2017 Six Nations
Discussion
If you scroll about half way down this page http://www.rugbynetwork.net/boards/read/s96.htm?98...
there is a screenshot of an article with Pocock doing "ruckgate" against Ireland last Autumn. Gustard quoted saying they were aware of the tactic and had plans if used against England. Erm....
The real issue for me is how England reacted (or rather didn't)....definite lack of leadership/thought on the pitch which is something a lot of these players has issues with under Lancaster. Jones clearly has the teams preparation on a different level to Lancaster but you have to think every team will now be trying to unsettle England.
there is a screenshot of an article with Pocock doing "ruckgate" against Ireland last Autumn. Gustard quoted saying they were aware of the tactic and had plans if used against England. Erm....
The real issue for me is how England reacted (or rather didn't)....definite lack of leadership/thought on the pitch which is something a lot of these players has issues with under Lancaster. Jones clearly has the teams preparation on a different level to Lancaster but you have to think every team will now be trying to unsettle England.
epom said:
It's a part of the over coaching of players. There is a system you play to the system. You do not do anything that is not in the system. Flair players or off the cuff players are becoming less and less. Becoming robotized.
My son had Quins Academy trials last year, and at least one of the other lads in his group was a supreme athlete, but had only ever played one game of rugby, at school, prior. He is a footballer. Long and short of it was they took this lad into the academy due to size and athleticism "because if he is big enough to play in the Premiership we will teach him to play rugby". He is at school with my son and I've been trying for 18 months to get him to join the team I coach but all he wants to do is play football and go to the academy sessions once every 6 weeks. Sadly the naturally gifted players are being weeded out of the game.phil_cardiff said:
Gents (and ladies), if you want 'ruck gate' analysed properly then follow Murray Kinsella on twitter. He even covers the French attempt at not rucking which Nigel Owen disallowed.
Is the article you mean?http://www.the42.ie/italy-tackle-only-england-fran...
There's a GIF of the Ireland v France incident in there and you can see that Picamoles joins the breakdown area and forms a ruck but then withdraws which appears to be the reason Owens doesn't allow the French prop to encroach. Owens got it right, I think. You can't form an unform rucks at will, once it's formed, it's a ruck.
Interesting that pulling a defender into contact does not form a ruck.
As evidenced in the above article, it's a shame that there are so many 'interpretations' by WR that are not published in the Lawbook. That (along with unnecessarily overcomplicating things) is the source of most of this confusion.
As evidenced in the above article, it's a shame that there are so many 'interpretations' by WR that are not published in the Lawbook. That (along with unnecessarily overcomplicating things) is the source of most of this confusion.
epom said:
It's a part of the over coaching of players. There is a system you play to the system. You do not do anything that is not in the system. Flair players or off the cuff players are becoming less and less. Becoming robotized.
I agree that the problem England experienced wasn't so much with the rucking tactic but the fact that it interrupted their game play. The payers didn't seem to know where others were. Someone else on here pointed out that they'd got the hang the tactic by 30 mins and were exploiting it. Launchbury's burst through springs to mind and Itoje's charge down was another, although I think that was after a ruck.I think the strategy of playing to a system designed to cope with the specific opponents is all but universal but most allow, even encourage, individual play, although perhaps not inside their 5m line. I video our club's matches and I've noticed that I can predict what the next play is going to be for both teams after the first few minutes. But there are lots of times when the do something a bit different and they nearly escape off my screen.
What is impressive I think is that even as low as my current team, level 5, the line is maintained. Players tend to know what their role is. If a gap is left then players are sharp enough to exploit it. Not only that, if a player makes an error of judgement and, for instance, comes out of the line but misses the tackle then the team might lost 20m, or worse.
DocJock said:
Interesting that pulling a defender into contact does not form a ruck.
As evidenced in the above article, it's a shame that there are so many 'interpretations' by WR that are not published in the Lawbook. That (along with unnecessarily overcomplicating things) is the source of most of this confusion.
You can only pull someone in if they are within 1m. England tried pulling someone in further away than that on Sat at one stage IIRC. As evidenced in the above article, it's a shame that there are so many 'interpretations' by WR that are not published in the Lawbook. That (along with unnecessarily overcomplicating things) is the source of most of this confusion.
TheGreatSoprendo said:
phil_cardiff said:
Gents (and ladies), if you want 'ruck gate' analysed properly then follow Murray Kinsella on twitter. He even covers the French attempt at not rucking which Nigel Owen disallowed.
Is the article you mean?http://www.the42.ie/italy-tackle-only-england-fran...
