Search results

The stats are really good to use because every tackle in rugby occurs in exactly the same context. Also, Carter's lightning pace allows him to get to any attacker - so please no one try to argue that stats don't tell the whole story.

3. Harris 2. Higgers 1. Taps

What about a certain someone who was not even selected for a Australia A side, let alone the Wallabies?

Occurred before the whistle, so not relevant. Hitting someone after the whistle is cowardly - more so from the back. That's just common sense. Anyway, I think we've all made our points on it so time to move on :)

Kind of my point - reckless, dangerous shit after the whistle gets penalised. I don't think there's a grey area here. Probably the only time Dean Mumm has hurt someone in a tackle anyway.

Right, so if someone head-highs Barnes after the whistle (as long as they were "committed" to the tackle) you'll be showering them with praise?

So are you saying that Mumm should have got off because some time in the future SANZAR were going to be (gasp) inconsistent? The whistle had blown - every other player stopped and looked up except for Mumm who charged into an unprepared player with his back turned. Not only that, but it was a...

These teams will be hard to judge for the first few rounds. I've got to put my money on the Crusaders for this one, Blues overall.

Yeah, I don't think that anyone really thinks that Dean Mumm intended to do it after the whistle. But dangerous, reckless play gets punished - end of story.

Without wanting to re-hash the argument, Mumm hit him in the back after the whistle had blow right in front of the ref. Cleaning out players who have made their way round to the wrong side of the ruck is fine. But hitting someone who is not braced for it is really fucking dangerous - just ask...

No one here wants to cut down the Brumbies - it's you cutting down everyone else!!!

The Reds can't help who else was in the conference last year. If only there was some way to judge whether they truly deserved the success - like beating the top South African side at home and beating the top 2 NZ sides twice each. I don't understand Paarl why you can use the "no easy SA derbies"...

Good luck, that evidence doesn't support his team. It won't be accepted.

I think it's definitely true that they've been pretty symbolic/talismanic in the rise of the Reds, and used heavily in a lot of the marketing as a result. The rest of the debate aside, I think you'd have to admit that's true.

Yeah, saw that before. I wonder if they watched the game?

I don't think we need to automatically reject any criticism of things dear to us, some of it might be valid. It doesn't matter who holds the opinion, and in this case it's a pretty true one.

It's ok, I think they have realised that actual victory will be a bridge to far. Now it's time to go for the moral one.

The Reds pushed the boundaries of the rules successfully? I can't think of that ever being lauded in rugby recently... Better give last years trophy to the Tahs.

1. Blues 2. Reds 3. Crusaders 4. Stormers 5. Sharks 6. Tahs

Actually, that's swayed me. The X-factor of BKH (who?) and Kingston (who?) will definitely be the dominant factor. Especially as the Reds have no X-factor players that even compare - only losers like Genia, Tapuai, Higginbotham, Ioane, Samo, Morahan etc. The Tahs will do what they always do...