Eddie Jones compares Italian tactics to the underarm; NZ Herald

England coach Eddie Jones accused Italy of using a game plan against the spirit of rugby during a Six Nations match on Sunday, comparing the tactics to an Australian cricketer who famously bowled underarm and along the ground to avoid conceding a six.

"I'm not happy with what happened: I don't think that's rugby," Jones said after watching the underdog Italians frustrate England's players with rarely seen tactics at the breakdown during England's 36-15 win at Twickenham.

Instead of contesting the breakdown, Italy's players decided not to compete to reclaim the ball. That meant no ruck was formed and it freed the Italians to get behind the tackle area onto England's side and block any passes.

It was smart and innovative from Italy coach Conor O'Shea - and it bewildered England so much that some of its players asked the referee how they could combat it.

"I was remembering Trevor Chappell, mate," Jones said when asked for his thoughts on his opponent's game plan. "Remember Trevor Chappell, bowled underarm along the ground. Similar rules today."

Jones was referring to an incident in an infamous one-day cricket match between Australia and New Zealand in 1981. The New Zealanders got to the final ball of the match needing six runs to tie, so Chappell was ordered to deliver the ball underarm and deny the batsman the chance to clear the boundary.

"It's not a game of rugby, it ceases to be a game of rugby," said Jones, an Australian. "Congratulations to Italy, they strategically were smart today. Well done to them but it's not rugby, let's be serious about this."

Former England scrumhalf Matt Dawson was also dismayed by Italy's tactics, posting on Twitter: "Imagine the shambles at all the rugby clubs around the world next weekend!! (hashtag)shameonyouConor."

O'Shea was unrepentant, though.

"We have to think differently, like we did today," the Irishman said. "We were playing absolutely legally. What we did today, we played to the laws."

At one point, England flanker James Haskell was heard asking referee Romain Poite: "For clarity, on the ruck thing, what do we need to do to make it a ruck?"

Poite replied: "I am a referee, not a coach. You will probably find the solution with your coach."

Dylan Hartley also said he was "confused" by the situation.

"Italy were always going to come here and try different things, but we didn't expect that and I've only seen it once before," said Haskell, who added that it "wasn't a great game for the fans."

"I don't think anyone knew what was going on. The only ones who knew what was going on was the Italians."

England was losing 10-5 at halftime but dealt with Italy's tactics better in the second half, attacking the thin defense around the fringes of the tackle area by using the so-called "pick-and-go."

England scored four tries after halftime to claim a bonus-point win and maintain its perfect record over Italy in 23 meetings between the countries.

"We'll go away and learn from this. That's why it's called a test match," Haskell said.

"Every day is a school day."

THE RUCK RULES

The relevant World Rugby rules state:

16.1 Forming a ruck
(a) Where can a ruck take place. A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
(b) How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for any reason, the ruck is not formed.

16.5 Offside at the ruck
(a) The offside line. There are two offside lines parallel to the goal lines, one for each team. Each offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the ruck. If the hindmost foot of the hindmost player is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for the defending team is the goal line.
That means: if there is no ruck, there is no offside.

 A bit of innovation from the Italians Reminds me of when the kiwi teams (Blues) refused to make contact in the line out and this meant that the other team could not form a rolling maul. It was a bit risky but confused the hell out of a few teams for a while.

 Some more info on the foxy play of the Italians when the played the Poms. 

Patrick McKendry is a rugby and boxing writer for the Herald.
Eddie Jones outfoxed - and he doesn't like it one bit

During his successful stint with Japan, Eddie Jones was known as an innovator; the World Cup victory over rugby superpower South Africa in Brighton two years ago was inspired by his unorthodox approach. It was seen as a David v Goliath triumph and made waves around the world.

Now Jones, the outspoken Australian, is in charge of a superpower himself - England - and after his team's 36-15 Six Nations victory over Italy at Twickenham, he was in no mood to congratulate the visitors for their innovation in not contesting the breakdown and therefore not being bound by the offside line.

In fact, as his fellow countrymen might say, he was filthy, and those of a critical nature could probably find a little hypocrisy in his post-match statements.

The Azzurri, brilliantly coached by Irishman Conor O'Shea and former Springbok Brendan Venter, led England 10-5 at halftime and completely bamboozled the English attack until a flurry from the home side in the final 10 minutes.

"I'm not happy with what happened - I don't think that's rugby," Jones said afterwards. "I was remembering Trevor Chappell, mate. Remember Trevor Chappell, bowled underarm along the ground. Similar rules today."

England's victory put their test streak at 17; they need to beat Scotland at Twickenham in a fortnight to equal the All Blacks' record of 18 and if so have the potential to beat it against Ireland in what would be a blockbusting test at Dublin a week later.

Italy's tactics were not dreamed up the day before the England test. In a comprehensive report written by ESPN's Tom Hamilton, coach O'Shea said the tactic, named the Fox, had been devised earlier in the Six Nations following Italy's defeat by Ireland.

"There was an offside in the Ireland game that was clarified as being onside," O'Shea said. "We thought it was a missed penalty but we got the reason why and thought 'oh, that's interesting'.

"Brendan said 'please listen and don't think I'm mad'. We talked last Sunday as a group of coaches and said 'ok, will we go for this?"'

However, a meeting with referee Romain Poite on the eve of the Twickenham test almost scuppered the plan when the Frenchman told the pair the rule had be tweaked that week.

Hamilton wrote: "The issue was this: the lack of an offside line behind the breakdown remained, but they could no longer take out the opposition scrum-half as it had been deemed not to be in 'the spirit of the game'."

The plan instead was to disrupt England's attack by standing in the way of halfback Danny Care rather than tackling him.

"We are not inventing anything," O'Shea said. "If there's a tackle there's no offside. We can go there. We never played the No9. We just occupied space.

"We didn't just dream this up on Friday night. A lot of planning went into it. We wanted the ball. The purpose of defence is to get the ball.

"We came here to play. Just remember, we attacked off scrums, we kicked into the corner, we did not come here to roll over.

"We challenged people's minds and a lot of credit to Brendan Venter for doing what he did. Look at the number of turnovers we got today."

After the heavy loss to Ireland, O'Shea was determined to try something different and it could only be the start.

"We have a few other animals up our sleeves as well, not just the Fox."

Eddie's detractors should look at the scoreboard.....17 down, two to go..

 Turns out the tactic employed by the Italians is credited to the Chiefs:
"The Azzurri have employed a two-year-old tactic from the Waikato Chiefs which sees them opt not to engage in certain rucks and so leave them able to operate without an offside line."

As soon as a tackle is made and both the tackler and tackled hit the ground-  there should be a ruck with an offside line.

Easy fix for a silly buggers strategy.

The tactic had wee Eddy scratching his head for a while.

 @ Sharkbok, once tackled player and tackler go to ground they are effectively out of the game.

Was funny to hear Poitre's explanation to the Pom players when they were asking what they could do about it . . . "I'm the ref, not your coach. Ask him."

Will be interesting to see if there are any law changes because of this. Personally I think that refusing to contest the ruck is not really in the spirit of rugby but credit to the Italians for trying something so different.

Not convinced a law change is really necessary. I know it took the Poms a while to work it out but once they started smashing through the middle instead of trying to pass, the Italians started joining the rucks.

 sharkbok
 
Status: Rugby Legend 
Posts: 6058RE: Eddie Jones compares Italian tactics to the underarm; NZ Herald
February 27, 2017, 03:28:12

As soon as a tackle is made and both the tackler and tackled hit the ground-  there should be a ruck with an offside line.

No. I don't like the idea of fiddling with the laws to compensate for the odd insurance where someone uses the laws to outfox another.The guy in your avatar is a prime example of someone who has often done that. In fact, I can remember the odd occasion when he used the exact same tactics that Italy used yesterday.
I am with Rooi on this one. I was more surprised at the England players not immediately realising what Italy were doing, than I was surprised at Italy actually doing it. I had a lot of fun with this game. 
The wife and I normally go for a drive on a Sunday and then stop at a pub somewhere to have a pint. Yesterday, we had two pints. LOL. We pulled in at a pub near Wokingham and when we went inside we saw that the game was about to start and decided to sit and watch it. Shortly after we sat down a few couples arrived, wearing their England jerseys. It was the first time in ages that I watched a game in a pub. They were all up in arms the first time that Parisse went "off-side" waiving his arms and the stupid farking ref did not blow him up. I told the m that he did nothing wrong and explained why. Their first reaction was also too start criticising the law. It didn't help much when I told them that their captain was as thick as a brick and should know the laws.

 So elsewhere dear Mozart said that Venter is no good as defence coach - what ent wrong here?

What went wrong? England scored 6 tries to Italy's 2.

 Turns out the tactic employed by the Italians is credited to the Chiefs:Of course JW the kiwis are the root of all evils in rugby subverting the noble game ona regular basis.Cerudunce windpomp I see you are now rubbing up the Poms in the wrong way! Have you commented o n the Bulle getting whipped?

 The number one among nations playing loser rugby turning to the referee to solve their problem.
The make believe rugby project keeps going on, ABs must have a contender.

Just to add, comparing what Italy did yesterday to the shameful underarm tactics employed by the Chappell brothers all those years ago shows a lack of appreciation for what constitutes opportunism and what constitutes downright bad sportsmanship.

It's not the same thing. It's not even the same ballpark. In the words of Jules from Pulp Fiction, ". . . ain't the same f#ckin' ballpark, it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same f#ckin' sport."

@Beeno. Nope. Not rubbing anybody up. Just one idiot in a pub. I have not seen the Bulls game, so I cannot comment. Having said that, I was not too surprised at them getting klapped like that.