugby did not need to be changed but that five key areas of the game needed to be refereed more strictly. It was the belief that if these five key areas were refereed in strict accordance with Law then teams who wished to use the ball quickly and in space would be entitled to do so.

Number 2 - Offsides at breakdown to be strictly policed

Non participants at the breakdown must be behind the hindmost foot of the last player in their side of the breakdown. This is to apply to both teams and applies both on the open side and short side of the breakdown.

Reason: To give the ball winning team all the space and options they are entitled to, to use the ball.

I see this as saying there is no difference between a 'tackle' or a 'ruck'. A breakdown is a breakdown.

Did Poite get it wrong?

 

[munstermuffin]

I've jumped to the end (currently) so I can make a post, so if I duplicate something someone else has said, I apologise.

The breakdown is a colloquial term for the short period of open play immediately after a tackle and before and during the ensuing ruck.

In 2009 the IRB HP Referees and Tier One Rugby Coaches agreed that the laws of the game of Rugby did not need to be changed but that five key areas of the game needed to be refereed more strictly. It was the belief that if these five key areas were refereed in strict accordance with Law then teams who wished to use the ball quickly and in space would be entitled to do so.

Number 2 - Offsides at breakdown to be strictly policed

Non participants at the breakdown must be behind the hindmost foot of the last player in their side of the breakdown. This is to apply to both teams and applies both on the open side and short side of the breakdown.

Reason: To give the ball winning team all the space and options they are entitled to, to use the ball.

I see this as saying there is no difference between a 'tackle' or a 'ruck'. A breakdown is a breakdown.

Did Poite get it wrong?

No sir he got it 100% right. There wasn't even a breakdown just a tackle and that was all. Poite got rule 100% on the button. The only 1s who seemed to not know the rules were England. O'Shea and Catt outthought the English for bones of 40-50mins and exposed Englands forwards for not thinking on their feet

 

[Goodey]

That's not a law, that's an instruction for referees. It's not about adjusting the law it's asking referees to be particularly vigilant about this area of the law, and the law itself makes distinctions between a ruck and a tackle.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I've jumped to the end (currently) so I can make a post, so if I duplicate something someone else has said, I apologise.

The breakdown is a colloquial term for the short period of open play immediately after a tackle and before and during the ensuing ruck.

In 2009 the IRB HP Referees and Tier One Rugby Coaches agreed that the laws of the game of Rugby did not need to be changed but that five key areas of the game needed to be refereed more strictly. It was the belief that if these five key areas were refereed in strict accordance with Law then teams who wished to use the ball quickly and in space would be entitled to do so.

Number 2 - Offsides at breakdown to be strictly policed

Non participants at the breakdown must be behind the hindmost foot of the last player in their side of the breakdown. This is to apply to both teams and applies both on the open side and short side of the breakdown.

Reason: To give the ball winning team all the space and options they are entitled to, to use the ball.

I see this as saying there is no difference between a 'tackle' or a 'ruck'. A breakdown is a breakdown.

Did Poite get it wrong?

I mean sure, you might see it that way but the laws of the game state otherwise.

As does the rest of the rugby world.

 

[Goodey]

No sir he got it 100% right. There wasn't even a breakdown just a tackle and that was all. Poite got rule 100% on the button. The only 1s who seemed to not know the rules were England. O'Shea and Catt outthought the English for bones of 40-50mins and exposed Englands forwards for not thinking on their feet

This isn't true either as the referring surrounding the attacking side trying to force a ruck by engaging non-committal defenders have changed every time this tactic has been used. The source of the confusion was from Poite not allowing Launchbury and Haskell to create rucks by binding to defenders, which until this point had been the standard counter.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

This isn't true either as the referring surrounding the attacking side trying to force a ruck by engaging non-committal defenders have changed every time this tactic has been used. The source of the confusion was from Poite not allowing Launchbury and Haskell to create rucks by binding to defenders, which until this point had been the standard counter.

From what I saw the English players were leaving the ball to bind on to an Italian player.

Rucks are formed over or near the ball while it is on the ground. Near is defined as 1m, so the English players weren't close enough to the ball for it to be a ruck.

- - - Updated - - -

This isn't true either as the referring surrounding the attacking side trying to force a ruck by engaging non-committal defenders have changed every time this tactic has been used. The source of the confusion was from Poite not allowing Launchbury and Haskell to create rucks by binding to defenders, which until this point had been the standard counter.

From what I saw the English players were leaving the ball to bind on to an Italian player.

Rucks are formed over or near the ball while it is on the ground. Near is defined as 1m, so the English players weren't close enough to the ball for it to be a ruck.

