[6N] England v Italy

[L'irlandais]

Sounds like the Frenchman has been taking a leaf out of Nigel Owen's book
"I am a referee, not a coach," says Romain Poite when James Haskell asks what he is supposed to do if Italy don't commit men to the breakdown.

England looking pretty lost in the first half. Asking the ref for advice, never seen that before.

 

[timmad]

Is it another betting scam? Will Dan Cole be eating a pie in the next few minutes?

 

[L'irlandais]

Don't you wish.
I don't think so, these players are genuinely at a loss. Having been told they are the golden generation, they struggle to comprehend how they manage to look so decidedly average for 40 minutes.

(Perhaps simply because, you are decidedly average no you've been lied to.)

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Can someone email why that was a lineout and not a scrum 5m? Italian defender does well to get foot to the ball ahead of Daly. He has kicked the ball back over his own goal line and into touch in goal. I was about agree with the 5m attacking scrum decision when the TMO amends his earlier decision to a line out. Why?

 

[Decorily]

He didn’t kick it TIG. Ball kicked into touch.

 

[The Fat]

Can someone email why that was a lineout and not a scrum 5m? Italian defender does well to get foot to the ball ahead of Daly. He has kicked the ball back over his own goal line and into touch in goal. I was about agree with the 5m attacking scrum decision when the TMO amends his earlier decision to a line out. Why?

Just before they set the scrum, another replay shows the ball "apparently" crossing the touch line before the corner post. Therefore in touch, not touch-in-goal

 

[The Fat]

Dylan Hartley just interviewed and admits he didn't know what was going on with the Italian tactics around the breakdown.
Lucky for England there was a half time.
If Italy had been close at half time and only employed the tactic in the 2nd half, England players would have been made to look even more clueless

 

[BikingBud]

Demonstrates that players do not know the laws:chin:

 

[Decorily]

Nightmare to referee. Like England, a referee could easily expect the OS lines to be enforced even when technically no ruck is formed. How many times have we seen players try to come around after a tackle only and be quickly told to retreat. Even late in the game today the referee appeared to be looking for adherence to OS lines and then appear to change his mind after Italy came through! !

 

[Decorily]

Anyone see replay of England 9s quick tap penalty. ...was it a valid kick?

 

[Taff]

Dylan Hartley just interviewed and admits he didn't know what was going on with the Italian tactics around the breakdown. Lucky for England there was a half time.

Exactly.

Demonstrates that players do not know the laws:chin:

Exactly.

Nightmare to referee. Like England, a referee could easily expect the OS lines to be enforced even when technically no ruck is formed. How many times have we seen players try to come around after a tackle only and be quickly told to retreat.

I'm not sure it is Decorily. As long as the Ref has it clear in his head if he's looking at a tackle or a ruck, he should be fine. I really enjoyed that game - well done to Italy for using the laws to their advantage.

 

[Lex Hipkins]

It shows the importance of clear communication from the referee... there are so many times when it isn't clear to anybody whether it is tackle only or whether the defence has committed (or been dragged in) to a ruck. Thinking back to the matches yesterday, neither ref called ruck or tackle only very often (or very clearly) but then none of the teams used this tactic so it wasn't necessary. RP was clear and loud (to the TV viewer anyway) right from the off so I am assuming that he had been tipped off beforehand by the Italian management. Various England players post match admitted that they had seen it before by Super Rugby and/or French club teams so it shouldn't have been too much of an alien concept .. the fact that they took so long to adapt is not something they will be proud of. It won't probably happen again, but you can count on them having prepared for it.

 

[Treadmore]

Nightmare to referee. Like England, a referee could easily expect the OS lines to be enforced even when technically no ruck is formed. How many times have we seen players try to come around after a tackle only and be quickly told to retreat.

I'm not sure it is Decorily. As long as the Ref has it clear in his head if he's looking at a tackle or a ruck, he should be fine. I really enjoyed that game - well done to Italy for using the laws to their advantage.

I think it was for Poite because as Decorily said in full:

Nightmare to referee. Like England, a referee could easily expect the OS lines to be enforced even when technically no ruck is formed. How many times have we seen players try to come around after a tackle only and be quickly told to retreat. Even late in the game today the referee appeared to be looking for adherence to OS lines and then appear to change his mind after Italy came through! !

Poite did pretty well with it at first but there were times when he was giving the "stay behind the back foot" signal to Italy then changing his mind when he saw an Italian player beyond the tackle (and presumably noticed a ruck had not formed).

He also allowed Italy to go beyond the tackle even when a ruck had formed - once or twice he told them to retreat but at other times he seemed a bit confused.

Fair play to Italy for disruptive mind games (it worked!), minus points to England for allowing themselves to be baffled, but they did score tries from just simply playing through the gaping holes Italy left with that "innovation".

Anyone think there was really an obstruction by Hughes for Jack Nowell's disallowed try? For me, the camera angle behind the posts showed that Nowell was always in clear view for the Italian defender to tackle.

