Courtney Lawes cited

[Keith]

But you're always mean.

And I love willies

Thank Christ you didn't accidentally put an apostrophe in that last word.

[sockwithaticket]

Anybody remember this one from Scarlets v Ospreys a few years back? The result was a scrum to the defending team. Attacker (Andy Fenby) was adjudged to have knocked on.

The defender (George Stowers) was subsequently cited, and cleared of any wrongdoing - as the panel believed that he was just trying to, in his words "dislodge the ball"

Frankly there's still a lot that goes unpunished when it comes to making high contact with try scorers. Every week of the Premiership someone seems to score despite a seatbelt tackle or worse, but because the try is scored it just gets ignored.

[Kid A]

Frankly there's still a lot that goes unpunished when it comes to making high contact with try scorers. Every week of the Premiership someone seems to score despite a seatbelt tackle or worse, but because the try is scored it just gets ignored.

That's a huge bugbear of mine. Yellow card infringements ignored because a try is scored.

[Crash_12]

Several English posters claimed a head butt, so it must have been.

No doubt it was high but as Parkes was pretty much travelling backwards the impact wasn’t huge, he also wraps both arms.

Compare that with Manu and Lawes’ tucked arm shoulder charges, there’s a big difference.

How about the off-the-ball shoulder charge on Lawes on the build up to Daly's try? Is that the same or somehow different?

Genuinely haven’t seen it. Post it up if you can.

[Da iawn diolch]

Brian Moore raised a pertinent point on his Telegraph podcast this week about the North situation. He asked the question: "How are you supposed to legally defend someone diving towards the tryline at knee-height?".

For me, the answer is that there isn't really a way to legally defend that, and that's fine. We've seen some legally dubious challenges in this situation, simply because (aside from lying underneath the ball carrier - really hard), it's not possible to safely tackle someone in this position.

This is another area where attitudes need to change. Once someone is diving towards the tryline, players' instincts shouldn't be to throw themselves at the head and shoulders of the player. If the opposition is in this position, then they should probably be scoring a try barring an illegal challenge.

I get where you're coming from, but if defenders are now expected to wave their opponents to the try line for fear of getting a red card, then the game is dead.

If they can't legally get under the ball or drag a foot into touch, waving through exactly what they should be doing.

This is the mentality that needs to change, and it certainly isn't going to "kill the game".

There were probably 100 opportunities to tackle the opposition in the play that led to the try. Removing the possibility of the last-ditch one being illegal doesn't ruin the game.

[JM2K6]

Exactly. The incredibly dangerous low percentage play is a real problem.

Still bitter about the shoulder charge on Shontayne Hape

[Da iawn diolch]

Anybody remember this one from Scarlets v Ospreys a few years back? The result was a scrum to the defending team. Attacker (Andy Fenby) was adjudged to have knocked on.

The defender (George Stowers) was subsequently cited, and cleared of any wrongdoing - as the panel believed that he was just trying to, in his words "dislodge the ball"

That's exactly what I'm referring to.

The defender was in no position to make a safe or legal tackle, and any attempt to do so would have been completely ignoring his duty of care to the ball carrier.

The intention of the Law is to stop players from doing stupid shit like that and causing head injuries.

It might not be intentional. It might not be malicious. But it's f**king stupid, and it needs to stop.

That should have been a red card and a ban.

[polyallstar]

Frankly there's still a lot that goes unpunished when it comes to making high contact with try scorers. Every week of the Premiership someone seems to score despite a seatbelt tackle or worse, but because the try is scored it just gets ignored.

That's a huge bugbear of mine. Yellow card infringements ignored because a try is scored.

Ken Owens on Saturday, high shot to Youngs head with force, penalty advantage then forgotten about as England scored 2 phases later

[Gwenno]

Anybody remember this one from Scarlets v Ospreys a few years back? The result was a scrum to the defending team. Attacker (Andy Fenby) was adjudged to have knocked on.

