"That's not rugby": Jones fumes at Italy's tactics after Six Nations win

Andy - I feel you are now being quite mischievous. I'm not sure how I was meant to avoid repetition when you repeatedly glossed over my points and repetitively made the same points of your own. I did not assert a ruck could be created without contact from an opponent. Nor did I assert a ruck could be created with the ball lying already a metre behind the last feet of players involved. You have raised what you think is a problem within the game. It was on you to show the law that was being infringed. It is my view that you have not shown that and I have told you why not - in detail. You have quoted some parts of law. You have your interpretation. I have mine. Having read back through my posts I have actually covered a number of points of law to be fair - oh but I didn't provide clause numbers. The law is the law. Interpretation is the crux and I have given you mine. So I am unable to provide anything that supports rucks forming in the circumstances you suggested as I never asserted they could be.

Understood, and I similarly appreciate your time. But I would note that while you reply, at no point do you provide anything but repetition to support your interpretation. I have been quite clear about what pieces of law lead me to my interpretation, but you have never provided anything to support yours. You simply assert that a ruck would have been created, either over the ball without contact from an opposition player, or on contact with an opposition player but the ball already lying a metre behind the last feet of any player involved. I can find nothing to support your view at all, and certainly can't read the law as written that way. However, if you can provide anything in law or clarification that supports a ruck forming in either of those circumstances I would certainly be interested in seeing it.

I'm not intent on ignoring anything Andy. I've given quite a bit of my time to this discussion and have replied to you in detail on each point you have made. I can't however keep on giving the same responses to the same points that you are making repetitively. I think the crux of the issue might be that you seem not prepared to recognise the point that a ruck and release of the ball may occur almost simultaneously ...what did I say... a ruck can occur in the blink of an eye. In closing I will just say again, Brown in this instance has not committed any infringement of the laws of the game. Thanks for your time.

Daire - where did any body say England were impressive? Did Eddie? ...I certainly didn't. Your second paragraph is repetition on your part and I have already dismissed it in a previous reply. Yes Pocock used this method once, as I recall, for Aust v Ireland. Perfectly legal it was so no one from the Ireland camp had reason to cry. But just imagine if say the ABs had pulled this method out vs Ireland in Dublin to the extent that Italy used it at Twickenham...wow the level of whinging that come from an Irish direction following that match - there was an awful lot - would have been tenfold and you would have been one of the loudest.

Re-reading that, I'm probably still not being clear. And the capitals, while intended as emphasis, always come across as shouting (wish I knew how folk do that italics thing). So I'll make a last attempt to be clearer... 1. The English player is tackled, places the ball, etc properly - it is a tackle. 2. Brown then steps past the ball, with both feet in front of the ball. 3. Because it is a tackle, the opposition must enter the tackle area to contest the ball through the gate, as required by Law 15.6d 4. But Brown has intentionally taken up position in that location. The opposition has no other option; he is blocking the only legal entry. This does not comply with Law 10.1d (A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball). If he were standing with even one foot behind the ball, that would be fine as it would be a ruck and the opposition could nominally play for the ball. Because he isn't, he is only blocking. 5. If the opposition were to try, Brown would also then be playing the opposition without the ball per Law 10.4f (Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball). 6. It obviously isn't a scrum or maul, so the principle of whether or not a ruck can be formed without a ball or the ability to contest possession becomes the only call that matters. It seems pretty obvious to me that the ruck has to form around the ball, which is why the definition for Law 16 says so and Law 16.6 adds that "a ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck" - hard to do if it was never in there. ....But then, if it somehow can, I'd suggest the Australians test the same principle at the scrum - form it without the ball, which can be sitting behind the 8 and ready to play. :)

It isn't Rugby nor is the whole modern game! It is a contrived farce but the whole thing is so rediculous that one can begin to think that it will ever recover. The laws governing the breakdown area are mental at best and why would the game's law makers allow lifting in the line out? Beyond belief.

I

"He hasn’t prevented the opposition from creating a ruck." And my point is he specifically has if a ruck has to form "around the ball on the ground", the phrase you seem intent on ignoring. It is the same as saying that a player standing in front of the ball carrier is not preventing a maul from forming. “of course it can no longer be a ruck because the ball has gone...If the opposition want to contest the ball they have to get to the ball." And that is what he is specifically preventing, consciously moving into a position to prevent that when it is nothing more than a tackle. It can't be a ruck, but the ball is just lying on the ground behind him. A tackle is still general play, and if he stood in front of the ball on the ground in general play and prevented the opposition from playing it would be penalised. “Brown has not done anything other than stand over his tackled teammate....He hasn’t prevented the opposition from creating a ruck." And my whole point is he absolutely has IF IT HAS TO FORM OVER THE BALL. "Rucking is “blocking”. It is one area of the game where it is legal to do so." No, it is not. Like a scrum or maul, the ruck is formed around a contest for the ball. After that it is down to strength and control, but that original condition is the spirit of rugby that everyone keeps banging on about. If it doesn't start with that contest over the ball, it is illegal.

