Italy frustrated England with a no-ruck tactic, nicknamed ‘the fox’, on Sunday. It involved the Italian players refusing to engage at the tackle and form a ruck, which meant there was no offside line and they could stand in the English backline, challenging the half backs.
It would have been even more effective had not a clarification been issued to referees during the week on ‘the spirit of the rules’; this now meant that when executing this ploy the Italians could not touch the scrum half.
As disruptive as it was for England, especially in the first half, imagine the carnage if they had been able to tackle Danny Care…
The tactics received condemnation from a number of ex-players and pundits – not to mention from the crowd during the match – with figures such as Matt Dawson saying Conor O’Shea killed the match.
Well done Italy on ruining this international. Now World Rugby have to change the laws because of your inability to compete at this level. ?
— Matt Dawson (@matt9dawson) February 26, 2017
Eddie Jones was particularly critical in his post-match press conference – he said his England team should go and train later because they hadn’t had a game. He liked the tactic to Trevor Chappell bowling underarm in cricket and suggested Edoardo Gori should have got man-of-the-match because of his ‘outstanding defence’. It got to the point where he was essentially refusing to answer questions on the match as there had been ‘no rugby’.
Disrespect
I am a huge fan of Eddie Jones but for me this crossed the line into disrespect. Winning graciously is expected of everyone in rugby. This smacked of a bruised ego as England and Jones had been momentarily outsmarted – let’s not forget they still scored six tries and secured a bonus point.
In my view, Italy’s tactics, and the coaching team of Conor O’Shea, Brenda Venter, Mike Catt deserve praise and respect.
For the past few weeks, everyone has been calling for Italy to be relegated. They apparently do not belong with the other tier-one teams in the Six Nations and Georgia should have their place instead. Now I can understand Conor O’Shea’s frustration at everyone ‘having a pop’ at Italy, however, in the past few seasons they have done little to justify their inclusion.
Italy can’t be normal
At the same time, they certainly should not have to just turn up and roll over; to just take the thrashing everyone expected them to receive. They had to do something. When Eddie Jones was with Japan, he utilised his tactical genius to unpick the Springboks with a gameplan very different to that which all the other top sides had been using, causing one of the great upsets of all time. This was no different, albeit less successful.
The Italian side has been treated with a measure of disdain. As Conor O’shea said in the press conference, ‘Jones, what he said, was that respect? He wanted 70 points. I loved it when England kicked for goal [toward the end of the game]. Because that showed respect’.
He went on, ‘we can’t be normal. We are Italy. Rugby is there to do things different and challenge people’s minds’.
Well this certainly challenged people’s minds. And the England player’s minds more than most. It was a shrewd tactic which disrupted and upset the second ranked team in the world. It has been used before but this was the first time we have seen it utilised in this way. However, that does not make it bad. In the BBC rugby podcast this week, Ugo Monye likened it to first time he encountered the ‘blitz defence’ and said ‘what the hell is this? Why aren’t they drifting’. Tactical evolution is part and parcel of the game. It should be encouraged not condemmed.
I also do not agree with Sir Clive Woodward that for all its brilliance in that match, the tactic should now be banned. Sides will work out how to play against it. It was an isolated incident and we only need to revisit the issue if it becomes a widespread problem and really does impact the enjoyment of the game.
Adapting under pressure
The most worrying aspect for me has nothing to do with ‘the fox’ itself, rather how long it took England to adapt. They looked utterly dumfounded in the first half. Admittedly so did everyone in the Twickenham crowd, but after a while it clicked what was going on. Then we couldn’t understand why they didn’t change their approach. Even the steward next to me was muttering ‘for God sake, just stick it up your jumper lads. Route one, route one’.
Of course, it is very different trying to adapt in the heat of battle, so to speak, but these are professionals. We can all joke about Joe Marler’s comments which were picked up by the ref mic at the end:
Romain Poite's mic is still on and Joe Marler's just said: "I don't know the laws as it is mate…fair play to 'em." Outstanding.
— Charlie Morgan (@CharlieFelix) February 26, 2017
But there was a grain of truth in there which made it all slightly uncomfortable.
More than anything, we have to recognise the size of task ahead for O’shea; rejuvenating a national rugby side in a country which doesn’t even love the game. Attempting to coax young Italian athletes to forgo their dreams of being football players and running out for Juventus or Inter Milan is challenging enough without the world turning their noses up and crying ‘cheat’ when the Italian side does something noteworthy, inspired and downright courageous.
That is why we should be celebrating Conor O’Shea, Brendan Venter, Mike Catt and the Italian players.
What did you think of Italy’s tactics?
By Henry Ker
Best comment is to read/watch this. http://www.the42.ie/italy-tackle-only-england-france-ireland-owens-3261610-Feb2017/
Seriously good and thorough article, this.
Superb analysis, not the first time that this lot have outshone the rest. I have downloaded their app.
My only quibble is that they are too kind to Angus Gardner. He was simply wrong, as he often is.
Excellent analysis, thanks for posting that link Roy
Good article by Matt.I think if Eddie Jones had worked this Oracle with Japan he would have been boasting about it!! Rugby needs to have innovations like this (although technichally within the laws )and of course a centre catching and scoring in a line out certainly adds to our “innovations”.Bring it on!!
If this type play persists in other games you will see empty seats.although on the face of it looks like Italy were very clever what happens if they use the no tackle rule the games in big trouble .
Good article by Matt.I think if Eddie Jones had worked this Oracle with Japan he would have been boasting about it!! Rugby needs to have innovations like this (although technichally within the laws )and of course a centre catching and scoring in a line out certainly adds to our “innovations”.Bring it on!!