The defender (George Stowers) was subsequently cited, and cleared of any wrongdoing - as the panel believed that he was just trying to, in his words "dislodge the ball"

That's exactly what I'm referring to.

The defender was in no position to make a safe or legal tackle, and any attempt to do so would have been completely ignoring his duty of care to the ball carrier.

The intention of the Law is to stop players from doing stupid shit like that and causing head injuries.

It might not be intentional. It might not be malicious. But it's f**king stupid, and it needs to stop.

That should have been a red card and a ban.

I remember - I had high hopes for 'Fenby from Denbigh' (actually, somewhere else in the Gogledd) but they never materialised.

[Homer]

Brian Moore raised a pertinent point on his Telegraph podcast this week about the North situation. He asked the question: "How are you supposed to legally defend someone diving towards the tryline at knee-height?".

For me, the answer is that there isn't really a way to legally defend that, and that's fine. We've seen some legally dubious challenges in this situation, simply because (aside from lying underneath the ball carrier - really hard), it's not possible to safely tackle someone in this position.

This is another area where attitudes need to change. Once someone is diving towards the tryline, players' instincts shouldn't be to throw themselves at the head and shoulders of the player. If the opposition is in this position, then they should probably be scoring a try barring an illegal challenge.

I get where you're coming from, but if defenders are now expected to wave their opponents to the try line for fear of getting a red card, then the game is dead.

If they can't legally get under the ball or drag a foot into touch, waving through exactly what they should be doing.

This is the mentality that needs to change, and it certainly isn't going to "kill the game".

There were probably 100 opportunities to tackle the opposition in the play that led to the try. Removing the possibility of the last-ditch one being illegal doesn't ruin the game.

If the only option for stopping a try is an illegal tackle. then effectively a try has been scored. Cards and penalty restarts should be normal for reckless challenges, even if a try is scored.

[marcopolio]

The literal focus of my argument was that Courtney should have received a red.

I don't know how else I can make that clearer.

What other people did or didn't do does not change that end result. If someone else deserved a red card that doesn't invalidate the fact that so does Courtney.

I don't know how else I can make that clearer, either.

I felt people's arguments were along the lines of, Person B didn't get a red so neither should Person A. I just don't think that's a valid argument.

Isn't that part of the drama of sport?

Except Rugby more than many other sports is open to the interpretation of the referee, their application of their interpretation is crucial to the game flowing. So if Ref ignores an offence by Team A but penalises Team B for the same offence it has the potential to ruin the spectacle.

It was clear on Saturday that the ref was using the high tackle interpretations from about 5 years ago; Lawes, Owens, Parkes all should have seen cards long before Manu did. As well as a number of incidents that other refs would have reviewed he waved a hand in air and called play on (Williams clear out on Curry, Brown chop tackle on Sinkler for example), the tone for this was set in minute 1 when Biggar was smashed with little in the way of arms from the tackler(s) and then a minute later when Daly caught a highball before Halfpenny collided with him (and only him making no contact with the ball) in the air causing him to drop the ball and hit the deck hard.

I find it slightly disingenuous that players can be referred to one interpretation and then cited to another, and that's before we start arguing over the consistency of the citing commission...

And that was the massive frustration with the game on Saturday - the ref's interpretation and inconsistency spoiled the game as a spectacle for me. From minute 1 where Itoje is tackled off the ball by Moriarty after breaking through the lineout, to Biggar getting hammered with no arms and no way of protecting himself, the players realised that it was effectively a free for all.

Both teams taking players out well past the ruck and then holding down, players entering the ruck from wherever they want - both drag the game down. Combine this with the frankly appalling effort from the video ref's application and it was a woeful performance from the officiating team.


Couldn't agree more with the guys above as well - players getting dropped on after scoring, players getting shoulder charged in the act of scoring or a high shot in the build up to a try are ignored. Same as YC offences generally in the run up to a try.

[Bogbunny]

The literal focus of my argument was that Courtney should have received a red.

