http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11940997

Our guys make about $1230 a tackle :)

Reiko Ioane has Mumps. Seriously!? In 2017 shouldn't even exist. Obviously wasn't immunised, don't even get me started on that.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/98723381/super-rugby-player-poaching-is-it-an-issue

Interesting article.

networkn:

 

Reiko Ioane has Mumps. Seriously!? In 2017 shouldn't even exist. Obviously wasn't immunised, don't even get me started on that.

 

 

 

That shouldn't surprise anyone, many people believe vaccines are evil, yes even today, and tomorrow it will still be true.

What interests me more is everyone is bleeding everywhere and they bear hug and human gang snap and all, and nobody worries about viral infectious transmissions.

networkn:

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/98723381/super-rugby-player-poaching-is-it-an-issue

 

Interesting article.

 

Yes, an interesting article. But if the article is designed to answer the poaching complaints then it needs to be more detail.

It doesn't even try to address the major difficulty of definition: understanding whether a player was "poached" or not.

What is the quality of the players "poached"? Who is getting the best?

Why did they change province? Rugby decisions are not the only factor.

Some have said they chose the team because that is where their favourite player or a relative played. Others for a particular course of study at university. For example, the twins Jack and Josh Goodhue were in Canterbury while both were at Lincoln University. But Josh is now back where he was brought up with Northland and the Blues whereas Jack, arguably the better player, is with the Crusaders. Was he "poached"?

Which team has developed their players better?

For example, ex-Auckland players have blossomed in other provinces. Vince Aso is now in Wellington where he may have moved to study at Victoria University. But he'd earlier played rugby league with the Warriors

Another patchy performance by the AB's. It's starting to wear a tad thin, though I don't recall a worse season in recent times for injuries. Poor Dane Coles. 

I am wondering if perhaps we have a fitness issue? We seem to only be able to put together maybe 50 Minutes of good Rugby right now. 

I cannot more strongly disagree with the penalty try decision. The Yellow was fine, but SBW was there, he got his hands to the ball first, no guarantee that the other player would have got his hands on the ball at all let alone scored with it. 

Yeah, that penalty try was complete BS. I'm actually really surprised Angus didn't try and overrule the TMO on that. I think he seemed surprised they were looking at it.  SBW must have just had a wee brain fade back to his league days haha. 

Really looking forward to seeing how the team goes for this next game. Don't remember a time when there were this many players on debut in the team. 

@networknz. A similar thing happened in a Ranfurly shield match between Manawatu and Auckland a few years back. Here's a link to the discussion

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-5747.html

And this from http://therugbyref.blogspot.co.nz

Yes, in evaluating a penalty try we use what many referees call the "Beam me up Scotty" approach. That is to say you not only remove the foul play from the equation, but also the player who committed it.

If the player who committed the foul play was suddenly "beamed up" and not on the field, would the player with the ball probably have scored?

Obviously you also need to take into account any other defenders and support players, as well as such things like distance from the try line.

If it was just one on one 10m out, and the defender high tackles the attacker, you remove the defender from the equation altogether and the result is that there is nothing to stop the attacker scoring a try, so Penalty Try.

So using this, the interpretation of the law was correct and the try was awarded correctly.

wratterus:

 

Yeah, that penalty try was complete BS. I'm actually really surprised Angus didn't try and overrule the TMO on that. I think he seemed surprised they were looking at it.  SBW must have just had a wee brain fade back to his league days haha. 

 

 

 

Really looking forward to seeing how the team goes for this next game. Don't remember a time when there were this many players on debut in the team. 

 

I felt AG had a very average game overall, to be honest. I really rate him generally, but I felt he didn't officiate well this particular game.

I am torn between excitement in seeing these new faces getting new challenges, and the cohesion obviously missing in the team as a result. 

I am still very concerned about how many penalties we are giving away, I think it's a big factor in giving away momentum. 

How do you guys think McKenzie went this game?

maoriboy:

 

@networknz. A similar thing happened in a Ranfurly shield match between Manawatu and Auckland a few years back. Here's a link to the discussion

 

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-5747.html

 

 

 

And this from http://therugbyref.blogspot.co.nz

 

Yes, in evaluating a penalty try we use what many referees call the "Beam me up Scotty" approach. That is to say you not only remove the foul play from the equation, but also the player who committed it.

If the player who committed the foul play was suddenly "beamed up" and not on the field, would the player with the ball probably have scored?

Obviously you also need to take into account any other defenders and support players, as well as such things like distance from the try line.

If it was just one on one 10m out, and the defender high tackles the attacker, you remove the defender from the equation altogether and the result is that there is nothing to stop the attacker scoring a try, so Penalty Try.

 

So using this, the interpretation of the law was correct and the try was awarded correctly.

 

 

 

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that, however, that is one of the most complete BS rules I've ever seen in any game bar none. Crazy. He was there. 

networkn:

 

I felt AG had a very average game overall, to be honest. I really rate him generally, but I felt he didn't officiate well this particular game.

 

I am torn between excitement in seeing these new faces getting new challenges, and the cohesion obviously missing in the team as a result. 

 

I am still very concerned about how many penalties we are giving away, I think it's a big factor in giving away momentum. 

 

How do you guys think McKenzie went this game?

 

Agree, wasn't one of his best, although the errors in general play from both teams didn't help with the stop-start nature of the game - must have been pretty greasy out there.

I thought McKenzie was pretty good on attack - there is no denying that he's amazing with ball in hand, but again I think lacked a little on defense. Ioane and him seem to combine really well out on that left wing. He's lucky that winger put his foot in touch. There was a little kick toward the end of the game that was totally aimless, but it wasn't just him who was guilty of that. 

Still don't think he belongs at fullback. 

Yeah, there was a try scored in the corner by the French I felt he should have done better for I think it was Ioane grabbed the second to last attacker but DM was trying to cover him. Instead of trusting the player would get his man and mark the last defender he stayed covering the second to last player and they scored. 

Easy to say here in my arm chair, but I think this is either a result of poor decision making or failure to understand the defensive job of a full back and a lot to do with the defenders not trusting each other to make the tackles. Maybe I am being a little harsh. I am sure others will have something to say.

Yeah, it's always easy when you're watching. I think the reason we are so critical in general is because the quality of play has definitely dropped on overall from what it was a few years ago. 

I agree re not trusting the inside defender. That was something you see at Mitre10 cup level or below. It looked to me like the inside defender had the attacking player covered easily. McKenzie probably should have been wider, and focusing just on the winger in that case, and more than likely would have been able to stop that try if he was wider. 

I will be interested to see how DM goes at 10. I suspect some of his running game will dry up, making him easier for defenders to target, and with what I consider continued average decision making, running the cutter seems on the face of it, to provide him with even more challenge. I hope he proves me wrong.