 

[Decorily]

Anyone think there was really an obstruction by Hughes for Jack Nowell's disallowed try? For me, the camera angle behind the posts showed that Nowell was always in clear view for the Italian defender to tackle.

Could have gone either way really. The strange bit for me was blowing the whistle before the 'try' was scored and then going upstairs. Badly managed I thought. If decision had been no obstruction and try 'scorer' hadn't gone through the process of touching the ball down after the whistle what options would have been available to Ref?

 

[crossref]

full marks to Italy - I really enjoyed it.

but they would have done better to completely abandon the tactic at half time, and suddenly started to form a ruck every time, committing several players and going for a counter-ruck. Again, to try and create some confusion amongst England players who would bound to come out with a freshly minted strategy.

then the last ten minutes, play about again.

 

[kaypeegee]

Italy have form on this. Some years ago they did something similar at the line out. Not engaging at the lo, letting the non maul leave the lot and run around and nick the ball. Taught on an RFU L2 coaching course.

Suggest Eddie gives the whole squad copies of the LotG with an exam scheduled for the end of the week

 

[L'irlandais]

And I thought England had come back to win that game ; Eddie Jones shows us what a poor looser he's going to be when their winning streak does end. Sad gît. I was brought up to believe rugby was a thinking man's game, Eddie. If your gym monkeys can't get their heads around something that simple then there isn't much hope for the future of the game. I notice he's already starting the mind games for the Scotland game, I wish the man had stayed in Japan. Bloody tiresome!

Post script: Pocock did this against Ireland, so a bit rich a coach from Australia complaining about the tactic. STFU!

Conor O'Shea's tactic worked very well, I do agree with others on here, if they had adopted a different tactic in the second half it'd have completely throw the England players. Poor old Dylan Hartley was still talking about offside lines at the tackle in the post match interview. Perhaps some kindly soul will explain it to him during the week. A. n. other sad git.

 

[OB..]

So nobody was aware of the fiasco that arose when an ELV created an offside line at the tackle? After 2 games it was abandonned because of the obvious flaw, which some of us had mentioned beforehand.

The players were beginning to sort out what to do, and half time was invaluable, but I did not like Eddie Jones post-match comments. It is not his job to decide what rugby is.

I wonder why Italy chose to unveil this tactic against England, who might well have been thought the team least likely to be defeated by it.

Will they now try the difficult extension of only using it occasionally, so as to keep the opponents uncertain?

 

[Treadmore]

And I thought England had come back to win that game ; Eddie Jones shows us what a poor looser he's going to be when their winning streak does end. Sad gît. I was brought up to believe rugby was a thinking man's game, Eddie. If your gym monkeys can't get their heads around something that simple then there isn't much hope for the future of the game. I notice he's already starting the mind games for the Scotland game, I wish the man had stayed in Japan. Bloody tiresome!

Post script: Pocock did this against Ireland, so a bit rich a coach from Australia complaining about the tactic. STFU!

Conor O'Shea's tactic worked very well, I do agree with others on here, if they had adopted a different tactic in the second half it'd have completely throw the England players. Poor old Dylan Hartley was still talking about offside lines at the tackle in the post match interview. Perhaps some kindly soul will explain it to him during the week. A. n. other sad git.

Really? C'mon, he praised Italy's execution ["brilliant" in what you linked] and he refused to criticise them when invited to do so.

He said he didn't like what the tactic did to the game and he said he didn't think it improved Italy's game. On the first point, I think the England players should have exploited it better (by playing what was in front of them - gaps!) and on the second Italy still let in 6 tries, so I'm not sure it really helped them over the 80mins (though if the tactic helped lift them mentally after recent defeats, then it was well worth it).

The post-match interview with Conor O'Shea has him referring back to the injustices against Italy in the first game and comparing how much more resources other countries have. I don't think he needs to do that, do you think he sounds like a poor loser saying those things?

 

[Paule23]

Ive just seen the game and post-match interviews and I thought Eddie Jones' comments were a little silly (he said on at least 3 occasions he did not feel Italy's tactics were 'rugby'). It's clearly rugby, it's just his team were unable to adapt to an unusual tactic.

I would have thought there is an easy counter to this. If a team does not engage in the tackle area after the tackle, you have guaranteed quick ball and can take quick action and do effectively what you want. Commentators and coaches are always banging on about the importance of quick ball, here England had loads of quick ball (or could have had if they'd tried) but did not have a clue what to do with it.

It was bizarre to see England players asking what the law is. I could understand them asking about a specific interpretation, but Haskell appeared to be asking about ruck law and what needs to happen for there to be a ruck, and what you can/cannot do if there isn't one. Surely a professional player should know this? And why wasn't Hartley the one doing the asking?

I thought the referee handled it pretty well as well, it's very difficult to referee as you cannot always be sure a ruck did not form briefly before the defending player retired. He was clear with his signals to let players know if there was no ruck.

One penalty I though was weird was late in the second half where he appeared to give a penalty against Italy, after another non ruck, for charging the kick saying this was not allowed. Anyone else see this and have an opinion? Did I mis-hear?