Asking the referee the rules after 35 minutes of Italy playing the same game plan? Shocking.
I'll begrudgingly give the Italians something though; they've clearly nailed their tactics down and are sticking to a game plan that the English just don't seem able to deal with. A pretty fascinating game.
Fair play to them - they wouldn't be able to compete if they didn't do something different. It's up to England to deal with it.
England got there eventually, Italy showed a lot of innovation and bravery .. BUT, the Law regarding the tackle play/offside area needs sorting, that aspect of the game was shambolic.. fair play to the Italian coaches though for finding a flaw in the laws .. Dallaglio, who must have seen it all in his time said that he'd only seen it used once before, in a super 15 game .. so the law makers were aware of the position .. pity they have so far done nothing to amend it
Quality second half; I said to the missus during the first half "Italy will cave with 20 minutes to go" - so it was a fairly standard Italian ending! Fair play to England for going back out and stamping some dominance on the game within the first 7 minutes.
That said, I still feel a bit sorry for the Italians - I'm not entirely sure that the final result gave a fair account of how well they played.
England got there eventually, Italy showed a lot of innovation and bravery .. BUT, the Law regarding the tackle play/offside area needs sorting, that aspect of the game was shambolic.. fair play to the Italian coaches though for finding a flaw in the laws .. Dallaglio, who must have seen it all in his time said that he'd only seen it used once before, in a super 15 game .. so the law makers were aware of the position .. pity they have so far done nothing to amend it
Wait, what? You're saying the lawmakers are at fault, not the England set-up?
From my point of view, it was a brilliant, clever, astute piece of tactical thinking that England were slow to counter. It made it a thoroughly interesting game (unlike a few already this season). The laws don't need changing. But some players and coaches need to learn them.
England got there eventually, Italy showed a lot of innovation and bravery .. BUT, the Law regarding the tackle play/offside area needs sorting, that aspect of the game was shambolic.. fair play to the Italian coaches though for finding a flaw in the laws .. Dallaglio, who must have seen it all in his time said that he'd only seen it used once before, in a super 15 game .. so the law makers were aware of the position .. pity they have so far done nothing to amend it
Wait, what? You're saying the lawmakers are at fault, not the England set-up?
From my point of view, it was a brilliant, clever, astute piece of tactical thinking that England were slow to counter. It made it a thoroughly interesting game (unlike a few already this season). The laws don't need changing. But some players and coaches need to learn them.
I AM saying that the law makers are at fault .. you might enjoy watching games where the opposition can stand within a foot of the scrum half as he waits for the ball to come back, I don't, I want to see the ball cleared into open play a s a p and not maul after maul after maul .. does that clarify my opinion ?
It only caught England off guard because, like most of us, they'd never seen anything like it before in their lives and their surprise at it being totally legal baffled them a bit. Obviously it took the coach 5 minutes to find a way to counter it and Italy's game plan was torn apart in the second half. Cannot see widespread deployment of Italy's tactics, although it does perhaps give the defending team an extra dimension to consider when tackling in open play and going forward all teams ought to be prepared to either spring this on the fly or know how to counter it. Anything that opens up the tactical possibilities can only be a good thing.
England got there eventually, Italy showed a lot of innovation and bravery .. BUT, the Law regarding the tackle play/offside area needs sorting, that aspect of the game was shambolic.. fair play to the Italian coaches though for finding a flaw in the laws .. Dallaglio, who must have seen it all in his time said that he'd only seen it used once before, in a super 15 game .. so the law makers were aware of the position .. pity they have so far done nothing to amend it
Wait, what? You're saying the lawmakers are at fault, not the England set-up?
From my point of view, it was a brilliant, clever, astute piece of tactical thinking that England were slow to counter. It made it a thoroughly interesting game (unlike a few already this season). The laws don't need changing. But some players and coaches need to learn them.
I AM saying that the law makers are at fault .. you might enjoy watching games where the opposition can stand within a foot of the scrum half as he waits for the ball to come back, I don't, I want to see the ball cleared into open play a s a p and not maul after maul after maul .. does that clarify my opinion ?
Perfectly, thank you. I just think your opinion is wrong!
It was England's fault for failing to have the imagination, nous and flexibility to play better when faced with unusual tactics. The laws with regards to rucks have been fairly unchanged for a number of years now. If England were too slow to suck opponents in; or too ill-prepared to re-gather and go again after being tackled; or too dim-witted to play through the defence, instead of relying solely on pssing from 9 to 10, then it's their own fault, not that of the laws.
