[Ruck] So how do we all feel about Italy's "no-ruck" tactic?

[Stix]

After yesterday's Six Nations match between England and Italy there has been a lot of discussion about the Azzurri's constant use of the "no-ruck" tactic, which rattled England and baffled anyone without a detailed knowledge of the Laws surrounding the ruck.
I've heard some, including Eddie Jones, call for the Law to be changed to prevent this tactic from "killing the game", while others feel that it's simply a clever, innovative tactic that should be allowed.

So what do we think about this? Should it be allowed? Should it be banned? I'm interested to hear what you all have to say.

 

[The Fat]

After yesterday's Six Nations match between England and Italy there has been a lot of discussion about the Azzurri's constant use of the "no-ruck" tactic, which rattled England and baffled anyone without a detailed knowledge of the Laws surrounding the ruck.
I've heard some, including Eddie Jones, call for the Law to be changed to prevent this tactic from "killing the game", while others feel that it's simply a clever, innovative tactic that should be allowed.

So what do we think about this? Should it be allowed? Should it be banned? I'm interested to hear what you all have to say.

I saw the last 15 minutes of the first half, the half time chat on Bein Sports, and the second half. In the first half I kept waiting for England to Pick & Drive their way up the field to counter Italy's tactic. No-one in the England team was smart enough to analyse what was happening and how to counter. It was if they had a set attack plan they had had to stick to no matter what the opposition did in defence.

I don't have a problem with the way the tackle/ruck law is written. If England had a captain who understood the law, maybe they would have countered the tactic the 2nd or 3rd time it was used instead of having to wait for the coach to enlighten the team at half time. Half an hour after the game Hartley still didn't understand what had happened. Had England changed their attack early on, this wouldn't be the biggest story in world rugby today.

Actually I got a bit of a kick out of seeing one team using the Laws and the other INTERNATIONAL team clueless. If Eddie Jones had used it against another team first, he wouldn't be whinging about it now.

They trialled having an offside line at the tackle a few years back with disastrous results. Personally, I wouldn't like to see the "Breakdown" trial from last season's Mitre 10 Cup adopted as a result of this morning's game. That would simply be a kneejerk reaction.

I would love to see Italy use the tactic against the All Blacks to see how long it would last. The NZ guys and the Irish seem to be a step ahead when it comes to their players knowing the LoTG.

 

[crossref]

as Fat says - nothing wrong with the tactic. Full marks to Italy.
In reality - it's not even a very effective tactic, it was clueless England who made it seem like it was indefensible.

(response : you pick and go, and keep doing so until a ruck is formed... or you reach the tryline, whichever comes first)

Some petulant quotes from George Ford and Eddie Jones (who has not come out of this well)


England suggest Italy’s no-ruck innovation could kill rugby union
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...lys-no-ruck-innovation-could-kill-rugby-union

 

[didds]

I've not read anybody else's comments here as yet.

I think it was excellent. It wasn't actually ground breaking - we've seen this used sporadically elsewhere before. But it caused problems with the opposition's attack and was legal - job done. The match thread has pointed out the RP was clearly confused by the entire scenario at times too.

FWIW however once England sorted the tactic out - which was before half time - Italy didn't actually defend the "fringes" of the tackle area well at all , and then failed to mix it up sufficiently and in effect provided England with an easy answer time after time then.


But summarising - well done Italy.

didds

 

[didds]

I would love to see Italy use the tactic against the All Blacks to see how long it would last. The NZ guys and the Irish seem to be a step ahead when it comes to their players knowing the LoTG.

Indeed - but the cat's out of the bag now. It was the element of "surprise" that undid England.

didds

 

[Blackberry]

So as I see it, most tackles don't end in a ruck or a maul, so most of the time the Italy tactic will be an option.

What's also worth remembering is that (I need back up here please) that if there is a ruck which then falls over, the ruck and all its laws are still in existence till the ball comes out.

 

[The Fat]

So as I see it, most tackles don't end in a ruck or a maul, so most of the time the Italy tactic will be an option.

What's also worth remembering is that (I need back up here please) that if there is a ruck which then falls over, the ruck and all its laws are still in existence till the ball comes out.

Or the ref blows his whistle for "unplayable" which results in a scrum to the team going forward etc etc

 

[Paule23]

So as I see it, most tackles don't end in a ruck or a maul, so most of the time the Italy tactic will be an option.

That depends on how much the opposition with to enter a contest for the ball. In most games I see there is a ruck formed after the tackle to either compete for the ball or attempt to slow opposition possession.

What's also worth remembering is that (I need back up here please) that if there is a ruck which then falls over, the ruck and all its laws are still in existence till the ball comes out.

This correct. It also means if a ruck forms briefly over the ball, and the opposition players then retreat, there is still a ruck situation and usual ruck offside lines/laws apply.

