They would if they thought it would be this successful. I bet warren Gatland in particular is kicking himself for not realising how dense the whole England team really is.Scott1 wrote:Shocking tactics,completely against the spirit of the game and achieved nothing! Would Georgia have done this? No!
A ruck, or not a ruck?
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
Re: A ruck, or not a ruck?
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game
Re: A ruck, or not a ruck?
You can't always rely on the sage wisdom of the old bloke on the terrace. I had one swear blind to me the other week that if a kick from a 22 drop out went into touch the kicking side got the line out. He was so adamant I was doubting myself until some of his mates rolled up and put him straight.mightymouse wrote:I'm sorry to disagree about the armchair captaincy bit. It comes from a lifetime of playing the game and captaining teams. The problem with modern players is they a over coached from an early age and therefore they never have time to think for themselves. Very few have the nouse to work stuff out themselves on the field.I suspect very few study the history of the game either ... too busy twitting or facebooking I dare say!
The reason I knew those solutions immediately is because it is what I and other old blokes on the terrace say every week even without the no offside farce. When usually 2 blokes are in the ruck and the rest fanned out across the field a la rugby league then the most obvious route is straight through the middle with either pick and drive, pick and drive until the commit numbers behind the ball or better still, ball carrier stay on you feet and as soon as they take the hit set the maul and drive though the middle! Then they have to commit number to the maul or risk you walking all the way up the field.
Nothing complicated if you have spent several years of training sessions practicing driving maul drills
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game
Re: A ruck, or not a ruck?
I'm with mightymouse on this. One of the practice drills used to be the footruck clear out, but if the opposition failed to get there in time or stood off in the game, it was pick/rip and go instead of engaging. I suspect players now are drilled so much their brains go mushy.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1782
- Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 2:55 pm
- Location: Birmingham / Bangor Uni
Re: A ruck, or not a ruck?
I did question why Danny Care didn't give it to one of the Italian players standing on the England side with Lawes steaming at pace at the unguarded kidney/lumbar region. Coming from the blindside like that a couple of those might have given a bit of whiplash or maybe broken ribs and caused second thoughts. Would have been within the laws of the game.tigerburnie wrote:Rip 'em apart England, send Lawes into a few rib cages, after all that's legal too.
Similarly legal but less gentlemanly would be Danny Care just kicking it as hard as he can at the Italian players' face.
Re: A ruck, or not a ruck?
This is exactly what I was saying, throw the ball to the Italian giving it all jazz hands and get Lawes to steam into him...but it highlights Englands lack of mental sharpness.Tiger_in_Birmingham wrote:I did question why Danny Care didn't give it to one of the Italian players standing on the England side with Lawes steaming at pace at the unguarded kidney/lumbar region. Coming from the blindside like that a couple of those might have given a bit of whiplash or maybe broken ribs and caused second thoughts. Would have been within the laws of the game.tigerburnie wrote:Rip 'em apart England, send Lawes into a few rib cages, after all that's legal too.
Similarly legal but less gentlemanly would be Danny Care just kicking it as hard as he can at the Italian players' face.
find a better way of life, http://www.marillion.com
marillion 19, coming ....er not sure..
marillion 19, coming ....er not sure..
Re: A ruck, or not a ruck?
I really enjoyed the game - I've never been interested in watching processions and the game was 17-15 and still in the balance after 60+ mins. Italy deserve credit for that however they got there. Part of competing is putting the opposition off their game. Jones sounded rather like Wenger post games against Stoke when the nasty opposition had the temerity to try to win, only less whiny and more spiteful.
It was also amusing in the way it highlighted the risks of having too many dim witted players like Hartley, Haskell, Care and Farrell in key positions. Watching it real time it was painful to see how confused England still were 35 minutes into the game, when it really wasn't that difficult or technical a problem to solve. I don't think it would have taken cleverer players so long to work it out and put in place some fairly basic tactics to combat it. For example, I can't see the All Blacks still floundering at that tactic 15 minutes in, let alone 35.
It was also amusing in the way it highlighted the risks of having too many dim witted players like Hartley, Haskell, Care and Farrell in key positions. Watching it real time it was painful to see how confused England still were 35 minutes into the game, when it really wasn't that difficult or technical a problem to solve. I don't think it would have taken cleverer players so long to work it out and put in place some fairly basic tactics to combat it. For example, I can't see the All Blacks still floundering at that tactic 15 minutes in, let alone 35.
Joe The Tigers Fan
Re: A ruck, or not a ruck?
I blame Eddie Jones for England's first half performance after the 20 minute mark, he should have spotted the Italians' tactics after the second instance and sent down instructions to his players accordingly. Full marks to Connor O*Shea though he'd obviously done his homework in watching videos of Englands* first two matches.
Re: A ruck, or not a ruck?
To be honest the players should have worked it out themselves.Noddy555 wrote:I blame Eddie Jones for England's first half performance after the 20 minute mark, he should have spotted the Italians' tactics after the second instance and sent down instructions to his players accordingly. Full marks to Connor O*Shea though he'd obviously done his homework in watching videos of Englands* first two matches.
Re: A ruck, or not a ruck?
Whilst discussing the events of yesterday with a colleague. He suggested that everyone had got the decision wrong, as in fact they were offside. The best supporting reasoning for this is:
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=11
"In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball."
This seems pretty plausible. What am I missing?
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=11
"In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball."
This seems pretty plausible. What am I missing?
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1782
- Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 2:55 pm
- Location: Birmingham / Bangor Uni
Re: A ruck, or not a ruck?
That refers to the team who have possession, not the defending team.matt2000 wrote:Whilst discussing the events of yesterday with a colleague. He suggested that everyone had got the decision wrong, as in fact they were offside. The best supporting reasoning for this is:
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=11
"In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball."
This seems pretty plausible. What am I missing?
By definition only the team with possession can be carrying the ball, and the "team-mate who last played the ball" is so that players should be behind the kicker