Search results

You reckon? Judge for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1MdtPHhOhdM&t=3467 It looks deliberate to me. What offence is committed by the Chiefs there? The scrum only disintegrated after it went around past 90.

I agree with this. The Brumbies had good solid ball that they could have launched an attack off. Instead they chose to twist the scrum hoping to con the ref into a penalty. Twisting the scrum is perfectly legal but you have to use it before it gets to the 90. They didn't, even after CJ...

Aaron Smith would be the one to lead the Haka I'd imagine. Maybe Messam, but I still have my doubts that he is a long term All Black 6.

Although I'd generally been impressed by White this season, he was utter pants last night. Dunno enough about the other contenders to know if he is still the number 2, but if so I reckon Genia is gonna have to play a lot of 80 minute tests this season. That ginga kid from Melbourne looked...

Yep. If there isn't any protection from one of your players over the ball then you wouldn't have a ruck, you'd have a tackle, and you can play anyone near to the ball at a tackle.

He said that the halfback had picked up the ball so he was fair game for anyone who was either onside or part of the ruck at the moment the ball was picked up. I think we were more speaking theoretically than of that particular instance - at least I was. There is no specific law that says you...

You can't tackle a player without the ball. You can however; a) Play a player near the ball at a tackle (before a ruck has formed) b) Join a ruck and so play any player who is part of a ruck (after a ruck is formed) What you cannot do, is once a ruck has formed, play a player who is not...

The possession one shouldn't be a surprise anymore. Possession stats haven't been a reliable indicator of the likely result for years. Some teams are very good at using the ball they get and score or go close to scoring quickly after receiving it. Other teams hold onto the ball for long...

Good points. I would also question the premise that this issue is worst in SA. Over here we can't hold onto our players either, and it doesn't have much to do with the number of teams available. Players that know they aren't going to make the AB's go off to make the big bucks, and even the...

It is unlikely to happen this week I would have thought. About the only way I could see it happening would be if the Brumbies and the Bulls all tested positive for PED's and so the Cheetahs went through by default.

I don't agree with all the pessimism about the lower ranked teams' chances. The Cheetahs were within a kick of beating the Brumbies, the Crusaders started as favourites against the Chiefs and were again within a kick of winning, whilst the Brumbies actually beat the Bulls. The balance between...

I agree with that, it's just that one of the contributors was making the argument based upon depth, and so we were shooting him down with some choice stats. I tend to think that whatever the economic arguments, the performance on the park should veto SA getting an extra team compared to the...

I don't want to mischaracterize your argument, but are you suggesting that because adding a team 7 years ago improved your results then adding another team will also improve your results by a similar amount?

I get the impression that they don't feel loved within the larger franchises. Those three provinces are pretty strong rugby provinces and they suffer because the fans don't really identify with their franchise. In any case, I'm not really arguing for a 6th NZ team, just pointing out that...

Pretty weak sophistry. At the end of the day, on any objective scale there is no way anyone could claim that SA deserves another team because of their better player depth than NZ and AUS. The player depth argument is a busted flush. There hasn't been an NZ winner of the Wooden Spoonsince...

I agree to an extent, though I would point out that regular season games are about a third of this cost - and certain games even cheaper - so it is not beyond most people to get to a game if they want. A team can't expect to host a final all that often, so perhaps best to cash in when the sun...

25,800 according to Wiki, though I understand they add another 5k for big test matches with temporary seating.

Not certain I'm afraid. The prices they are charging are just a bit steep for the average punter to afford these days. Even $40 to stand behind the goal posts or $52 for a low down seat on the 22m is unfortunately beyond many people at the moment...

Perhaps to Australian ears, though it is broadly equivalent to calling the Waratahs, the Sydney Waratahs or the Reds the Brisbane Reds.

Does this result just indicate that the Reds were really dire last week? Also, a small nitpick. At the top of the page there is a poll for which team will win between the Waikato Chiefs and the Canterbury Crusaders. The provincial names haven't been used for over a decade, and for good...