It's perfectly understandable that someone might want to see a ball being won from a quick ruck and the ball pssed out to a runner who, when tackled, turns, sets the ball up and the process starts again. But, for me, it's mush more interesting to see a game *not* following that staged, repetitive, familiar routine. There are plenty of laws that need dealing with. But not that one, based on a good team not being good enough, for forty minutes.
England ran in four tries in the second half because they adapted to the situation - they didn't need the laws to be changed to do that. Don't change the laws just because England are too pnderous to mitigate against a clever defence - improve players.
^^^^^^ fair enough .. but how can my opinion be wrong ? .. it's an opinion about a nebulous situation .. what you mean is you disagree with me ..
and read the bit I typed about the Italians using the law to their advantage .. I'll wager that the law regarding offside is changed within the next two years ..
you may have enjoyed the first half, I thought it was rubbish and I would have had the same 'opinion' whichever of the two sides had adopted the tactic
^^^^^^ fair enough .. but how can my opinion be wrong ? .. it's an opinion about a nebulous situation .. what you mean is you disagree with me ..
and read the bit I typed about the Italians using the law to their advantage .. I'll wager that the law regarding offside is changed within the next two years ..
you may have enjoyed the first half, I thought it was rubbish and I would have had the same 'opinion' whichever of the two sides had adopted the tactic
Have to agree. That the first half was tosh. But for understandable reasons. Had Italy not adopted the tactics they did, then they would have been destroyed. Not really sure what they bring to the 6 Nations table, apart from a visit to Rome every other year.
^^^^^^ fair enough .. but how can my opinion be wrong ? .. it's an opinion about a nebulous situation .. what you mean is you disagree with me ..
and read the bit I typed about the Italians using the law to their advantage .. I'll wager that the law regarding offside is changed within the next two years ..
you may have enjoyed the first half, I thought it was rubbish and I would have had the same 'opinion' whichever of the two sides had adopted the tactic
Have to agree. That the first half was tosh. But for understandable reasons. Had Italy not adopted the tactics they did, then they would have been destroyed. Not really sure what they bring to the 6 Nations table, apart from a visit to Rome every other year.
I quite liked the fact that England had to adapt and quickly.
^^^^^^ fair enough .. but how can my opinion be wrong ? .. it's an opinion about a nebulous situation .. what you mean is you disagree with me ..
and read the bit I typed about the Italians using the law to their advantage .. I'll wager that the law regarding offside is changed within the next two years ..
you may have enjoyed the first half, I thought it was rubbish and I would have had the same 'opinion' whichever of the two sides had adopted the tactic
Have to agree. That the first half was tosh. But for understandable reasons. Had Italy not adopted the tactics they did, then they would have been destroyed. Not really sure what they bring to the 6 Nations table, apart from a visit to Rome every other year.
good post .. I can understand why the Italians did it, I can't condone it .. evidently, according to one of the pundits they must have discussed it with the referee some time before the game to clarify the law .. IF so, repeat IF SO, then it was out of order for Poite to say to the England players 'I am a referee not a coach' when he was asked to clarify the position re tackle or maul/ruck. We don't know but I know we soon will As I wrote pages above, the Italians should be playing in the lower European division but I can see why they are kept afloat .. MONEY .. a Twickenham full house is worth millions. The same motive applies even more for the Celtic nations home games .. they all need the money ((:>)
^^^^^^ fair enough .. but how can my opinion be wrong ? .. it's an opinion about a nebulous situation .. what you mean is you disagree with me ..
and read the bit I typed about the Italians using the law to their advantage .. I'll wager that the law regarding offside is changed within the next two years ..
you may have enjoyed the first half, I thought it was rubbish and I would have had the same 'opinion' whichever of the two sides had adopted the tactic
All laws in rugby are tinkered with, far, far too often. There's no way anyone would take up that bet!
he's confirmed that the referee okayed their tactic .. so Poite IS a coach as well as a referee .. and O'Shea ? .. next Ireland coach after Schmidt goes back to NZ .. he talks as well as coaches a good game, he worked wonders at Harlequins
^^^^^^ fair enough .. but how can my opinion be wrong ? .. it's an opinion about a nebulous situation .. what you mean is you disagree with me ..
and read the bit I typed about the Italians using the law to their advantage .. I'll wager that the law regarding offside is changed within the next two years ..
you may have enjoyed the first half, I thought it was rubbish and I would have had the same 'opinion' whichever of the two sides had adopted the tactic
Have to agree. That the first half was tosh. But for understandable reasons. Had Italy not adopted the tactics they did, then they would have been destroyed. Not really sure what they bring to the 6 Nations table, apart from a visit to Rome every other year.
