Super Rugby Round One: Western Force vs Hurricanes

[WFDS]

Wells is less than average

 

[Equalizer]

Need to watch a replay of the game but from being at the ground I never felt like we were in it. Can't afford to go down next week against the Rebs.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

That was very poor from the boys tonight. You can't turn the ball over at the lineout and get beaten at the breakdown like we did and win too many games.

 

[Dan54]

I wonder if perhaps the Force weren't sticking to their patterns, didn't seem to play off the cuff enough? Very much patterned play for a lot of it to me.
But obviously as Canes man, fairly happy, thought scrum looked pretty handy, Brett Cameron was pretty reasonable at 10 , was happy with young Vijoen's first start at 9, kid is ok. Moorby, Love and Naholo got the makings of a reasonable back 3.
I will also add the interview with Kirifi after the game was bloody good.

 

[Dan54]

So why didn't Barrett go off for a HIA?

A question that was on my mind too, said same in WC final when the fella Cane hit high didn't go off. But just maybe it's got something to do with these new mouthguards why JB didn't? Thought the Force player would of got a red, but didn't want him to , was clumsy really with no intent.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ I'm guessing his mouthguard didn't register sufficient impact to signal an HIA being required.

Which to me raises the question if the mouthgaurds are giving false positive indications that a HIA is necessary, as seemed to happen a few times in last night's games, doesn't it seem likely they'll also give false negatives? I'm all for anything that protects the players & accept that there will be teething problems but based on what I've seen & heard about so far I think they've been introduced prematurely.

 

[molman]

A question that was on my mind too, said same in WC final when the fella Cane hit high didn't go off. But just maybe it's got something to do with these new mouthguards why JB didn't? Thought the Force player would of got a red, but didn't want him to , was clumsy really with no intent.

^ I'm guessing his mouthguard didn't register sufficient impact to signal an HIA being required.

Which to me raises the question if the mouthgaurds are giving false positive indications that a HIA is necessary, as seemed to happen a few times in last night's games, doesn't it seem likely they'll also give false negatives? I'm all for anything that protects the players & accept that there will be teething problems but based on what I've seen & heard about so far I think they've been introduced prematurely.

I saw mention of these in the lead up to SuperRugby starting, but are every team now wearing these with the Dr's at every game having the receivers? Surely their introduction doesn't remove the need for the Dr's to be using all available evidence such as clear visuals of head on head collisions.

I'd also be curious what the protocols are for a player just shoving a non-smart mouthguard into their mouth of failing to charge the smart one. Are there any repercussions. This is before my questions about the actual technologies reliability with things like transmission range etc.

Anyway, don't want to gunk up this match thread, but their introduction (or trail) does open some questions. I do hope they end up working and the guessing is taken out of this aspect of the sport, but it's got to frustrating for the players who don't feel like they've had a head impact event.

 

[Dctarget]

Need to watch a replay of the game but from being at the ground I never felt like we were in it. Can't afford to go down next week against the Rebs.

judging from both games I think it’ll be a 0-0 draw with injuries and red cards across the game.

 

[Dan54]

I saw mention of these in the lead up to SuperRugby starting, but are every team now wearing these with the Dr's at every game having the receivers? Surely their introduction doesn't remove the need for the Dr's to be using all available evidence such as clear visuals of head on head collisions.

I'd also be curious what's the protocols are for a player just shoving a none smart mouthguard into their mouth of failing to charge the smart one. Are there any repercussions. This is before my questions about the actual technologies reliability with things like transmission range etc.

Anyway, don't want to gunk up this match thread, but their introduction (or trail) does open some questions. I do hope they end up working and the guessing is taken out of this aspect of the sport, but it's got to frustrating for the players who don't feel like they've had a head impact event.

Yep think there are some kind of repercussions in that the idea you will get HIA's more often (I think). They aren't compulsary from what I read as they can be (for some0 uncomfortble to wear.

 

[Wilson]

I saw mention of these in the lead up to SuperRugby starting, but are every team now wearing these with the Dr's at every game having the receivers? Surely their introduction doesn't remove the need for the Dr's to be using all available evidence such as clear visuals of head on head collisions.

I'd also be curious what the protocols are for a player just shoving a non-smart mouthguard into their mouth of failing to charge the smart one. Are there any repercussions. This is before my questions about the actual technologies reliability with things like transmission range etc.

Anyway, don't want to gunk up this match thread, but their introduction (or trail) does open some questions. I do hope they end up working and the guessing is taken out of this aspect of the sport, but it's got to frustrating for the players who don't feel like they've had a head impact event.

I think every team will be, but not necessarily this round. I know for the Australian sides RUPA struck a deal where players had to have two weeks minimum with the new mouthguards to get used to them before they'd have to wear them, and for the at least the Reds they only arrived a week ago:

Super Rugby coaches, then, want all players wearing smart mouthguards. But after fittings, Australian clubs began receiving their mouthguards only this month. A deal with the Rugby Union Players’ Association was struck where they had to have two weeks getting used to the mouthguards before wearing them in competition. Queensland received their shipment only last week, so potentially may not wear them in round one.