Well Clarke Italy arent a very good side when you consider Ireland beat them by 50 points and 9 tries in Italy. A 21 point win in Twickenham isnt particularly impressive at all. Before the game Jones said England would hammer them if they played well. Well England didnt play well at all and yet Jones blamed it on the ref, Italy, world rugby everyone but himself. Massive whinger. Australia used the exact same tactic against Ireland in November. Schmidt wasnt crying after the game that it wasnt rugby.

"And then it no longer could be because Brown moved past the ball and any engagement with an opposition player after that a) would not have included the ball, and b) would deny the opposition player the opportunity to contest the ball." So what...of course it can no longer be a ruck because the ball has gone. That's not England's problem. If the opposition want to contest the ball they have to get to the ball. That's what the game of rugby is all about. Engagement after the ball has gone is futile.The opposition are not denied anything.They did or could not take the opportunity. "Exactly. So by moving in front of the ball any contact with the opposition wouldn’t be creating a ruck, it would be preventing one" Brown has not done anything other than stand over his tackled teammate. He hasn't needed to do anything else. He hasn't prevented the opposition from creating a ruck. Rucking is "blocking". It is one area of the game where it is legal to do so. As I said previously you have over thought this and are unfortunately concentrating on an area that is completely legal and not needing attention. There is a lot of other stuff going down at ruck time that we should be concentrating on.

"Why the emphasis on what constitutes a ruck and conforming to the ruck law?" Because it is directly analogous to the maul situation. If there is no maul, that is fine as long as there still could be and the ball carrier remains in front. So similarly whether a ruck can be formed anywhere but around the ball is crucial because, just as passing the ball back would make an unengaged maul into obstruction, then so would moving a player in front of the ball if that is the only place that a ruck can be formed. "A ruck can occur in the blink of an eye. Brown’s presence over the ball in this instance is simultaneous with the release of the ball." But because there wasn't an opposition player, it wasn't a ruck. And then it no longer could be because Brown moved past the ball and any engagement with an opposition player after that a) would not have included the ball, and b) would deny the opposition player the opportunity to contest the ball. "How else would a ruck ever be formed if it does not involve players going to where the ball is....You can’t have a ruck without a ball." Exactly. So by moving in front of the ball any contact with the opposition wouldn't be creating a ruck, it would be preventing one. And the issue I see is that this sort of blocking is not being addressed, and it is one of the reasons why teams are not engaging in the ruck contest. They are being blocked from doing so, IMO illegally, and a blind eye is being turned to it by practice and not law. Just as the mauls were more uncompetitive until someone made a point of not engaging and highlighted at least one aspect that wasn't happening legally. And referring back to an earlier comment, this is caused at least in part by poor definitions in law. The other codes refer the offside law to the ball, which would be simple - the player couldn't go past the ball until the ruck was formed and the new offside lines established. But for some reason Rugby uses the ball carrier, who is off his feet and no longer even in contact with the ball. And they don't even define what part of the ball carrier, nor provide any clear guidance on what "behind" means. Yet for all the fiddling about with laws, they never seem interested in providing actual clarity to the ones they have.

Andy - Regards your reference to the maul. It's only the attacking teams problem if they do not comply with the law. Why the emphasis on what constitutes a ruck and conforming to the ruck law? There was no ruck so no player was required to conform to such law in this instance. "the ruck would be over before it had even formed which is nonsense" ...A ruck can occur in the blink of an eye. Brown's presence over the ball in this instance is simultaneous with the release of the ball. If he and an opponent had been in physical contact simultaneously with the release of the ball then that would be deemed a ruck. Yes the "lurking" Italian player could have gone for the ball but he would have been penalised for incorrectly entering the tackle area - and if it had been a ruck he would have been blatantly offside so either way he is penalised. How else would a ruck ever be formed if it does not involve players going to where the ball is. Nearly all rucks form post tackle...where the ball is...the point of attack is merely my description and of course is not in the laws. You can't have a ruck without a ball.This was not a ruck.The ball can be played by the tackled player however which is what occurred. Whilst I agree there are a number of issues with the ruck you seem to be getting bogged down in an area that does not need attention. Brown has done nothing wrong in this instance. There was no ruck. It was simply a tackled player releasing the ball. Contrary to what you have said, everything in this instance conformed with law.