I don't know how else I can make that clearer.

What other people did or didn't do does not change that end result. If someone else deserved a red card that doesn't invalidate the fact that so does Courtney.

I don't know how else I can make that clearer, either.

I felt people's arguments were along the lines of, Person B didn't get a red so neither should Person A. I just don't think that's a valid argument.

Isn't that part of the drama of sport?

Except Rugby more than many other sports is open to the interpretation of the referee, their application of their interpretation is crucial to the game flowing. So if Ref ignores an offence by Team A but penalises Team B for the same offence it has the potential to ruin the spectacle.

It was clear on Saturday that the ref was using the high tackle interpretations from about 5 years ago; Lawes, Owens, Parkes all should have seen cards long before Manu did. As well as a number of incidents that other refs would have reviewed he waved a hand in air and called play on (Williams clear out on Curry, Brown chop tackle on Sinkler for example), the tone for this was set in minute 1 when Biggar was smashed with little in the way of arms from the tackler(s) and then a minute later when Daly caught a highball before Halfpenny collided with him (and only him making no contact with the ball) in the air causing him to drop the ball and hit the deck hard.

I find it slightly disingenuous that players can be referred to one interpretation and then cited to another, and that's before we start arguing over the consistency of the citing commission...

And that was the massive frustration with the game on Saturday - the ref's interpretation and inconsistency spoiled the game as a spectacle for me. From minute 1 where Itoje is tackled off the ball by Moriarty after breaking through the lineout, to Biggar getting hammered with no arms and no way of protecting himself, the players realised that it was effectively a free for all.

Both teams taking players out well past the ruck and then holding down, players entering the ruck from wherever they want - both drag the game down. Combine this with the frankly appalling effort from the video ref's application and it was a woeful performance from the officiating team.


Couldn't agree more with the guys above as well - players getting dropped on after scoring, players getting shoulder charged in the act of scoring or a high shot in the build up to a try are ignored. Same as YC offences generally in the run up to a try.

Some sense being written here, I must have logged into the wrong forum.

[Frodder]

Here's the Parkes one, if it hasn't been done. Just incase I get accused of only putting up opposition gifs again.

Penalty for sure. You could argue YC

Shoulder connects to head with force.

Come on fodder.

Edit - and there are angles where it looks worse

I'll have you cited for calling me fodder

[Joost]

The literal focus of my argument was that Courtney should have received a red.

I don't know how else I can make that clearer.

What other people did or didn't do does not change that end result. If someone else deserved a red card that doesn't invalidate the fact that so does Courtney.

I don't know how else I can make that clearer, either.

I felt people's arguments were along the lines of, Person B didn't get a red so neither should Person A. I just don't think that's a valid argument.

Isn't that part of the drama of sport?

Except Rugby more than many other sports is open to the interpretation of the referee, their application of their interpretation is crucial to the game flowing. So if Ref ignores an offence by Team A but penalises Team B for the same offence it has the potential to ruin the spectacle.

It was clear on Saturday that the ref was using the high tackle interpretations from about 5 years ago; Lawes, Owens, Parkes all should have seen cards long before Manu did. As well as a number of incidents that other refs would have reviewed he waved a hand in air and called play on (Williams clear out on Curry, Brown chop tackle on Sinkler for example), the tone for this was set in minute 1 when Biggar was smashed with little in the way of arms from the tackler(s) and then a minute later when Daly caught a highball before Halfpenny collided with him (and only him making no contact with the ball) in the air causing him to drop the ball and hit the deck hard.

I find it slightly disingenuous that players can be referred to one interpretation and then cited to another, and that's before we start arguing over the consistency of the citing commission...

And that was the massive frustration with the game on Saturday - the ref's interpretation and inconsistency spoiled the game as a spectacle for me. From minute 1 where Itoje is tackled off the ball by Moriarty after breaking through the lineout, to Biggar getting hammered with no arms and no way of protecting himself, the players realised that it was effectively a free for all.

