Rugby IV - Striking Hookers Are Back In Fashion

[williamjm]

5 hours ago, ljkeane said:

Two tight games today. Not really the ideal results for England but good to see so many competitive sides in the Six Nations this year. The second Scottish try was quality as well.

The years when Scotland seemed to go to pieces every time they came near the try line seem to be well in the past, their back line might be the best finishers in the Six Nations now.

It was a good second half by Scotland, although it wasn't quite as one-sided as the 20-0 scoreline might suggest. Wales did have some opportunities but something always seemed to go wrong for them.

[Macklunkey]

England struggling a bit with the rules today 

[The BlackBear]

4 hours ago, The Number 10 said:

England struggling a bit with the rules today 

Do you really want to see the game played like that?

 

Disappointed with England's dozy start, they'll need to seriously improve.

[ljkeane]

It was pretty clever tactics from Italy but England were slow to switch on to what they were doing. If teams are playing like that you need to punish them by attacking  through the ruck which it took England a long time to work out. 

Still, less try's scored than I thought there would be but at least it was interesting tactically and England did get the bonus point they needed in the end.

[williamjm]

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

It was pretty clever tactics from Italy but England were slow to switch on to what they were doing. If teams are playing like that you need to punish them by attacking  through the ruck which it took England a long time to work out.

It's not a good sign when the players are having to ask the referee what the rules of the game are, although Poite protesting that he wasn't their coach was amusing. The first half performance by England was the worst I've seen by them in a few years, even away from the tackle/ruck confusion almost everything else they did aside from their try seemed to go wrong. They did start to get the hang of things in the second half, they even used Italy's own tactic against them a few times.

[Macklunkey]

10 hours ago, The BlackBear said:

Do you really want to see the game played like that?

 

Disappointed with England's dozy start, they'll need to seriously improve.

If it's OK for Jones to spout off about wanting 70 points and to take Italy "to the cleaners" then it's on by me for Italy to creatively try and stop it. 

[ljkeane]

21 hours ago, williamjm said:

It's not a good sign when the players are having to ask the referee what the rules of the game are, although Poite protesting that he wasn't their coach was amusing.

I've just watched the game on tv so it's the first time I've heard what they were saying and, in fairness to Haskell and Hartley, I think they did grasp the laws about there being offside line they wanted to nail down Poite on the point at which a ruck is formed. Having watched it back I think they did have a point about him being a bit inconsistent on whether a ruck was formed or not.

All the law says on when a ruck is formed is as soon as two players on their feet are in contact over/around a ball on the ground a ruck is formed. What I'd probably do if a team tried this tactic as a rucker would be to reach out and grab any opposition players near the ball to form a ruck. The Chiefs used the same tactic a few times in Super Rugby last year and that's pretty much what teams did to negate it. Before Haskell went to talk the Poite Launchbury was trying to do that and Poite told him he couldn't initiate contact to create a ruck and I'm not convinced he was right on that. It's certainly not the way it was being reffed last year in Super Rugby and there's nothing in the laws saying a defending player has to intentionally join a ruck.

ETA: Hmm here's a good article from Murray Kinsella on not engaging in the rucks. He includes an example of Pocock negating the Chiefs using the tactic by grabbing one of their players last year and Launchbury trying to do the same thing. He seems to think the law interpretations have changed since last year but I'm sure if that's the case or it's a mistake on Poite's part.

 

[Which Tyler]

On 26/02/2017 at 9:37 PM, The BlackBear said:

Do you really want to see the game played like that?

It won't be.

It's not a new tactic in the slightest. It's common in 7s; I've also seen it used in the Premiership, in Super rugby and in RWC15. Never this consistently, and never this well organised; but equally, never with a ref giving quite as much leeway.

As a tactic, it's relatively easy to neuter; if you pick and go, you have 1 free "hard yard" as the defenders have to be that far away to avoid being fair game for a clear-out. Alternatively, you can send a big ball carrier back a few metres to build up some momentum, and the SH just puts it in his arms as he hits those static defenders at full tilt; or you can box-kick with impunity (but be quick about it).

If you want to force a ruck, then commit 2 tacklers, or grab hold of someone whilst fending them and drag them in; or clear out a players who's marginally close enough, or shove someone else in there. Tha latter 2 are technically illegal, but I expect my flankers to try something illegal to see if it works, not to ask the ref if they're allowed to do something illegal.

Alternatively, you can see that they're only commiting the one tackler - which typically means that they're going low and you can keep your arms free and look to offload (I know, I know, offloading in a white shirt is just not cricket); and if that makes them try to tackle higher, then you start a maul on your own terms.

 

My problems with Hartley/Haskell's talking to the ref was that they didn't seem to know the law, and need it explained to them (which was obviously so novel that all the commentators knew about it, my dad and I both knew about it, only the anchor didn't know about it in the studio, and Eddie either knew about it, or saw obvious ways to nullify it, and had the abilty to coach those tactics within half time). My further problems was that Haskell had to ask if he was allowed to cheat to overcome it; and then ask what he could do about it (which is when Poite's patience gave way, and the bit about coaching came in - great line).

Our players were mostly too thick to do any of this though (though a few did try, they didn't seem to communicate with each other, and Hartley/Haskell had to have the laws themselves explained to them). You can tell that it's a fairly easy tactic to neuter, as England did neuter it.