 

[Which Tyler]

TBF, there's quite a difference between "flanker does something illegal and gets away with it" and "flanker asks the ref if he's allowed to do something illegal"

 

[munstermuffin]

This isn't true either as the referring surrounding the attacking side trying to force a ruck by engaging non-committal defenders have changed every time this tactic has been used. The source of the confusion was from Poite not allowing Launchbury and Haskell to create rucks by binding to defenders, which until this point had been the standard counter.

No the law is black and white. A ruck is where 2 players 1 from each side engage over the ball. The fact us no Italian player got pulled in or sucked in. Facts are as clear as day England got exposed for not knowing the rules and Italians suckered them. Poite was 100% correct and I'd love to see 1 example that proves otherwise. He was right too. He's not there coach he shouldn't tell them laws.

 

[martinspoonboy1]

No the law is black and white. A ruck is where 2 players 1 from each side engage over the ball. The fact us no Italian player got pulled in or sucked in. Facts are as clear as day England got exposed for not knowing the rules and Italians suckered them. Poite was 100% correct and I'd love to see 1 example that proves otherwise. He was right too. He's not there coach he shouldn't tell them laws.

I disagree with the last bit. Yes it looks amateurish, but the ref is there to tell them the laws if they ask. Have no problem with that whatsoever.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I disagree with the last bit. Yes it looks amateurish, but the ref is there to tell them the laws if they ask. Have no problem with that whatsoever.

Agree with this

 

[munstermuffin]

I disagree with the last bit. Yes it looks amateurish, but the ref is there to tell them the laws if they ask. Have no problem with that whatsoever.

And he did when Haskell did it did he not? Players have so many meetings and all around tactics and laws. There was no fault on ref. He's there to enforce laws not teach them. I'd ask again where was the ref wrong.

 

[johnmac99]

No sir he got it 100% right. There wasn't even a breakdown just a tackle and that was all. Poite got rule 100% on the button. The only 1s who seemed to not know the rules were England. O'Shea and Catt outthought the English for bones of 40-50mins and exposed Englands forwards for not thinking on their feet

A tackle is a breakdown, and until a ruck is formed then players can 'jackel' to try and overturn possession.
What I am saying is that the instruction given to refs does not differentiate between 'the tackle' and 'the ruck' as Poite did.

 

[munstermuffin]

A tackle is a breakdown, and until a ruck is formed then players can 'jackel' to try and overturn possession.
What I am saying is that the instruction given to refs does not differentiate between 'the tackle' and 'the ruck' as Poite did.

Read the laws Owens gave a comment on the law today. Said it's only effectively a ruck when 1 player from each side engages. If 1 doesn't the 1m law kicks in. The tackle means its still live in a way. Owens view was the way around it is offload off the floor and keep going forward like pick and go.
The tackle area is ruled differently to ruck area he said and it's reasons like this that refs do 7s at some stage. To keep fresh on all laws.
Like not 1 ref has said Poite was 1 bit wrong. England should've known rules bottom line.

 

[johnmac99]

That's not a law, that's an instruction for referees. It's not about adjusting the law it's asking referees to be particularly vigilant about this area of the law, and the law itself makes distinctions between a ruck and a tackle.

I'm well aware there are differing Laws between a ruck and a tackle, But what I am saying is that the Law enforcement guidance says that as far as offside is concerned there is only 'the breakdown' which includes both ruck and tackle.

 

[Goodey]

No the law is black and white. A ruck is where 2 players 1 from each side engage over the ball. The fact us no Italian player got pulled in or sucked in. Facts are as clear as day England got exposed for not knowing the rules and Italians suckered them. Poite was 100% correct and I'd love to see 1 example that proves otherwise. He was right too. He's not there coach he shouldn't tell them laws.

Here you go.

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yVmjc82cMAA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

#7 Pocock grabs a non-contesting player. Ref judges that counts as a ruck, awards a penalty for offside. That's the precedent from super rugby.

Poite's version may have been right, I'm not sure, but it was different. If England players were going to know what the deal is they've got to ask there and then. So they do.

 

[johnmac99]

I mean sure, you might see it that way but the laws of the game state otherwise.

As does the rest of the rugby world.

It's not me saying it, I am quoting 'Five Key Areas of Refereeing' which has been ensconced into the Laws of Rugby. Look it up.

 

[munstermuffin]

Here you go.



#7 Pocock grabs a non-contesting player. Ref judges that counts as a ruck, awards a penalty for offside. That's the precedent from super rugby.

Poite's version may have been right, I'm not sure, but it was different. If England players were going to know what the deal is they've got to ask there and then. So they do.

Yes but that's deemed a ruck as a player is in. Pocock was alert to rule and he was within tje 1m so Pocock is allowed tie him in for a ruck.
The Aussies are alert. They did it to Ireland last year.