Both teams taking players out well past the ruck and then holding down, players entering the ruck from wherever they want - both drag the game down. Combine this with the frankly appalling effort from the video ref's application and it was a woeful performance from the officiating team.


Couldn't agree more with the guys above as well - players getting dropped on after scoring, players getting shoulder charged in the act of scoring or a high shot in the build up to a try are ignored. Same as YC offences generally in the run up to a try.

Some sense being written here, I must have logged into the wrong forum.

Strangest thing for me is that, despite a fair bit of potentially dangerous foul play from both sides, the longest ban that will come out of this game is for a bit of sack fondling!

[message #2527204]

Here's the Parkes one, if it hasn't been done. Just incase I get accused of only putting up opposition gifs again.

Penalty for sure. You could argue YC

It's a headbutt with shoulder involved. He hits with that much force that he leaves the ground. Unbelievable that it was ignored.

[happyhooker]

Here's the Parkes one, if it hasn't been done. Just incase I get accused of only putting up opposition gifs again.

Penalty for sure. You could argue YC

Shoulder connects to head with force.

Come on fodder.

Edit - and there are angles where it looks worse

I'll have you cited for calling me fodder

You deserve it

[Da iawn diolch]

Brian Moore raised a pertinent point on his Telegraph podcast this week about the North situation. He asked the question: "How are you supposed to legally defend someone diving towards the tryline at knee-height?".

For me, the answer is that there isn't really a way to legally defend that, and that's fine. We've seen some legally dubious challenges in this situation, simply because (aside from lying underneath the ball carrier - really hard), it's not possible to safely tackle someone in this position.

This is another area where attitudes need to change. Once someone is diving towards the tryline, players' instincts shouldn't be to throw themselves at the head and shoulders of the player. If the opposition is in this position, then they should probably be scoring a try barring an illegal challenge.

I get where you're coming from, but if defenders are now expected to wave their opponents to the try line for fear of getting a red card, then the game is dead.

If they can't legally get under the ball or drag a foot into touch, waving through exactly what they should be doing.

This is the mentality that needs to change, and it certainly isn't going to "kill the game".

There were probably 100 opportunities to tackle the opposition in the play that led to the try. Removing the possibility of the last-ditch one being illegal doesn't ruin the game.

If the only option for stopping a try is an illegal tackle. then effectively a try has been scored. Cards and penalty restarts should be normal for reckless challenges, even if a try is scored.

The sooner than rugby's 'big hit' merchants get this through their dense skulls, the better the game will be for all.

The Lawes and Tuilagi 'arm tuck' hits from the weekend look like something straight out of NRL.

You'd hope that a seasoned international player would be smarter than that.

[4071]

Brian Moore raised a pertinent point on his Telegraph podcast this week about the North situation. He asked the question: "How are you supposed to legally defend someone diving towards the tryline at knee-height?".

For me, the answer is that there isn't really a way to legally defend that, and that's fine. We've seen some legally dubious challenges in this situation, simply because (aside from lying underneath the ball carrier - really hard), it's not possible to safely tackle someone in this position.

This is another area where attitudes need to change. Once someone is diving towards the tryline, players' instincts shouldn't be to throw themselves at the head and shoulders of the player. If the opposition is in this position, then they should probably be scoring a try barring an illegal challenge.

I get where you're coming from, but if defenders are now expected to wave their opponents to the try line for fear of getting a red card, then the game is dead.

If they can't legally get under the ball or drag a foot into touch, waving through exactly what they should be doing.

This is the mentality that needs to change, and it certainly isn't going to "kill the game".

There were probably 100 opportunities to tackle the opposition in the play that led to the try. Removing the possibility of the last-ditch one being illegal doesn't ruin the game.

If the only option for stopping a try is an illegal tackle. then effectively a try has been scored. Cards and penalty restarts should be normal for reckless challenges, even if a try is scored.

