Search results

Well I'm more inclined to rely on the stats done by a University research associate who has been producing them since 2003 and whose work is used by TV, Radio and newspaper media in NZ, than an American sports website but hey that's just me

More comprehensive AB stats here http://www.haka.co.nz/allblacks.php

You're onto it Bullrush - Tracey Nelson's Stats are the best around. How anyone can do 5 carries for 3 metres as per the ESPN stats, is a mystery

Hmmm - he did point at the posts 4 times when asked by the Ref

Plus top player for breakdown arrivals, being in the first three players on 24 occasions, also the top ball carrier for the All Blacks with six carries for a gain of 25 metres.

Timmay - The 2003 RWC jersey was CCC - the Reebok vomit design was the 99 RWC

Interesting read below from SA-Refs site http://www.sareferees.com/News/are-refs-inviolable/2829992/

And to prove a point ... Reason writes: .."McCaw has been another good example during the opening games of the Rugby Championship. The master has been clearly outplayed by Hooper, Australia's outstanding player, but no-one will admit it" But the stats tell a different story; from ROAR "...In...

Note that there was a heading on this article ... it was in red letters: "OPINION" - Typically Mr Reason's opinion pieces are often like this one, full of contrary statements just to illicit inflamed responses.

Changes are already well in hand - The current coaching team are running a sort of apprenticeship program at hooker, hence no Kev M last test, Coltman will probably be seen soon. D Coles - 27 L - Coltman - 23 B Franks - 29 O Franks - 26 C Faumuina - 27 S Cane - 21 A Cruden - 24 B Barrett - 22...

The Ref penalised Mealamu not McCaw. Have a look at the footage again. Mealamu for trying to couter ruck off his feet. McCaw was marginal but ok imho.

McCaw was on the TV this morning - His motivation was to tell the story given the events of last year and the context of 2007. From a financial perspective his profile and status is probably as high as it has ever been so no doubt a good time to release the book. The print run is 60,000 - a...

Jay - I understand that but the way the law is written seems to suggest that can only occur when 2 players both have their hands on the ball, basically it's poor sentence construction IMO. Should have read "Providing any player on their feet after a tackle who complies with all aspects of Law...

Another interesting excerpt is that in the RWC Final the coaches were sending down messages in the last 20 mins instructing that they belt the ball down the other end, however McCaw fearing a French backs counter ignored those messages and decided to rely on the pack and their defensive...

http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/law/16/19 Can anyone actually make sense of this clarification from 2009 - ? seems to describe a bizarre situation where 2 opposing players on their feet both have their hands on the ball and can continue to scrap over it. Law 16.1 refers to a...

Bullrush - my law ref should read - 15.4 not 15.3 - but it says "The tackler must immediately get up or move away" not both, but in both cases it should be away from the ball. I didnt consider it to be a ruck - I merely deduced that AR did rule it as a ruck because of the penalty, but in...

Inside Shoulder: But the question which then arises is: which law says McCaw is not then entitled to stand up? Which law says he has to roll away first? or lie doggo until the ball emerges" If its a ruck - then this law 16.4 (d) " Players on the ground in or near the ruck must try to move away...

Jay - in my view thats a tackle. But the doubt arises I think because of momentary contact on Liebenberg and the Chettahs #1 by another Lions player (can see number but halfback?). Perhaps it is this action that the ref sees as constituting a ruck.

Scarf - fair enough, but just taking the posts in this thread at face value, I felt Dam0 was adding insight to the topic rather than potshots at you.

Scarf - Honest question - why are you assuming these various posts are attacks aimed at you? In my view both Jays & Dam0s were posts addressing controversial decisions and rulings and not aimed at individuals