Commentary is nauseating...
Or just run through the middle!!!!!! 🙂
There's going to be a IRB look into this, I'm sure. Ten out of ten to Italy for having the nous to spot a loophole but it's the kind of loophole that makes a mockery of the game.
There was a rule when I was at school that a scrum couldn't be pushed backwards more than five metres. Our first XV had a very lightweight pack so they just let the opposition push them back. It was playing within the rules, but also undermined the basics of the game. I don't know if it was just junior rugby that had the rule.
it's the kind of loophole that makes a mockery of the game.
Rubbish.
Italy are playing within the Laws. No loopholes, just good knowledge of the game. Applaud it, don't whine about it!
Oooh, hello...
I have seen John Hardie do this a lot
Total bollox from Poite on the Nowell "try".
He'd already blown the whistle before any try could have been scored so why waste everybody's time going to the TMO and why waste even more of everybody's time by discussing the finer points of the decision after he's already agreed with him not to award a try which couldn't have been awarded anyway......
Kwalitee defending from Ford and Brown there.
Why did they try and tickle that Italian as he ran past?
It's up to players/coaches to find a solution.
Interesting how, after half time, Care had a grip on it and how to deal with it, then Youngs gets in a muddle over it first few times - shows how uninstinctive it is to see opposition players that side of the breakdown. But fair play to Italy for doing it.
Why did they try and tickle that Italian as he ran past?
Aussie coach. Confused by the accent.
I agree it isn't a loophole but if this becomes a common tactic it will completely change the game. The principle is that you have the ball and are given the space to play it backwards. If that changes, the whole game changes.
The principle is
And The Laws are......
I agree it isn't a loophole but if this becomes a common tactic it will completely change the game.
The W.Chiefs were doing this two years ago.
And The Laws are......
Too many!
Commentators fawning over the quality of England. No mention of the fact they've taken 70 mind to get one score clear of the bottom of the table side...
I agree it isn't a loophole but if this becomes a common tactic it will completely change the game. The principle is that you have the ball and are given the space to play it backwards. If that changes, the whole game changes.
Precisely. Leg theory / bodyline was also within the rules of cricket by the letter of the law, but the laws had to be changed to stop it becoming a boring coconut shy.
Aussie coach. Confused by the accent.
Kiwi, Shirley.
Haha quality of England, its only in the last 5 mins that they seem to have woken up
....to a bonus point win.....
Highlight reel from Parasee 🙂
Agree with Mol, commentary is so awful stopped watching.
Easily Farrell's worst ever kicking game
I want Brian Moore for commentating on this, it would have been awesome.
Dallaglio clearly found it hilarious at half time
What a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful weekend of rugby. I have a lovely fuzzy feeling.
Comedy gold these last 10 mins really
That was fun !
+1 wrecker
I didn't see the Ireland France game, but the other two have been brilliant.
Anyone looked at the AP results? 😆
Big gav still gots it!
Good fun and well done Italy for thinking; really enjoyable weekend of rugby.
CaptainFlashheart - Member
The principle is
And The Laws are......
Quite, I'm not denying that it isn't entirely within the Laws & it has made for an interesting match as England struggled to understand what was going on. But it is essentially a spoiling tactic. If it catches on I think it will wreck the game as you can just stop an attack by utilising this particular aspect of the Law.
Well, at least Hartley understood what was going on 😉 🙂
Routine bonus point win for England. As I expected.
🙄
Quite, I'm not denying that it isn't entirely within the Laws & it has made for an interesting match as England struggled to understand what was going on. But it is essentially a spoiling tactic. If it catches on I think it will wreck the game as you can just stop an attack by utilising this particular aspect of the Law.
It's only a spoiling tactic if your team is too thick to understand that they can't construct a set-piece effectively when there is no off-side line.
Were people talking about the Lions having a good chance of beating NZ? The only chance they've got is if the All Blacks stop training now and spend the next few months in the pub.
This is the worst quality 6N I can remember, in pretty much every respect.
As a one off it was an interesting watch but if long term we have teams electing to choose not to compete in the ruck some of the time I think it will reduce the sport as a visual spectacle. The way to counter it is immediate action. The way to make the most of a ruck is to create a pause whilst the backs setup. This often generates some of most visually pleasing rugby union. If it's a 50/50 of ruck or no ruck the result will be a mush of ad hoc ball carrying.
electing to choose not to compete in the ruck some of the time I think it will reduce the sport as a visual spectacle.
Thete was no ruck, hence no off-side. If England had chosen to play the ball quickly instead of slowing it down each time a player was tackled then it would have made a better visual spectacle.
This is the worst quality 6N I can remember, in pretty much every respect.
I am LOVING it and I suspect many others are too.
[i]This is the worst quality 6N I can remember, in pretty much every respect.[/i]
Sorry, nope I would say it has been one of the most Interesting.
. If England had chosen to play the ball quickly instead of slowing it down each time a player was tackled then it would have made a better visual spectacle.
This, people want to see the ball being moved and yards gained.
Thete was no ruck, hence no off-side. If England had chosen to play the ball quickly instead of slowing it down each time a player was tackled then it would have made a better visual spectacle.
Which would be fine if the ruck was then banned and rugby was always played like that. As England showed in the 2nd half the tactic can be overcome if the opposition do the same every time. If it's a 50/50 if a ruck will form I don't think it's positive for the sport as a visual spectacular.
Sorry to bring people down but this is very sad 🙁
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-international-rugby-player-elli-12659638
This is the worst quality 6N I can remember, in pretty much every respect.
I remember the early 90's!!!
[img] 
[/img]
Rugby matches across the country are going to be an absolute debacle next weekend.
#prayforthereferees
Which would be fine if the ruck was then banned and rugby was always played like that. As England showed in the 2nd half the tactic can be overcome if the opposition do the same every time. If it's a 50/50 if a ruck will form I don't think it's positive for the sport as a visual spectacular.
Why would it be 50/50 if a ruck forms? A ruck only forms if a certain amount of players form it. It's easy to see when a ruck forms, and deal with it accordingly. It's not a random reffing decision. (There are enough if those already!) Italy simply didn't play the way England wanted and England took forever to work out why.
I remember the early 90's!!!
I think plenty of us do. At least England AND France were quality back then. The refs knew the laws, and we all knew better. This year the team who are likely to win a GS have to ask the ref how to play. 😆
Thete was no ruck, hence no off-side. If England had chosen to play the ball quickly instead of slowing it down each time a player was tackled then it would have made a better visual spectacle.
So would a game where a player runs into contact, goes to ground, lays the ball back with no ruck being formed so another player can then quickly pick it up and run again be more attractive?
Isn't that broadly speaking rugby league?