^^^^^^ fair enough .. but how can my opinion be wrong ? .. it's an opinion about a nebulous situation .. what you mean is you disagree with me ..
and read the bit I typed about the Italians using the law to their advantage .. I'll wager that the law regarding offside is changed within the next two years ..
you may have enjoyed the first half, I thought it was rubbish and I would have had the same 'opinion' whichever of the two sides had adopted the tactic
Have to agree. That the first half was tosh. But for understandable reasons. Had Italy not adopted the tactics they did, then they would have been destroyed. Not really sure what they bring to the 6 Nations table, apart from a visit to Rome every other year.
Wooden spoon last five years
Scotland France Italy Scotland Italy
This year will be Italy's 12th in the 17 years they've been in it.
England got there eventually, Italy showed a lot of innovation and bravery .. BUT, the Law regarding the tackle play/offside area needs sorting, that aspect of the game was shambolic.. fair play to the Italian coaches though for finding a flaw in the laws .. Dallaglio, who must have seen it all in his time said that he'd only seen it used once before, in a super 15 game .. so the law makers were aware of the position .. pity they have so far done nothing to amend it
Wait, what? You're saying the lawmakers are at fault, not the England set-up?
From my point of view, it was a brilliant, clever, astute piece of tactical thinking that England were slow to counter. It made it a thoroughly interesting game (unlike a few already this season). The laws don't need changing. But some players and coaches need to learn them.
I AM saying that the law makers are at fault .. you might enjoy watching games where the opposition can stand within a foot of the scrum half as he waits for the ball to come back, I don't, I want to see the ball cleared into open play a s a p and not maul after maul after maul .. does that clarify my opinion ?
It it becomes a genuine tactic that is used semi regularly (news outlets have found 2 other occasions it was used once by individuals in games) the teams will find a way to counter it and it will be less effective. The surprise element was what took England so long to deal with it. Offloads from the tackle and pick and go tactics soon counter it. So it will be used less. Maybe once or twice in a championship.
I don't have a problem with it. Once both teams are aware of it they will both adapt.
If they don't want to compete at the break down you form a wedge or a couple of forwards either side of a back, form a running maul at the tackle and punch straight through the non-existent defence. They'll then have to commit more men to the breakdown to compete for the ball or at least stop it being simply handed back to a cavalry charge.
I don't think the tactic will last long, if half the defending team are the wrong side of the ball teams will just blast through the middle.
And learn to pull players into the ruck.
Yes, this was the tactic the commentators suggested, but it's a bit of a shift because it has to happen at the time of the tackle, pulling them in too late and it's not valid. I think that's what they said. It's not an area that before today I had really focused on.
Comments
Not exactly been blowing anyone away so far this tournament have we
Dallaglio, who must have seen it all in his time said that he'd only seen it used once before, in a super 15 game .. so the law makers were aware of the position .. pity they have so far done nothing to amend it
That said, I still feel a bit sorry for the Italians - I'm not entirely sure that the final result gave a fair account of how well they played.
From my point of view, it was a brilliant, clever, astute piece of tactical thinking that England were slow to counter. It made it a thoroughly interesting game (unlike a few already this season). The laws don't need changing. But some players and coaches need to learn them.
It was England's fault for failing to have the imagination, nous and flexibility to play better when faced with unusual tactics. The laws with regards to rucks have been fairly unchanged for a number of years now. If England were too slow to suck opponents in; or too ill-prepared to re-gather and go again after being tackled; or too dim-witted to play through the defence, instead of relying solely on pssing from 9 to 10, then it's their own fault, not that of the laws.
It's perfectly understandable that someone might want to see a ball being won from a quick ruck and the ball pssed out to a runner who, when tackled, turns, sets the ball up and the process starts again. But, for me, it's mush more interesting to see a game *not* following that staged, repetitive, familiar routine. There are plenty of laws that need dealing with. But not that one, based on a good team not being good enough, for forty minutes.
England ran in four tries in the second half because they adapted to the situation - they didn't need the laws to be changed to do that. Don't change the laws just because England are too pnderous to mitigate against a clever defence - improve players.
and read the bit I typed about the Italians using the law to their advantage ..
I'll wager that the law regarding offside is changed within the next two years ..
you may have enjoyed the first half, I thought it was rubbish and I would have had the same 'opinion' whichever of the two sides had adopted the tactic
They did very effectively 2nd half, enjoyed it.
As I wrote pages above, the Italians should be playing in the lower European division but I can see why they are kept afloat .. MONEY .. a Twickenham full house is worth millions. The same motive applies even more for the Celtic nations home games .. they all need the money ((:>)
Scotland
France
Italy
Scotland
Italy
Scotland 21-2-62
Italy 12-1-72
Christ, France must have been shit in 2013!
I don't have a problem with it. Once both teams are aware of it they will both adapt.
It's the game evolving and it's good.