England vs Italy

[TomWeston]

During his post match interviews yesterday, Conor O'Shea made a number of references to the refereeing during Italy's first game (against Wales). It had clearly angered him. I couldn't recall what the issue was though? Anyone got any ideas?

(I'm old and have a short memory!)

He complained that not only was the penalty count grossly against Italy, but the Welshers got away with the same offences time and again.

He was really just pointing out that referees are referees and therefore not only partially sighted but also biased and set in their ways once they have adopted a viewpoint; i.e. being referees.

[TomWeston]

Yes at risk of it becoming a bit of a love-in, I agree with you about Daly. Uber talented player and should be full back. Mike Brown is still tough and brave but he's lost some pace and doesn't seem to know when to offload.

Is that why he is (allegedly) signing for us?

[Maidman]

Yes at risk of it becoming a bit of a love-in, I agree with you about Daly. Uber talented player and should be full back. Mike Brown is still tough and brave but he's lost some pace and doesn't seem to know when to offload.

Is that why he is (allegedly) signing for us?

For one delightful moment there I thought you were talking about Daly. Then I realised you meant Brown! Heart rate returning to normal!

[TheRugbyRef]

Pity the IRB completely re-wrote the Laws in a 'snazzier' format! In my old paper copy from the 1970s it is states that Rugby Union is an 'onside' game and it's clear that the Italian tactics are illegal. Just because the offside line is not the base of the ruck, if no ruck forms, that doesn't mean there is no offside line. When the specific exceptions such as 5 metres for scrums, rear foot for rucks, 10 metres for line-outs etc are excluded, the offside line remains where it always was - in line with the ball. If you are beyond the ball in an offside position you may not interfere with play. If it's just a tackle and not a ruck the defending side may compete for the ball and/or tackle the attacker who picks it up: they cannot, however, stand in the backfield obstructing potential pass recipients.

The Italian tactics were not illegal.
No ruck formed DOES mean no ruck offside lines.
In open play the ball is only the offside line for the attacking team, there is no such line for the defending team.
If it's just a tackle the defending side cannot compete for the ball as you describe. They can only enter the tackle area through the gate. They can circle round the tackle area but cannot enter an invisible line that stretches round it to a distance of 1m from it (the tackle zone).
They certainly CAN stand in the backfield obstructing potential passes.

[h's dad]

I'm pleased to find out that I am by no means the only person who struggles with the rugby offside rules; in fact I'm starting to realise that I have a better grasp than many. It's just that I am prepared to admit my confusion. I'm not sure whether those falling short in their comprehension in this area are embarrassed to admit their shortcoming or don't even know what they don't know (there's a dubya quote in there somewhere). Some still seem to be in denial even after it's been explained. Perhaps the referee really is right more often than we think?

[johnthegriff]

Referees are definitely right more often than we think when watching a game live but when watching on tv or the recording and having the benefit of pause and frame by frame replay I sometimes find them wrong. However I would hate to see a game stopped for every suspected infringement and having reffed in the past I know how difficult the job is.
The ruck law is clear and the solution to Italy's tactics is simple but working it out in the heat of a game is not so easy, England needed a front row player to be injured at scrum or lineout time to get clarification and instruction onto the pitch we should not have had to wait until halftime.

[G.K]

Oh the irony, the irony. Italy playing fully within the laws and EJ is whinging because his players are simply too dull to think on the hoof and adapt. Haskell, Care and Dullan would have no problem passing the audition for the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz. Coonor o'Shea actually did England a favour exposing this mental fraility.

Meanwhile pretty much the rest of the Rugby world have been cheating for years with crooked feeds, pulled down scrums, diving over the ball, shoulder charges, footy type dives, blocking runners, time wasting. Need I go on?

[G.K]

Oh and for Tigers can we please cancel Ford and keep Burns.

[St John Tiger]

Italy did not play to win the game, they came to spoil the game and this they achieved. In the process Italy dumped what we call the "spirit of rugby" and in the long term did themselves no favours. If this is how they want to play, let them play against Georgia and then hopefully we will see a country worthy of Six Nations competition.

[G.K]

Italy did not play to win the game, they came to spoil the game and this they achieved. In the process Italy dumped what we call the "spirit of rugby" and in the long term did themselves no favours. If this is how they want to play, let them play against Georgia and then hopefully we will see a country worthy of Six Nations competition.

Total hypocrisy. If we want to get back to playing in the 'spirit of Rugby' then players needs to stop crooked feeds, pulling down scrums & mauls, diving over the ball to seal it, shoulder charges and blocking, ALL of which are not only against the 'spirit of Rugby' but actually foul play according to the laws of the game.

Whinging about opposition players chosing not to compete at the breakdown, which IS totally within the laws is just total hypocrisy.

Actually watching the dullards in the England team trying to work out what to do was great comedy entertainment and a lot more interesting than watching England's pathetic attacking game with Farrell at 12.