Teething issue: Smart mouthguards the new weapon in concussion battle, but there’s a catch

High-tech mouthguards that cost up to $500 and detect dangerous levels of force to the head during tackles are compulsory for Super Rugby players this year.

www.smh.com.au

Not sure what the situation is for Kiwi sides, but I imagine it is something similar. The mouthguards were clearly in use for the Crusaders Chiefs game, but that's the only one I noticed mouthguard triggered reviews in. Rollout definitely leaves something to be desired here.

As far as not wearing one goes you're supposed to get a medical exemption, otherwise the HIA protocols are stricter than they have been previously:

Despite the obvious risks, some elite players have chosen not to wear mouthguards in the past. But short of a medical exemption, which must be approved by World Rugby, players must now wear the smart mouthguard to be eligible for the HIA1 protocol.

Put simply, if a player chooses not to wear the mouthguard during games – even during a training week – and is spotted with a suspected concussion during a Super Rugby game, they will not be eligible for an HIA check and a possible return. Instead, they will be removed and not allowed back on.

 

[Shiggins]

^ I'm guessing his mouthguard didn't register sufficient impact to signal an HIA being required.

Which to me raises the question if the mouthgaurds are giving false positive indications that a HIA is necessary, as seemed to happen a few times in last night's games, doesn't it seem likely they'll also give false negatives? I'm all for anything that protects the players & accept that there will be teething problems but based on what I've seen & heard about so far I think they've been introduced prematurely.

In the crusaders chiefs match the mouth guards has a big impact on players needing to come off for bugger all.

 

[Shiggins]

Crowd was 7k. A bit low but expected on a Friday night. Rebels crowed looked very small. Crusaders chiefs had a reasonable crowd

 

[rugbyAU]

Force will finish 11th at this rate, need more wallabies and quality players

 

[molman]

I think every team will be, but not necessarily this round. I know for the Australian sides RUPA struck a deal where players had to have two weeks minimum with the new mouthguards to get used to them before they'd have to wear them, and for the at least the Reds they only arrived a week ago:

Teething issue: Smart mouthguards the new weapon in concussion battle, but there’s a catch

High-tech mouthguards that cost up to $500 and detect dangerous levels of force to the head during tackles are compulsory for Super Rugby players this year.

www.smh.com.au

Not sure what the situation is for Kiwi sides, but I imagine it is something similar. The mouthguards were clearly in use for the Crusaders Chiefs game, but that's the only one I noticed mouthguard triggered reviews in. Rollout definitely leaves something to be desired here.

As far as not wearing one goes you're supposed to get a medical exemption, otherwise the HIA protocols are stricter than they have been previously:

Moved my reply here as to not gunk up this thread.

 

[brokendown]

Tight Five clearly the problem for the Force. Some bad injuries haven't helped but the recruitment crew are headless chooks. All the money in the world from Twiggy, and they havent done any true investment into a world class front rower. The lack of depth and quality is ridiculous. How can you go into a season which such little quality? I mean they are being bullied at scrum-time.

it wasn't that they were not looking for one

 

[Mr Pilfer]

The force have 4 props out injured, plus Robertson who left on sabbatical because he had a season ending injury.

Also hooker (Kaituu) out and replaced by a kiwi who has been training with them a few weeks and the lineout went to sh1t

Plus our best 3 second rowers missing

We just don’t have the depth to cover that

 

[Tomthumb]

The force have 4 props out injured, plus Robertson who left on sabbatical because he had a season ending injury.

Also hooker (Kaituu) out and replaced by a kiwi who has been training with them a few weeks and the lineout went to sh1t

Plus our best 3 second rowers missing

We just don’t have the depth to cover that

How the hell do you get that many injuries from pre-season? The same thing happened last season too

 

[Wilson]

As expected, Marley Pearce has been cited:

Force prop problems deepen as Pearce cited following Hurricanes defeat

The Western Force's prop stocks have taken a further hit with young gun Marley Pearce cited for a high tackle during their defeat to the Hurricanes.

www.rugby.com.au

 

[Mr Pilfer]

How the hell do you get that many injuries from pre-season? The same thing happened last season too

As expected, Marley Pearce has been cited:

Force prop problems deepen as Pearce cited following Hurricanes defeat

The Western Force's prop stocks have taken a further hit with young gun Marley Pearce cited for a high tackle during their defeat to the Hurricanes.

www.rugby.com.au

Ok so now;

- Pearce out suspended TBC
- Amone out 6-8 weeks
- Hoopert out 3-4 months
- Wagner - out half the year

We are screwed

 

[TSR]

That makes it bloody tough.

Especially when you also have injuries at lock