 

[didds]

08:26 Radio 4.

The reporting full of errors... the intro saying how the laws allowed players to legally stand offside. Well there was no offside line, being the whole p[oint.

Even Ian Roberson used very poor terminology in his piece. This won't help the armchair watchers understand.

didds

 

[DocY]

I don't see a problem with it - particularly as it gave Eddie Jones a bit of a bloody nose!

As others have said, it's easy to counter, but England just couldn't work out how. If you watch Haskell's interview (sorry, I can't find a link) that illustrates the reason nicely.

I don't think we'll see another team do this as a game long tactic again for a while - every coach up and down the country will be already be telling their players to pick and go in this situation!

 

[crossref]

I think we may see teams having this tactic in their back pocket, and suddenly start to use it for ten minutes or so to create confusion

 

[didds]

Bizarre for a tactic that allegedly stopped Amy rugby bring played, England scored 5 tries in the second half.

Didds

 

[cccref]

I think this is a tactic you should use more properly. Italy "wasted" the idea by doing it too much often and without any sense.
I can tell you it's very strange that this tactic came from Italy since here every coach you meet tells you to stay behind the line (as a ref i have always wondered what line the were thinking to:shrug...but maybe "foreign coach, foreign ideas".

Asking the ref what happens if there is no ruck is as much embarrassing as Italy's playing.

I guess whe should "prepare" to this kind of situation (at least here Italy), every team will try to do the same and they only will be messing with the rules much more than already they do.

Italians who make fun of England right now are the same people who judges us aggressively in the fields and now they just found out this law (before that i can't count how many "Hey ref! That was offside!" I was yelled at)....pathetic:wait:

 

[DocY]

Bizarre for a tactic that allegedly stopped Amy rugby bring played, England scored 5 tries in the second half.

Didds

It stopped what Eddie Jones had told England to do working. A bit different to stopping any rugby being played.

 

[crossref]

a lot of mentions of this quote when Pocock used the same tactic for Australia v Ireland

Others remembered his defence coach Paul Gustard being asked about Pocock's move against Ireland before England faced the Wallabies a week later. His response: "We are aware of it, we saw it, and we will have a plan in place."

no they won't !

 

[didds]

It stopped what Eddie Jones had told England to do working. A bit different to stopping any rugby being played.

yes - but I was (poorly!) alluding to post match comments by Jones

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39098575

"When the nine can't pass the ball and the 10 can't see it, you can't play rugby. "

didds

 

[didds]

I think this is a tactic you should use more properly. Italy "wasted" the idea by doing it too much often and without any sense.

Agree. Had they mixed it up a bit - or dropped it for twenty minutes then reintroduced it it may have eventually been far more effective. as it was once England sorted themselves out just before half time they then didn't defend the subsequent tackle area at all well (CF ruck fringe defense) and if anything ended up confusing themselves more.

didds

 

[DocY]

yes - but I was (poorly!) alluding to post match comments by Jones

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39098575

"When the nine can't pass the ball and the 10 can't see it, you can't play rugby. "

didds

Ay, I realised - I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was disagreeing with Jones

 

[didds]

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

They trialled having an offside line at the tackle a few years back with disastrous results.

That was the ELV they tried in 2008 with the "offside at the tackle" law. IMO, they went about this the wrong way. They needed to have some kind of provision that offside players who are in the act of retiring as they "chase back" to a tackle will be made onside when the ball is cleared, but that players who loiter in an offside position at a tackle must retire all the way to the offside line. Without such a provision, a midfield break can become completely impossible to legally defend.. as the video shows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10yjOe3zSQw

Having a provision that moving players are legal but stationary players are infringing its not without precedent in the game - see Law 19.12 (b)

Personally, I wouldn't like to see the "Breakdown" trial from last season's Mitre 10 Cup adopted as a result of this morning's game. That would simply be a kneejerk reaction.

Nor would I, although the main problem with that trial is that they also made a Law change which made the jackler release the ball if someone bound to him. This resulted in three examples of "Merton's Law (a.k.a. the Law of unintended consequences)

1. Defending teams committed few, sometime no players to the ruck.

2. Those players who did commit tended to stand more upright and tried to kick the ball through.

3. Breakdown turnovers were almost impossible to get, so teams stopped trying.

The end result was endless phases in a "procession of possession" as defending teams lined the trenches while attacking teams tried to batter their way through.

The experiment was an abject failure IMO.

I would love to see Italy use the tactic against the All Blacks to see how long it would last. The NZ guys and the Irish seem to be a step ahead when it comes to their players knowing the LoTG.

I reckon the tactic would last two to three rucks at most

To really use this tactic well, you need to have a couple of players back and in line from the tackle to prevent the pick and drive, but unless they get very close, the pick & drivers are going to make the gain line, and if the defenders get too close, they will end up being drawn into a ruck.... game over.