Good article by Matt.I think if Eddie Jones had worked this Oracle with Japan he would have been boasting about it!! Rugby needs to have innovations like this (although technichally within the laws )and of course a centre catching and scoring in a line out certainly adds to our “innovations”.Bring it on!!
My issue wasn’t the tactic itself but the officiating.
It’s been well noted how Pocock countered the tactic in a Super Rugby match by grabbing a Chiefs player and so making him part of the ruck suddenly making all the defence offside.
When Launchbury tried to use the exact same technique, Poite informed him the defending player must enter the ruck by himself.
this interpretation by different refs is not fair on the players, its not doubt that Hask etc were having to clarify the rules.
I almost think that if the ref clarifies a rule to one team (as O’Shea did with Poite) he has to the same with the other team. Or alternatively, both parties have to be present at any meetings with the ref. it might ruin any surprise tactics, but at least allows a level playing field on rule definitions.
Agree with this Henno. There is nothing in the laws that says that a player has to enter the ruck of his own volition. I also think that Poite had agreed to the use of the tactic without giving any consideration to how difficult it would be to officiate. He was very inconsistent and seemed to revel in the confusion that his decisions caused.
Exactly; the law doesn’t mention anything along the lines of intent, merely that there must be contact between two opposing players.
Absolutely excellent article, Henry. Very well articulated.
The only things I’d add would be that rugby is a complex, tactical game. The more variety we see, the better. Italy used coaching nous and players listening and effecting the game plan to put them in the position they were in with ten to go. That is perfectly valid. It’s not just about fitness, or handling, or size, or tactics. It’s about the right combination of these things on the day. Italy found the right levels for most of the game, but England (eventually) proved themselves the better team. Oddly, I found it a very enjoyable game.
The problem for me is that all this has done imo is highlight how uncompetitive Italy are at this level. They’ve essentially admitted that they can’t compete and have to resort to these tactics to keep things closer and they still lost by 21 points!
I’d disagree with that for a couple of reasons. Firstly, any tactic or means that are used to give your side the best chance of victory are perfectly legitimate. When NZ won the World Cup final in 2011, they picking and driving in the middle of the park for long parts into he middle of the game. Leicester’s period of dominance came through playing a simple and effective game plan; it hardly set the world alight. It’s all about how players implement game plans and react to what’s going on on the pitch. Is that not the job of players? Italy did that well on Sunday for 60 minutes, and also against Wales for 40 minutes.
That brings me to the second point. They can be competitive at this level. They have 2 main problems. concentration levels are diabolical. There is always a period (usually in the second half) where they switch off and leak points. The other is having enough game-breakers. The former is a problem I don’t know how to solve. The latter will come with higher player numbers and a better infrastructure. Also, by enough players plying their trade abroad and learning, like Campagnaro, whilst using Treviso and Zebre to blood youngsters. Rugby is catching on in Italy and more of the population are becoming aware of it and interested by it as the appetite for football wanes slightly. The problem is that it’s happening too slowly. I’m convinced if they had continued their application for the 2023 WC, it would have caught on in a big way. Missed opportunity………….
I do agree with a lot of what you say, my use of the word resort was poor, obviously from a tactical point of view it was brilliant for them for 60 mins but I still think it shows how far behind everyone else they are.
I also think employing this sort of thing is looking very short term. It’ll only work for a small amount of time before it’s sussed out and then they’re back to square one. O’Shea really has an opportunity to help develop the game in that country and I feel he should be concentrating on improving the overall skills and game management, rather than concentrating on novel tactics that are ultimately futile if you’re basics aren’t good enough to back them up.
I really wanted Italy to host that World cup, it would have done wonders for the game there!
I agree that he definitely needs to be focussed on improving Italy’s overall play. I’m sure he won’t be doing it again, but each match has to be looked at individually. In this one, he got to see how his players coped with implementing a tactic which requires a lot of restraint and good coordination with each other (mostly very well), whilst seeing what they could do against a very good defence with a lot more ball and territory than normal (not as much as he’d have liked). He now knows what they need to work on. He also knows he needs more players like Campagnaro and a goal kicker who is reliable.
It was a real shame they decided not to. I thought they were the logical choice to host it, if they’d gone through with it.
The only problem I have with the tactic is that it should have been used in the second half. Italy are normally still in it in the first half, imagine the chaos if they had applied it in the second half only. All the bleating about it just makes it even better, especially the Matt Dawson meltdown.
Part of the reason it was used in the first half is because O’shea was targeting Care who from his days with Quins he thought wouldn’t be able to adapt to it.
I take a bit of issue with the comment about people calling for ‘Italy to be relegated and Georgia to be promoted in their place’.
I for one am for relegation and promotion for the good of the game, that being said I for one haven’t specifically targeted Italy just, that by sense, it should be the team that finishes bottom of the 6 nations, not always Italy, sometimes Scotland and other teams in the past.
A straight up/down approach may not work but a two legged playoff perhaps.
It may not give the winner of the B competition the leg up to the top tier but at least it gives them top class opposition.
Totally agree with this idea.
I also think the top tier nations should stop focusing so much on playing each other and have at least one or two games against the smaller nations. Perhaps have the Saxons play against Romania, Russia, Namibia etc instead of the wolfhounds or Australia A etc
Jones of the S Times reckoned it was a good wheeze by Italy.
If everyone did this it would surely kill the game, or would it? Up the jumper & R1 would have counteracted the ‘Fox’ as, after all, isn’t this stuff of England’s bread & butter?
Hartley, Marler, Haskell or the captain in waiting, Farrell, didn’t have a clue about this ‘ruck’ rule. And Eddie didn’t do his homework, so, like Dawson, he shot the messenger to cover up his having egg on his face.
Hands up, I didn’t know this 1 either, but my get out is, I ain’t a player or a coach.
Better watch out, or next thing teams will decline to engage @ the line out as well!