There's a GIF of the Ireland v France incident in there and you can see that Picamoles joins the breakdown area and forms a ruck but then withdraws which appears to be the reason Owens doesn't allow the French prop to encroach. Owens got it right, I think. You can't form an unform rucks at will, once it's formed, it's a ruck.
Someone on here earlier claimed that Owens did not allow France to do what Italy did. But in this instance it looks as though Italy were executing the tactic better.
London424 said:
I think the problem that England were trying to get resolved was Italy engaging and then pulling out, or England players clearing out the ruck and driving the Italians back out, but the ref not recognising the clear out.
From what I saw, Eng didn't have anything to clear out much of the time. The tackle was made; the Italian 4 & 5 came in but then stepped back. At no point did they engage the ruck, so giving England nothing to need to clear out, despite committing most of the front and 2nd rows to the "ruck" as normal. schmalex said:
London424 said:
I think the problem that England were trying to get resolved was Italy engaging and then pulling out, or England players clearing out the ruck and driving the Italians back out, but the ref not recognising the clear out.
From what I saw, Eng didn't have anything to clear out much of the time. The tackle was made; the Italian 4 & 5 came in but then stepped back. At no point did they engage the ruck, so giving England nothing to need to clear out, despite committing most of the front and 2nd rows to the "ruck" as normal. Just Scotland's luck...
They could be facing Mako and Billy V, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/03/02/...
They could be facing Mako and Billy V, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/03/02/...
That's an excellent article and makes the situation much clearer. But it also shows why some of the England players were struggling to understand exactly what was going to be needed to negate the Italy tactic.
Much has been made of Haskell questioning the referee on 'what will it take to forma ruck' If I have it correctly this happened immediately after Launchbury had attempted to pull Luke McClean in and Roman Poite still did not call that a ruck has been formed (and so the Italian SH was not offside). If you watch the GIF, you can see that McClean forgets his lines for a split second and places his hands on Dan Cole before Launchbury grabs him, would this mean LM is part of the ruck already and not illegally 'pulled in'?
I think that what England were asking is if a player is in the areas that make them officially part of the ruck and that they are then 'pulled in' just to make there be no doubt, that that would not constitute illegally 'pulling in'
Much has been made of Haskell questioning the referee on 'what will it take to forma ruck' If I have it correctly this happened immediately after Launchbury had attempted to pull Luke McClean in and Roman Poite still did not call that a ruck has been formed (and so the Italian SH was not offside). If you watch the GIF, you can see that McClean forgets his lines for a split second and places his hands on Dan Cole before Launchbury grabs him, would this mean LM is part of the ruck already and not illegally 'pulled in'?
I think that what England were asking is if a player is in the areas that make them officially part of the ruck and that they are then 'pulled in' just to make there be no doubt, that that would not constitute illegally 'pulling in'
mfmman said:
That's an excellent article and makes the situation much clearer. But it also shows why some of the England players were struggling to understand exactly what was going to be needed to negate the Italy tactic.
Much has been made of Haskell questioning the referee on 'what will it take to forma ruck' If I have it correctly this happened immediately after Launchbury had attempted to pull Luke McClean in and Roman Poite still did not call that a ruck has been formed (and so the Italian SH was not offside). If you watch the GIF, you can see that McClean forgets his lines for a split second and places his hands on Dan Cole before Launchbury grabs him, would this mean LM is part of the ruck already and not illegally 'pulled in'?
I think that what England were asking is if a player is in the areas that make them officially part of the ruck and that they are then 'pulled in' just to make there be no doubt, that that would not constitute illegally 'pulling in'
This is why Rugby Union will never truly be a popular sport worldwide. The breakdown is a farce in every game. Much has been made of Haskell questioning the referee on 'what will it take to forma ruck' If I have it correctly this happened immediately after Launchbury had attempted to pull Luke McClean in and Roman Poite still did not call that a ruck has been formed (and so the Italian SH was not offside). If you watch the GIF, you can see that McClean forgets his lines for a split second and places his hands on Dan Cole before Launchbury grabs him, would this mean LM is part of the ruck already and not illegally 'pulled in'?
I think that what England were asking is if a player is in the areas that make them officially part of the ruck and that they are then 'pulled in' just to make there be no doubt, that that would not constitute illegally 'pulling in'
I still love the game though.
Jonnny said:
I also find the scrum a bit of a waste of time too, we don't bother with even trying to get the ball in straight anymore.
I believe the IRB are looking at the scrum in general, as it take up a disproportionate amount of time. However, you can't get rid of the scrum, you'll then just turn the game into a fast back's competition and lose the gladiatorial aspect of the big lads. Perhaps the scrum should by refereed harder and two fouls in any given scrum gives an automatic 5m / 10m penalty to the oppositionGassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff