england

[westwaleswasp]

One of the biggest black marks of Lancaster era was Tuilagi on the wing. There is more to being a winger than what he brings. Eddie simply fails to understand the value of quality wing play and always has, often ignoring quality on the wing. It is really simple, play your wingers on the wing, and stop using it as a luxury slot to squeeze in players you want.
I hope Engjand win, but if they do beat the team vanquished by Scotland it home it won't be vindication  for Eddie.

[mike909]

Mike...
My memory may be playing tricks on me, but didn't Cipriani turn a backline including Wigglesworth and Jamie Noon into an attacking force to be feared?


It's possible that the addition of Smith can do the same with Youngs and Farrell.... And we have the advantage of knowing that Youngs does have an attacking game to him, even if it is often neutered

That might be 2008 6Ns vs Ireland........winning 33-10. Noon scored.....

He is more than capable - my first thought was that Ford could do the same job and has lots of experience - but seems to have been neutered too often by the team plan and selection

I really want England to look towards the RWC 23, but this selection is the 2020 6N pack with a narrow look with Lawes at 6 and another bizarre Manu selection out of position. The result today doesn't mean that much, it's a small step but a necessary one, after the player and coaching failures of last 6Ns. This is the first competitive game since Dublin - where England were out thought and lost to 14 men.....

I don't think if Watson and Daly were fit, much would have changed at all. Smith is obviously a talent - but again - this is his first real game for England, there are too many expectations and he is used to playing in a v different way from England recently.....But if England are to have a FH who can play, as opposed to kick, then Smith or Ford need to be on the team sheet and I'm not sure Farrell is a good fit at 12 any more.

But if the pack fails to adapt to the way the game has changed since the RWC 19, then I think we'll be in some difficult places come the 6Ns. And sooner than that, vs SA....

[Nigel Med]

After a bright first quarter against Australia I thought England looked pretty dire. They reverted to the tired old hoof the ball and chase which was totally ineffective in the last Six Nations and landed us in a deserved 5th place. South Africa will not be losing any sleep watching the match back, they are unlikely to concede as many penalties, turn-overs or make as many mistakes as Australia. You can certainly argue that England pressured them into many of those mistakes and penalties but the Boks will soak up that pressure relatively easily.

The scoreline flattered England, how Blamire's try was allowed to stand is a total mystery to me. He was clearly in front of the ball carrier therefore offside when Simmonds scooped up the loose ball but he made no attempt to get onside or even wait for Simmonds to put him onside but immediately set off for the Australian line so he could receive the pass at pace when Simmonds went ahead of him. Bizarre.

[Raggs]

The scoreline flattered England, how Blamire's try was allowed to stand is a total mystery to me. He was clearly in front of the ball carrier therefore offside when Simmonds scooped up the loose ball but he made no attempt to get onside or even wait for Simmonds to put him onside but immediately set off for the Australian line so he could receive the pass at pace when Simmonds went ahead of him. Bizarre.

How was Blamire offside?

[Nigel Med]

The scoreline flattered England, how Blamire's try was allowed to stand is a total mystery to me. He was clearly in front of the ball carrier therefore offside when Simmonds scooped up the loose ball but he made no attempt to get onside or even wait for Simmonds to put him onside but immediately set off for the Australian line so he could receive the pass at pace when Simmonds went ahead of him. Bizarre.

How was Blamire offside?

Simmonds ripped the ball from an Australian player and headed down the wing. At that moment Blamire was around 15m in front of him. If you're in front of the ball carrier on your team you are offside. You are obliged to either put yourself onside by retreating behind the ball carrier or wait until the ball carrier has passed you and put you onside. Blamire did neither, as soon as he saw Simmonds heading towards him he set off towards the Aussie line even though he was in front of him. Simmonds then goes past him, draws a defender and passes to Blamire who scores but he was only in position to collect the pass by virtue of having been offside therefore the try should not have stood. Had he stood still until Simmonds past him it would have been fine but of course he'd have to accelerate from a standing start to catch Simmonds up to receive the pass. Unlikely.

[DGP Wasp]

The scoreline flattered England, how Blamire's try was allowed to stand is a total mystery to me. He was clearly in front of the ball carrier therefore offside when Simmonds scooped up the loose ball but he made no attempt to get onside or even wait for Simmonds to put him onside but immediately set off for the Australian line so he could receive the pass at pace when Simmonds went ahead of him. Bizarre.