The sooner than rugby's 'big hit' merchants get this through their dense skulls, the better the game will be for all.

The Lawes and Tuilagi 'arm tuck' hits from the weekend look like something straight out of NRL.

You'd hope that a seasoned international player would be smarter than that.

Which - of course - remains the default tackle technique. There were plenty of others during the course of the match, because the standard way of making contact in the tackle is to lead hard with the shoulder and then wrap with the arm. When the tackled player moves in an unpredictable way, the tackler is often unable to complete the wrap. But that does not mean that the countless times they do complete a post-hit wrap that their technique is any less dangerous.

[message #2527204]

I get where you're coming from, but if defenders are now expected to wave their opponents to the try line for fear of getting a red card, then the game is dead.

If they can't legally get under the ball or drag a foot into touch, waving through exactly what they should be doing.

This is the mentality that needs to change, and it certainly isn't going to "kill the game".

There were probably 100 opportunities to tackle the opposition in the play that led to the try. Removing the possibility of the last-ditch one being illegal doesn't ruin the game.

If the only option for stopping a try is an illegal tackle. then effectively a try has been scored. Cards and penalty restarts should be normal for reckless challenges, even if a try is scored.

The sooner than rugby's 'big hit' merchants get this through their dense skulls, the better the game will be for all.

The Lawes and Tuilagi 'arm tuck' hits from the weekend look like something straight out of NRL.

You'd hope that a seasoned international player would be smarter than that.

Which - of course - remains the default tackle technique. There were plenty of others during the course of the match, because the standard way of making contact in the tackle is to lead hard with the shoulder and then wrap with the arm. When the tackled player moves in an unpredictable way, the tackler is often unable to complete the wrap. But that does not mean that the countless times they do complete a post-hit wrap that their technique is any less dangerous.

That's called a tackle isn't it?

You can tell that the Welsh lost again.....all the laws need changing.

[JM2K6]

4071 is very English. And usually correct, too.

[Kid A]

You can tell that the Welsh lost again.....all the laws need changing.

Hilarious. World Rugby literally changed the offside at ruck laws when Italy nearly beat England by not engaging with the ruck.

[Keith]

You can tell that the Welsh lost again.....all the laws need changing.

Hilarious. World Rugby literally changed the offside at ruck laws when Italy nearly beat England by not engaging with the ruck.

Define "nearly beat"

[JM2K6]

You can tell that the Welsh lost again.....all the laws need changing.

Hilarious. World Rugby literally changed the offside at ruck laws when Italy nearly beat England by not engaging with the ruck.

When did that happen? I hope you're not talking about the match where we thumped Italy 36-15. Nearly beat England

They changed it because the ref wasn't able to easily determine if enough contact was there to form a ruck, and because it looked ridiculous.

Now, if we're talking changing ruck laws because of one team, England got so good at coming through rucks and kicking the ball out that WR changed the laws on that.

[Crash_12]

Here's the Parkes one, if it hasn't been done. Just incase I get accused of only putting up opposition gifs again.

Penalty for sure. You could argue YC

It's a headbutt with shoulder involved. He hits with that much force that he leaves the ground. Unbelievable that it was ignored.

I will continue laughing at you until you cease this hyperbole.

I’m glad you’ve managed to row back a smidge, but it’s still absolutely not a head butt.

[Kid A]

You can tell that the Welsh lost again.....all the laws need changing.

Hilarious. World Rugby literally changed the offside at ruck laws when Italy nearly beat England by not engaging with the ruck.

When did that happen? I hope you're not talking about the match where we thumped Italy 36-15. Nearly beat England

They changed it because the ref wasn't able to easily determine if enough contact was there to form a ruck, and because it looked ridiculous.

.

Yes. The game that England were losing at half time....the one where the England coach had such a poody after the final whistle, that World Rugby changed the laws:

"Congratulations to Italy. I thought they were brilliant in the execution, but if that's rugby, I'm going to retire. That's not rugby." said Eddie Jones.

[msp.]