 

 

As a tactic; it works well when used little; and is a high-risk high-reward one - much like standing off the line-out, preventing a maul and preventing an offside line. It happens occassionally, is a known tactic with known counters, and just needs to be seen and adapted to. any team who tries to use it all the time will soon find themselves giving nice easy meters up through the middle.

 

 

LJK - IIRC the kiwis are trying some law variations in the Mitre 10 cup at the moment, could easily be what Kinsalla is referring to.

[The BlackBear]

4 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

If you want to force a ruck, then commit 2 tacklers, or grab hold of someone whilst fending them and drag them in; or clear out a players who's marginally close enough, or shove someone else in there. Tha latter 2 are technically illegal, but I expect my flankers to try something illegal to see if it works, not to ask the ref if they're allowed to do something illegal.

In the lead up to the Haskell ref conversation, Launchbury did grab a player, and Poite said it didn't constitute a ruck.

[Which Tyler]

So yes, technically illegal - which doesn't mean you shouldn't try it and see if it works on the day.

Asking the ref if you can clear someone out, off the ball, in open play; and if that would nullify the "not a ruck" was idiocy of the highest order.

[ljkeane]

Nah, I disagree. Him and Hartley were right to speak to Poite to try an clarify at what point he considered a ruck to be formed, because he was being fairly inconsistent or at least unclear about. That's pretty much exactly the situation they should be speaking to a ref in.

England players didn't know the laws! Makes an amusing headline for some pundits but they clearly did understand that the lack of a ruck meant there was no offside line and since they were trying grab Italian players to form a ruck they clearly understood two players in contact constitutes a ruck. The only actual rule they needed clarifying was Hartley thinking it might 2m clear of the tackle the Italy players when it was actually 1m which is a fairly obscure rule and it's not particularly surprising they might not know the specifics of.

The issue they were having was with Poite's interpretations of what constitutes a ruck (he was letting Italian players make contact and then back away on occasion and calling it a tackle and wasn't counting clearing out an assist tackler as creating a ruck which it pretty much is in every other game) and an apparent law clarification on grabbing players to form a ruck from World Rugby they weren't aware of. The main issue I'd have is he told Launchbury the Italian players had to be intending to contest the ball for it to be a ruck which I'm not convinced is the case and if it is means there's no way the attacking team can dictate the creation of a ruck. Given that they needed to speak to him to try and clear up what, if anything, they could do to create a ruck.

I'm pretty sure that's why they started trying to set up mauls from kick offs to create an offside line as well.

[ljkeane]

Cracking game in Cardiff tonight. I thought Wales were going to lose another one at the death for a while there but they managed to hold out, with a little help from Robbie Henshaw. The Welsh backrow, Tipuric in particular, were excellent and that's probably the best game North's had for a while which won't hurt there Lions chances after there being some rumblings recently about Gatland not being able to pick to many Welsh players.

It also sets up a probable championship decider at Twickenham tomorrow. Obviously if England get the win they've won the tournament and with Scotland playing Italy at home in the final round they'd be pretty well set if they manage to pick up a win. It should be the best Calcutta Cup game we've had for a while.

[Macklunkey]

Great match tonight with Wales and Ireland. 

Big Saturday coming up!

[Which Tyler]

Fantastic match last night; with Barnes as MotM for me - failing that, then Tipuric; Webb did too much blotting of his copybook to earn that one.

 

Very nervous about this afternoon; England going for the Championship, and keep a Slam alive; Scotland going for a triple crown and a realistic shot at the championship; but with everything to play for to spoil England's party in our own backyard. Scotland playing well whilst England are misfiring.

 

It's just got all the hallmarks of a classic upset hasn't it?

[Macklunkey]

20 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Fantastic match last night; with Barnes as MotM for me - failing that, then Tipuric; Webb did too much blotting of his copybook to earn that one.

 

Very nervous about this afternoon; England going for the Championship, and keep a Slam alive; Scotland going for a triple crown and a realistic shot at the championship; but with everything to play for to spoil England's party in our own backyard. Scotland playing well whilst England are misfiring.

 

It's just got all the hallmarks of a classic upset hasn't it?

Can't see anything other than an England win. They're playing poorly and still winning. It's the mark of an excellent side.

[Macklunkey]

[Hereward]

I may not survive the night. 

[ljkeane]

I just caught up with the game. That didn't go well for Scotland. Stupid yellow card for Brown, and it's only luck that stopped it being red, to start the match and they were on the back foot from there.

In fairness England were excellent though. The midfield was really sharp, I can't remember the last time England scored so may tries off first phase, the forwards really dominated the gain line.

[Hereward]

I still don't understand how that wasn't a red. Also bizarre how the ref was set on yellow carding Hughes for a chest high tackle, despite the touch judge and the video ref.

[ljkeane]

22 minutes ago, Hereward said:

I still don't understand how that wasn't a red. Also bizarre how the ref was set on yellow carding Hughes for a chest high tackle, despite the touch judge and the video ref.

I think last year it probably would have been a red. This season the interpretation seems to be if the tackled player doesn't land directly on their head/neck it's yellow and Daly stuck his arms out to protect himself and just landed on his shoulders first. That's got absolutely nothing to do with the tackle Brown made though (which is the criticism it gets for being outcome based), he definitely got lucky. There was no real reason to do it either, he could quite legally have smashed Daly without tipping him on his head.