How was Blamire offside?

He wasn't.  Open play.  And Simmonds didn't kick ahead.

[Raggs]

The scoreline flattered England, how Blamire's try was allowed to stand is a total mystery to me. He was clearly in front of the ball carrier therefore offside when Simmonds scooped up the loose ball but he made no attempt to get onside or even wait for Simmonds to put him onside but immediately set off for the Australian line so he could receive the pass at pace when Simmonds went ahead of him. Bizarre.

How was Blamire offside?

Simmonds ripped the ball from an Australian player and headed down the wing. At that moment Blamire was around 15m in front of him. If you're in front of the ball carrier on your team you are offside. You are obliged to either put yourself onside by retreating behind the ball carrier or wait until the ball carrier has passed you and put you onside. Blamire did neither, as soon as he saw Simmonds heading towards him he set off towards the Aussie line even though he was in front of him. Simmonds then goes past him, draws a defender and passes to Blamire who scores but he was only in position to collect the pass by virtue of having been offside therefore the try should not have stood. Had he stood still until Simmonds past him it would have been fine but of course he'd have to accelerate from a standing start to catch Simmonds up to receive the pass. Unlikely.

He's not allowed to interfere with play until put onside, which he didn't. Going by the law book, he's not allowed to move forwards towards the ball, technically by moving forwards he was running away from the ball.

If that is how the game was reffed, then any good 7 or 9 of an attacking side would spend 90% of their time offside and moving forwards, as they run optimistic lines from ruck to ruck.

[Nigel Med]

If you're in an offside position it may be ignored if you make no material impact on play. Law 10.1 "...An offside player must not interfere with play. This includes a. playing the ball" Did his offside position have an impact on (interfere with) play? Yes, he put himself in a position to receive a pass to go on and score. As I mentioned, he would not have been able to receive that pass in that position had he retreated or waited to be put onside. The "moving towards the ball" applies to a player who is offside when a team mate kicks ahead.

It's highly likely that I'm being thick but I don't understand your point about attacking sides moving forward running optimistic lines from ruck to ruck, are you saying players are doing that in front of the ball carrier? The only time you see players moving forward in front of the ball is dummy runners when a ball is passed out of a breakdown position and if they happen to block an opponent who might have made a tackle (i.e. they interfere with play) they will certainly be penalised.

[Raggs]

If you're in an offside position it may be ignored if you make no material impact on play. Law 10.1 "...An offside player must not interfere with play. This includes a. playing the ball" Did his offside position have an impact on (interfere with) play? Yes, he put himself in a position to receive a pass to go on and score. As I mentioned, he would not have been able to receive that pass in that position had he retreated or waited to be put onside. The "moving towards the ball" applies to a player who is offside when a team mate kicks ahead.

It's highly likely that I'm being thick but I don't understand your point about attacking sides moving forward running optimistic lines from ruck to ruck, are you saying players are doing that in front of the ball carrier? The only time you see players moving forward in front of the ball is dummy runners when a ball is passed out of a breakdown position and if they happen to block an opponent who might have made a tackle (i.e. they interfere with play) they will certainly be penalised.

He was onside when he played the ball. Simmonds had overtaken him.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/10

There's the laws. I agree that he's offside because he's in front of the carrier. He does not have an impact on play whilst he's in front of the carrier, he only impacts it once he's behind the carrier.

He's not allowed to run forwards towards the ball. The laws don't clarify if that's for kicks or not, either way, it doesn't apply to him, as he's not running towards the ball. That's 10.4b.

The next section does explicitly mention a kicked ball, when it talks about retiring immediately. But the ball wasn't kicked, so he doesn't need to.

As for my point about optimistic lines.

An optimistic scrum half is one that see's the upcoming play after he's passed to his 10 (thus the 9 is now offside, as he's in front of the 10), and he will run forwards and across, staying in front of the play for the majority of it, waiting/expecting a break, when he'll align with the ruck.

You can see Robson doing it a lot, you can see the ABs scrum halves doing it most the time. It saves time and effort on their part, and it also means they're in a better position to support a break. However, they are offside, but as long as they don't interfere with play until onside again, they're fine.

