Rugby 2017 Discussion
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Credit where credit's due, eh?
Liking my bet on Ireland to win the champs at 7s now, might cash out pre-Wales game tho. 3.85 atm.
Almost like someone predicted this...
Someone? Everyone in the world
It's a shame that Italy's bench is so weak. 23 man game and all that nowadays. England had superstars to bring on.
Interesting article, thanks.
I dont like it, makes the game like fecking rugby league. Hope it gets stamped out or countered properly.
Rules meeting upcoming apparently... the rugby league thought popped into my head too looking at the rucks!
I love rucks - thats what Union is all about!
Personally, I'm more concerned about how the offside line is not properly enforced by the referee. You can also throw in the times when a turnover is made yet the the player is not supporting their own body weight.
This is one that really does seem to be enforced on a whim.
I still give Italy credit for excellent execution of it today and England negative marks for not countering it sooner. Matt Dawson is having a good old whine on Twitter about it.
I think Murray Kinsella once wrote an article about it on The 42.ie but I can't seem to find it.
So, just 2 more wins and England will overtake the All Blacks to have the longest ever winning streak?
Apparently not - it seems the record is 24 games, set by the mighty rugby powerhouse of.......................Cyprus
Apparently not - it seems the record is 24 games, set by the mighty rugby powerhouse of.......................Cyprus
If everyone starts using this "tackle only" tactic rugby will be absolute poo to watch.
And Dawson has a point about amateur sides adopting this - who'd be a ref!
Agree that it would ruin the spectacle but I wouldn't blame a team like Italy for doing whatever they need to in order to survive. In this context I appreciate them at least trying something different. Besides, I doubt a lot of teams would do it as it has its own glaring weaknesses once you know how to respond. England were just rather slow to do so today. You'd imagine most teams will be wise to it from now on.
Yeah fair enough, Italy tried something and it looked to be working for much of the game. Im sure teams will be better prepared to counter it going forward but i dont want to be watching that nonsense every week.
They do have great articles.
Agreed even EJ after game said Italy didn't do anything illegal. But I also agree with Eddie, I don't to be watching that. Paul O'Connell was just on BBC saying something similar Italy played to the rules but there needs to be an offside line.
When England tried it a few times themselves, Italy showed them what to do it a team tries it, they were ready. I bet Parisse was just dying for them to try to copy it.
Twat
I think it is unfair to blame Italy Like that.
Changing the laws of the game after one team does one thing in one game that other teams have done in the past. Slight overreaction.
I'm sure Italy would also be getting criticised if they'd gone out as normal and been smashed by 50 points. People complain about them not being competitive, today they were just that.
What I find most annoying about Dawson's attitude is his complete ignorance of the fact that Italy didn't actually invent this ploy. The Chiefs have been doing it in Super Rugby and IIRC, David Pocock did it once against Ireland in the Autumn Internationals last year. However just because Italy work within the legal framework of the game and give England a surprisingly close match, he instead chooses to lambast the Italians. Very disingenuous from Dawson.
This is why he's getting rightly lambasted on Twitter, from other players too
Dawson's remarks bring back memories of arrogant England, who feel that everyone is inferior to them in every possible way. Lancaster did a lot to change this narrative but Dawson's remarks show that there are still remnants of the attitude left.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Utterly embarrassing that England didn't know what is a ruck and what isn't. Bizarre too that it took more than 40 minutes for England to find a way around what Italy was doing. As referenced earlier in this thread, the Chiefs have tried this in Super Rugby. Below, are two examples where it didn't work. One resulted in a penalty for offside, the other resulted in a try conceded by the Chiefs. There are ways around it, England took far too long to exploit what was being done. Food for thought for Scotland and Ireland in England's final two games which will be decisive.
Apologies for the lack of sound on these videos.
The biggest turn off i have with Rugby League is the lack of contest for possession, which is a reservation i have with that Italy did yesterday. I don't want Rugby to end up like that in a million years.