You can tell that the Welsh lost again.....all the laws need changing.

Hilarious. World Rugby literally changed the offside at ruck laws when Italy nearly beat England by not engaging with the ruck.

When did that happen? I hope you're not talking about the match where we thumped Italy 36-15. Nearly beat England

They changed it because the ref wasn't able to easily determine if enough contact was there to form a ruck, and because it looked ridiculous.

.

Yes. The game that England were losing at half time....the one where the England coach had such a poody after the final whistle, that World Rugby changed the laws:

"Congratulations to Italy. I thought they were brilliant in the execution, but if that's rugby, I'm going to retire. That's not rugby." said Eddie Jones.

Italy came up with a legal tactic that distrupted England and gave Italy the biggest chance of winning, it confused a lot of people including the England players.

Italy were leading 10-5 at half-time, it was only when England went in to the changing room at half time, that they changed tactic, and I would say the fact that world rugby changed the laws straight after has something to do with the pressure and fuss England made afterwards.

[blindcider]

You can tell that the Welsh lost again.....all the laws need changing.

Hilarious. World Rugby literally changed the offside at ruck laws when Italy nearly beat England by not engaging with the ruck.

When did that happen? I hope you're not talking about the match where we thumped Italy 36-15. Nearly beat England

They changed it because the ref wasn't able to easily determine if enough contact was there to form a ruck, and because it looked ridiculous.

.

Yes. The game that England were losing at half time....the one where the England coach had such a poody after the final whistle, that World Rugby changed the laws:

"Congratulations to Italy. I thought they were brilliant in the execution, but if that's rugby, I'm going to retire. That's not rugby." said Eddie Jones.

Italy came up with a legal tactic that distrupted England and gave Italy the biggest chance of winning, it confused a lot of people including the England players.

Italy were leading 10-5 at half-time, it was only when England went in to the changing room at half time, that they changed tactic, and I would say the fact that world rugby changed the laws straight after has something to do with the pressure and fuss England made afterwards.

Apart from your first sentence that post is quite frankly nonsense and trying to rewrite history.

[Kid A]

I would say the fact that world rugby changed the laws straight after has something to do with the pressure and fuss England made afterwards.

Yup

[JM2K6]

It’s far more to do with how it came across on tv, I’d say.

England had worked out the counter after 25 minutes, the referee took longer to adjust. It was a bizarre exploit of edge case stuff and it doesn’t matter who it was done to, once it was used as a primary tactic it was always going to get changed.

The fact that England strolled to victory is just the icing on the cake.

[AND-y]

Remember how the scrums laws just had to be (and were) changed after 30-3?

[inactionman]

Remember how the scrums laws just had to be (and were) changed after 30-3?

Ah, I remember that fiasco. Steve 'Walsh' Welsh handily demonstrated how the laws were far too subject to the interpretation of a complete clown. It was a painful thing to have to go through, but we got there in the end.

[msp.]

Italy came up with a legal tactic that distrupted England and gave Italy the biggest chance of winning, it confused a lot of people including the England players.

Italy were leading 10-5 at half-time, it was only when England went in to the changing room at half time, that they changed tactic, and I would say the fact that world rugby changed the laws straight after has something to do with the pressure and fuss England made afterwards.

Apart from your first sentence that post is quite frankly nonsense and trying to rewrite history.

Given that you agree with my first sentence which which part is nonsense?

Italy were leading 10-5 at half-time, - Check it documented truth https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39067728.

England came out after half time and started to score ?? after stuttering with the Italian tactic for the first half..

Did England not make s fuss about the laws and were they not change a few months afterwards??

[inactionman]

It’s far more to do with how it came across on tv, I’d say.

England had worked out the counter after 25 minutes, the referee took longer to adjust. It was a bizarre exploit of edge case stuff and it doesn’t matter who it was done to, once it was used as a primary tactic it was always going to get changed.

The fact that England strolled to victory is just the icing on the cake.