The game recently went through this with the maul - it absolutely is the attacking teams problem what they do if the defending team doesn't engage. In this case, the more I look at it the more I think it simply can't conform to law. Had an Italian player bound to him, Brown and that player would then have constituted the entire ruck. He wasn't bound to anyone else, and no-one was bound to him. Law 16.2c specifically notes that a simple hand on the bum isn't enough, so the 8 wouldn't be part of the ruck. 16.2d specifically notes that all players taking part in the ruck must be on their feet, so all the players on the ground don't count. So Brown's would be the last feet, and the ball was already well beyond them....the ruck would be over before it had even formed which is nonsense. That would have been even funnier though - the ball would have been out and the lurking Italian player could have competed directly with the scrumhalf to attack the ball on the ground. Eddie's head would have exploded! You can say that "this is how rucks are formed", but it is not true. The laws are quite specific..."A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, CLOSE AROUND THE BALL ON THE GROUND". Otherwise, as above, how can the ball leave a ruck that it was never inside of? it certainly doesn't say close around the tackled player, or mention "point of attack"; those are interpretations. And that is the problem, because I absolutely agree that had the Italian player joined to Brown it would have been called a ruck, the last feet would have been deemed as either the player that was unbound or the player lying on the ground, the Italian scrumhalf would have been deemed offside and not one bit of it would have actually conformed to the law as written. It is exactly why there is so many difficulties with the laws and the game, and why any sort of consistent application is going to remain a distant dream at best. It will stay that way as long as what they say is not what they do and no-one is interested in making either one consistent with the other. Instead they fiddle around with laws they aren't applying anyway. But it is what it is, so I have no doubt teams will continue to try tactics like this. It will be interesting to see whether that next step is taken, looking to flood past the pillars the moment the scrumhalf touches the ball and try to draw a hand or tackle. Interestingly the English players seemed alive to that possibility though; rolling on from that breakdown it got to the point where the pillars weren't even looking at the defenders.

No Andy. What Brown does in this instance conforms with law. The fact that the Italian players chose not to engage is not his problem. Brown has not moved ahead of the tackle and caused obstruction to any player. He has gone to the point of attack - in support of his team mate who has been tackled to the ground - in anticipation that the opposition may contest possession of the ball. This is how rucks are formed. There are several factors at play that disincentivise defending teams from going to the tackle/ruck. What Brown did in this instance is not one of those factors. He played entirely within the law. Players offside in general play are penalised only if they interfere with play. Brown has not interfered with play. Once the half back gathered the ball then yes all team mates in front of him are offside but again would only be penalised if they interfered with play. If any player is blocked then it would only be penalised if it was intentional. If an Italian player in this instance wanted to "get through" he would need to move around Brown to do so unless Brown is able to vanish. You say Brown is ahead of the tackled player? - I say he is standing over him. Very much a case of two people looking at the same thing and seeing something different. I'm not going to comment on the last paragraph as I'm not sure what you are meaning.

And my point is that, while that might conform to practice, it doesn't match to law. The law is quite specific, saying that "A ruck is a phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet, in physical contact, close around the ball on the ground". As I've noted, to me it is directly analogous to the maul - the ball carrier cannot pass the ball back until the maul has formed, and if he does before the opposition has joined it is obstruction. Same with this - the pillars should be waiting over the ball, but can't advance until the ruck is formed otherwise it is similarly obstruction. However they are allowing it, which is why the ruck is a much less competitive place than it should be and probably why teams are trying tactics like this. My point about being ahead of the tackled player is that without the ruck being forming it is still in general play. If he is ahead of the tackled player, he is offside and certainly taking part in play. In fact, once the halfback touches the ball he is definitely offside and if he blocked a player trying to get through it should be penalised. In this instance I would have said he was ahead of the tackled player - where Brown is standing, if he were handed the ball it would be forward. Part of the problem for mine remains with various definitions. They define offside in general play with respect to the last ball player, but it would be much clearer if it were referred to the ball. It would have no real effect in open play, but would specifically address this issue.

Thanks Andy. Have checked it out and Brown (15) is absolutely ok there. He has done everything correctly in his entry to the tackle area. He takes position over the tackled player who has gone to the ground with the ball. He is over the ball as it is released simultaneously. This is how rucks are formed but in this instance the Italian players stood off as was their plan. He is then ahead of the ball as it is released and then the halfback gathers it. Of course the ball is behind him - just like the ball is behind the front row when channeled back in a scrum. I don't understand the bit about being ahead of - the last teammate to play the ball. The only other player to play the ball other than the tackled player is the halfback when he gathers it. And Brown is not ahead of the tackled player - he is over him. Not to say of course that many a player never goes way past the ball and engages a defender which is of course penalisable. But this is not the case in this example.

Try watching some rugby rather than trade tired and clichéd stereotypes.

Ah, fair enough. If you still have access to the replay, it was the tackle at 21:00.

You seem more excited that someone might have got one over Eddie than any concern for the game of rugby overall. I would not describe what Italy did as progress to be fair. I think you will find that World Rugby will agree. They are aware of this and had made an attempt to rectify it (i.e outlaw what Italy were able to legally do) with a trial law last year. You may not have liked what Eddie had to say but he argued a very good case and you can be absolutely sure World Rugby have taken note of what went down in this match. If we can take a lead from Chiefs Coach Dave Rennie's comments - Rennie sat on the Laws Review Group that considered this issue previously - then don't be surprised if this particular tactic is soon prevented by new law, probably post Lions tour of NZ.

Whatever way you interpret the whys and wherefores of this perfectly legal ''tactic'' and Eddie the Mouths' annoyance because of it, is the very simple fact that ''he didn't think of it first", Onya' Azzuri' and well planned and may it continue in the future! ~ In short The Mouth, got beaten to the draw!! Luv'it'! It shows that the rules and progress of the game does not rise and set with the prowess of the England team and their Mouth, somebody did something legally different and they did not like it, I hope the Irish do the same thing!