Apologies for the lack of sound on these videos.
The biggest turn off i have with Rugby League is the lack of contest for possession, which is a reservation i have with that Italy did yesterday. I don't want Rugby to end up like that in a million years.
Second video is what England should have done as early as possible. It seems crazy that it took them til into the second half to formulate something. When England tried to use the tactic themselves, Parisse spotted it and went straight into the "ruck" to try what's in the second video. Even if they see you coming, you'll make ground every time and it'll start to get too risky to not engage.
I totally agree too that it wasn't pretty. Turnovers from rucking are great for lifting the crowd and the skill is a real credit to the players who do it well.
Why is there such uproar? England won.
Everyone giving Italy praise for an outstanding display, innovation, creativity...their plan didn't work, it flustered England for 40 minutes and then they lost the game. Can't imagine what the papers and pundits would be saying if Italy did actually manage a win.
And also if Italy did win with that tactic, fair play to them, you could then sit around and say they did brilliant.
Everyone giving Italy praise for an outstanding display, innovation, creativity...their plan didn't work, it flustered England for 40 minutes and then they lost the game. Can't imagine what the papers and pundits would be saying if Italy did actually manage a win.
And also if Italy did win with that tactic, fair play to them, you could then sit around and say they did brilliant.
Their plan did work as in it flustered England. Most people would have expected England to have won yesterday by 50+ points. That Italy were competitive and lost by half that margin was a good achievement for them considering their previous two performances.
Missed the game - in a nutshell, what did Italy do / what was their "ploy" that had England all flustered?
Nutshell: Not engaging in a ruck after a player is tackled, meaning there is no ruck and no offside line. Once the ref called "tackle only", they swarmed around to the other side and got between the scrumhalf at the "ruck" and the outhalf, for example. Completely baffled England for the whole first half, and is completely legal.
The bonus points stuff confuses me. In what scenario will it matter that Ireland scored a shitload of tries against Italy but England didn't?
I don't think the extra tries matter, because both teams got the 4-try bonus point versus Italy. If they finish tied on points though then presumably Ireland would win it (not sure if that is decided on H-2-H or points difference, but Ireland would win on both counts). That is presuming England don't go and tonk Scotland though, which seems unlikely.
I think it'll be scrapped, seems a bit pointless in Six Nations and only favours the better teams in world cups - in particular the only team I know to take full advantage of it are France in one of the most bizarrely insane final runs in 2011....when the old system would have Tonga going through in the first place, as they should have as France doured the whole the thing up, and then somehow, insanely nearly beat New Zealand anyway, in a just all insane World Cup.
South Africa, Scotland and Japan would of all been on 12 in the last world cup too, but I think they'd be ranked the same regardless in old system, again due to the better teams being able to score better to beat out Japan in tie breakers after head to head.
South Africa, Scotland and Japan would of all been on 12 in the last world cup too, but I think they'd be ranked the same regardless in old system, again due to the better teams being able to score better to beat out Japan in tie breakers after head to head.
But the aim of the bonus point system is about promoting attacking rugby. If the bonus point system was scrapped, surely there would be less of an incentive to play attacking rugby?
Something big for England that's been overshadowed by the Italian tactics has been how awful their kicking game was. Has this been discussed in the English media at all? It was a shocking performance on that front.
If they finish level on points.
So if we assume that Ireland will beat Wales without a bonus point and England will beat Scotland with a bonus point then Ireland will go into the final game 4 points behind England. Which means we'd have to beat them and either deny them a bonus point or get our own bonus point to win the championship.
If they drop that bonus point to Scotland or we get one against Wales then it's slightly more in our favour as we'd only be three points behind them going into the final game, meaning a straight win would almost certainly clinch the championship for us.
Unless my maths are off that is.....
PLace kicking?
I am sure we can afford Farrell an off day, he's incredibly usually
There didn't seem much out of hand kicking, due to the Italy tactic, scrum-half couldn't do it himself and was unable to pass to 10