[Bloke in North Dorset]

There's the laws. I agree that he's offside because he's in front of the carrier. He does not have an impact on play whilst he's in front of the carrier, he only impacts it once he's behind the carrier.

As Bill Shankly said, if he's not interfering in play what's he doing on the park?

OK, that's a bit tongue-in-cheek and, TBF, I mostly I agree with you, but in this case he's running a line knowing that it will put him in a better position to receive a potentially try scoring pass. As such the defence has to think about him as an immediate threat and provide cover. If he had to run back or at least stop that removes the immediate threat.

That said, I think it would be pedantic beyond belief for any ref to blow up for it.

[Nigel Med]

Let me give you another example. A ruck has formed and a defending player is isolated beyond his team behind the 9 of the opposition who are in possession. He stands there, raises his hands to acknowledge being out of position but making no attempt to get back onside, however not "interfering with play". The 9 passes to the 10, the ball is out of the ruck and the previously offside player is now onside, he clatters the 10 and turns over the ball. Any half decent referee will ping him, the call is usually "Never onside". By your argument he should not be penalised because he didn't affect play while he was offside and was onside when he made the tackle! He gained a clear advantage by virtue of being in an offside position and therefore the penalty is correct.

Blamire was offside and gained a clear advantage by putting himself in position to receive a try scoring pass. Of course he was onside when he received the pass, he was onside the moment Simmonds went past, but had he waited until Simmonds had passed him before heading towards the Aussie try line which would have made it legal he would have had to accelerate from a standing start to catch Simmonds who is no slouch. I don't want to do Jamie Blamire a disservice, I'm sure he's a very fit lad but he would have had to shift his 17+ stone frame to catch one of the quickest No8 in England. I have serious doubts he would have been in the same position to receive that pass so he gained an advantage illegally.

These days they check the minutest detail when a try is scored in an international match and I was surprised that they didn't look at Blamire's score. Yes it's pedantic and it didn't affect the result, England were going to win the match but as per my original post, the scoreline flattered England.

[Raggs]

Let me give you another example. A ruck has formed and a defending player is isolated beyond his team behind the 9 of the opposition who are in possession. He stands there, raises his hands to acknowledge being out of position but making no attempt to get back onside, however not "interfering with play". The 9 passes to the 10, the ball is out of the ruck and the previously offside player is now onside, he clatters the 10 and turns over the ball. Any half decent referee will ping him, the call is usually "Never onside". By your argument he should not be penalised because he didn't affect play while he was offside and was onside when he made the tackle! He gained a clear advantage by virtue of being in an offside position and therefore the penalty is correct.

This isn't my argument. My argument is the laws. The laws have clear examples for offside at the ruck. There was no ruck to put Blamire offside, and he's on the attacking team and not the defending. It's an unrelated example.

Blamire was offside and gained a clear advantage by putting himself in position to receive a try scoring pass. Of course he was onside when he received the pass, he was onside the moment Simmonds went past, but had he waited until Simmonds had passed him before heading towards the Aussie try line which would have made it legal he would have had to accelerate from a standing start to catch Simmonds who is no slouch. I don't want to do Jamie Blamire a disservice, I'm sure he's a very fit lad but he would have had to shift his 17+ stone frame to catch one of the quickest No8 in England. I have serious doubts he would have been in the same position to receive that pass so he gained an advantage illegally.

Where in the laws does it say he needs to retire? It doesn't. His actions were not illegal.

These days they check the minutest detail when a try is scored in an international match and I was surprised that they didn't look at Blamire's score. Yes it's pedantic and it didn't affect the result, England were going to win the match but as per my original post, the scoreline flattered England.

It's not pedantic, it's not a minute detail, he simply didn't do anything wrong. Otherwise, as stated, a lot of scrum halves would be penalised a lot of the time. He's allowed to run that line, and whilst the defence need to consider him, he's not interfering with play (at least until he's onside again). Again, watch any scrum half of an attack minded team, and you will see them running optimistic lines despite being in front of the ball. This isn't some peculiarity that was missed by the refereeing team because it's obscure, it's something that happens very frequently, just not so obviously in open play.

[Rossm]

I just remember thinking that it didn't look 'right' at the time. I expected it to be pulled back and disallowed. Hey, but I'm an ex front row forward, what do I know about the laws?