[daktari]

Italy did not play to win the game, they came to spoil the game and this they achieved. In the process Italy dumped what we call the "spirit of rugby" and in the long term did themselves no favours. If this is how they want to play, let them play against Georgia and then hopefully we will see a country worthy of Six Nations competition.

Total hypocrisy. If we want to get back to playing in the 'spirit of Rugby' then players needs to stop crooked feeds, pulling down scrums & mauls, diving over the ball to seal it, shoulder charges and blocking, ALL of which are not only against the 'spirit of Rugby' but actually foul play according to the laws of the game.

Whinging about opposition players chosing not to compete at the breakdown, which IS totally within the laws is just total hypocrisy.

Actually watching the dullards in the England team trying to work out what to do was great comedy entertainment and a lot more interesting than watching England's pathetic attacking game with Farrell at 12.

Thing is, it wasn't rocket science, route one through the middle on to the two defenders negated the tactic.

[h's dad]

Eddie is Eddie,I love him! Just daid what the vast majority of us were all feeling. I think it's lit a fire under us now for the Scotland game!

We obviously move in different circles. Nobody I know has criticised Italy and that also seems to go for most on this forum. The 'vast majority' all seem to feel that the fault lies squarely at England's door.

[h's dad]

Italy did not play to win the game, they came to spoil the game and this they achieved. In the process Italy dumped what we call the "spirit of rugby" and in the long term did themselves no favours. If this is how they want to play, let them play against Georgia and then hopefully we will see a country worthy of Six Nations competition.

Total hypocrisy. If we want to get back to playing in the 'spirit of Rugby' then players needs to stop crooked feeds, pulling down scrums & mauls, diving over the ball to seal it, shoulder charges and blocking, ALL of which are not only against the 'spirit of Rugby' but actually foul play according to the laws of the game.

Whinging about opposition players chosing not to compete at the breakdown, which IS totally within the laws is just total hypocrisy.

Actually watching the dullards in the England team trying to work out what to do was great comedy entertainment and a lot more interesting than watching England's pathetic attacking game with Farrell at 12.

Thing is, it wasn't rocket science, route one through the middle on to the two defenders negated the tactic.

Apparently it is more complicated than rocket science for some people.

[strawclearer]

I think Andy W's earlier comments bear repetition:

Italy's tactics were legal, and O'Shea seemed chuffed to bits with himself about them. However, I do feel they were probably counter-productive. Reasons being:

i) They won't help Italy to become a better rugby team (which is presumably what he was employed to do)
ii) They didn't win the actual game in question, so failed
iii) They won't have won many friends, and at a time when arguably they need friends, i.e. talk of relegation, Georgia, Italy's "right" to a place in the tournament etc
iv) Fans won't be so keen to turn up, and certainly not keen to *pay up* to watch games of that type, and Italian rugby needs fans
v) It will simply encourage a change in the laws, if over-used.

(nice use of Roman numerals by the way!)

Of course England should have come up with effective solutions much quicker than they did - I can imagine MJ 'picking and going' the second time Italy tried it. I also think the option of Care actually giving the ball to Parisse a nano-second before Lawes clattered in to his ribs would have been effective!

Further, I suspect Conor might have told his team to try the tactic for the first few minutes just to unsettle England - never anticipating that it would take half-time before England worked it out! Had someone said to him 'England aren't bright enough to work this out and your tactics may kill the game as a spectacle for the whole of the first 40' then he may have had second thoughts! Or, maybe not...

However - is it hypocrisy?

Italy did not play to win the game, they came to spoil the game and this they achieved. In the process Italy dumped what we call the "spirit of rugby" and in the long term did themselves no favours. If this is how they want to play, let them play against Georgia and then hopefully we will see a country worthy of Six Nations competition.

Total hypocrisy. If we want to get back to playing in the 'spirit of Rugby' then players needs to stop crooked feeds, pulling down scrums & mauls, diving over the ball to seal it, shoulder charges and blocking, ALL of which are not only against the 'spirit of Rugby' but actually foul play according to the laws of the game.

Whinging about opposition players chosing not to compete at the breakdown, which IS totally within the laws is just total hypocrisy.

Actually watching the dullards in the England team trying to work out what to do was great comedy entertainment and a lot more interesting than watching England's pathetic attacking game with Farrell at 12.

I think not. I think all that people are saying is that this tactic is not within the spirit of the game and should therefore be treated exactly the same as the professional fouls G.K. refers to. No-one's defending such fouls and I'm surprised people are defending 'ruckgate'.

[G.K]

Disagree - who says playing to the 'spirit of the game' (that concept pretty much went with the professional era anayway) includes playing to your opponents strengths or how they want you to play?

Equating a legal tactic with the many illegal tactics that pretty much each and every team tries on week after week is just plain wrong IMO.