I think the issue was the complete bemusement of all concerned and the refusal of the ref to explain his thinking - 'I'm not a coach' despite every single ref doing nothing but coaching at the breakdown for the last decade. If he'd just adopted the actual fact that two people in contact over the ball constitute a ruck we'd have been OK. Or explain why he thought otherwise. He did neither.

[Yer Man]

Italy came up with a legal tactic that distrupted England and gave Italy the biggest chance of winning, it confused a lot of people including the England players.

Italy were leading 10-5 at half-time, it was only when England went in to the changing room at half time, that they changed tactic, and I would say the fact that world rugby changed the laws straight after has something to do with the pressure and fuss England made afterwards.

Ironically, the change to the laws cost England victory over the ABs in November.
By changing how they drew the off-side line at ruck time, Lawes was deemed off-side when he charged down the kick that should have led to the Underhill try.

[wsurfa]

Here's the Parkes one, if it hasn't been done. Just incase I get accused of only putting up opposition gifs again.

Is that the one that ended with Manu's ear bleeding? Pity there's not a clearer angle to see if there was shoulder/head contact as the initial point

[Keith]

Here's the Parkes one, if it hasn't been done. Just incase I get accused of only putting up opposition gifs again.

Is that the one that ended with Manu's ear bleeding? Pity there's not a clearer angle to see if there was shoulder/head contact as the initial point

Ear?

[wsurfa]

Here's the Parkes one, if it hasn't been done. Just incase I get accused of only putting up opposition gifs again.

Is that the one that ended with Manu's ear bleeding? Pity there's not a clearer angle to see if there was shoulder/head contact as the initial point

Ear?

I remember (vaguely due to beer) Manu getting up head already bandaged from a cut to forehead, and blood dripping from his ear. Wondered if it was this one

[message #2527204]

Italy came up with a legal tactic that distrupted England and gave Italy the biggest chance of winning, it confused a lot of people including the England players.

Italy were leading 10-5 at half-time, it was only when England went in to the changing room at half time, that they changed tactic, and I would say the fact that world rugby changed the laws straight after has something to do with the pressure and fuss England made afterwards.

Apart from your first sentence that post is quite frankly nonsense and trying to rewrite history.

Given that you agree with my first sentence which which part is nonsense?

Italy were leading 10-5 at half-time, - Check it documented truth https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39067728.

England came out after half time and started to score ?? after stuttering with the Italian tactic for the first half..

Did England not make s fuss about the laws and were they not change a few months afterwards??

Splendid Whataboutery.

Fact is that shit laws were correctly changed.

But Wales lose, and start blubbing that the whole law book needs revision. Regular as clockwork.

[JM2K6]

Italy came up with a legal tactic that distrupted England and gave Italy the biggest chance of winning, it confused a lot of people including the England players.

Italy were leading 10-5 at half-time, it was only when England went in to the changing room at half time, that they changed tactic, and I would say the fact that world rugby changed the laws straight after has something to do with the pressure and fuss England made afterwards.

Apart from your first sentence that post is quite frankly nonsense and trying to rewrite history.

Given that you agree with my first sentence which which part is nonsense?

Italy were leading 10-5 at half-time, - Check it documented truth https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39067728.

England came out after half time and started to score ?? after stuttering with the Italian tactic for the first half..

Did England not make s fuss about the laws and were they not change a few months afterwards??

England fairly obviously changed their approach about halfway through the first half. They didn't score much because they kept playing like twats and throwing poor passes / dropping the fucking ball.

Eddie came out afterwards and said he thought it was ridiculous. He wasn't wrong. WR agreed, it was ridiculous, it looked shit, it was farcical, and it was too difficult for the ref to decide what constituted a ruck or not which is kinda important for the core part of the game.

Muppets continue to blame England for the law change, rather than the team exploiting an edge case, despite England's big win.

[hermie]

Jesus Christ, has there been a game in the past 10 years where the English haven't been done over by the referee?