Highlanders V Force

Gunner

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="569097" data-time="1459559131">
We've seen worse punishments given for less. It isn't really that controversial to say he was lucky the ref and TMO were being reasonable.</blockquote>Yea, we could use the angle that TMOs/refs aren't really known for using much common sense. So therefore in this case, where they have, he could be considered lucky I guess...

taniwharugby

He was lucky, but the correct decision was made imo

Bones

Watching this now.
 
Faddes is looking bloody good. Pryor has done some dumb shit with the ball in hot attacking positions. Fekitoa has been pretty quiet.
 
Parkes looking very competent. Obviously was stupid of Joseph to give him all that game time previously.
 
The ref has been bloody lax on the Force players retreating when offside from a kick.
 
Nisbo was a right dick when they went to uncontested scrums. Why do most of our Kiwi commentators get so negative about the game, the laws, etc? It must be weird to be new to the game and tune in to hear commentators sounding like they hate it.

pukunui

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="569117" data-time="1459578132">
<div>
Watching this now.
 
Faddes is looking bloody good. Pryor has done some dumb shit with the ball in hot attacking positions. Fekitoa has been pretty quiet.
 
Parkes looking very competent. Obviously was stupid of Joseph to give him all that game time previously.
 
The ref has been bloody lax on the Force players retreating when offside from a kick.
 
Nisbo was a right dick when they went to uncontested scrums. Why do most of our Kiwi commentators get so negative about the game, the laws, etc? It must be weird to be new to the game and tune in to hear commentators sounding like they hate it.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Haha I was wondering if you would bring that up. Well because you were watching so closely im sure you would have noticed him getting subbed for Banks around the same time Lima has been getting subbed. That would suggest the changes are tactical and all those reasons you so confidently outlined for Lima being subbed at the same time each week ie. He can't go 80, He is injury prone so needs to be dragged to protect him etc were just plucked from somewhere :think:.
Unless you now want to claim Parker can't go the 80 because he might get injured.
 
Anyway I agree he was good, not really a surprise given he has been good in previous games and seasons. That was never in question, just the tactical subbing of the key playmaker regardless of match situation.

Bones

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pukunui" data-cid="569473" data-time="1459601330">
Haha I was wondering if you would bring that up. Well because you were watching so closely im sure you would have noticed him getting subbed for Banks around the same time Lima has been getting subbed. That would suggest the changes are tactical and all those reasons you so confidently outlined for Lima being subbed at the same time each week ie. He can't go 80, He is injury prone so needs to be dragged to protect him etc were just plucked from somewhere :think:. 
Unless you now want to claim Parker can't go the 80 because he might get injured.</blockquote>
 
Jebus what a child. So confidently outlined? After I said.... 
"I guess Parker is all we've got until Banks is back, I assume he's injured? Got to give Parker game time and to be fair while I cringe when he comes on, he's often performed above expectations and can be fairly handy kicking at goal" 
And 
"And then what happens when Sopoaga gets injured? Especially as up until last season he was pretty injury prone. We'd have an 11 year old out there without any experience at all, let alone the experience he's getting trying to still steer the team around the handle the pressure when under the kosh in the last few minutes." 
Yeah fuck, how wrong was I with my confident reasoning of why Joseph might be subbing the ten. It can obviously only be for one reason and one reason only if I think like a kid, so you must be right. 
P.s. Have only watched the first half, so nah, don't know anything about Banks coming on but shit I bet it was a stupid idea.

booboo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="569117" data-time="1459578132">
Nisbo was a right dick when they went to uncontested scrums. Why do most of our Kiwi commentators get so negative about the game, the laws, etc? It must be weird to be new to the game and tune in to hear commentators sounding like they hate it.</blockquote>
Hear hear. 
Happens with the Fox guys as well at times (often Kearns when the Tahs or Wobs are on the receiving end ). Lists of whinges tend to be reset scrums (the positive being the battle for possession and dominance), the breakdown ("who would know what that was for" when it's usually pretty obvious). 
In this case what is the option? They've already added an extra prop to try and alleviate it. To my mind the only other thing is to allow all four props to nominate if they can play on both sides. 
Was dangerous enough for the Farce when they were down to one lock. Any word on whether that trainer has been reprimanded? Seemed to go off his rocker.

Bones

Just watching the second half. Yeah that trainer was being an egg. Is it really dangerous for a hooker to lock? Wouldn't have thought it's much more technically difficult than hooker. Plus I'd bet most loosies have played lock at some stage so just use them. 
Forgot to mention Franklin who's been excellent. Shades of Donnelly at his best.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="569117" data-time="1459578132">
<div>
Watching this now.
 
Faddes is looking bloody good. Pryor has done some dumb shit with the ball in hot attacking positions. Fekitoa has been pretty quiet.
 
Parkes looking very competent. Obviously was stupid of Joseph to give him all that game time previously.
 
The ref has been bloody lax on the Force players retreating when offside from a kick.
 
Nisbo was a right dick when they went to uncontested scrums. Why do most of our Kiwi commentators get so negative about the game, the laws, etc? It must be weird to be new to the game and tune in to hear commentators sounding like they hate it.
</div>
</blockquote>
I reckon this was the one time he was correct though (stop clock and all), there's no way those scrums should have gone to golden oldies.

Bones

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="569489" data-time="1459633134">I reckon this was the one time he was correct though (stop clock and all), there's no way those scrums should have gone to golden oldies.</blockquote>
Well we went through all this last year in the saffa test didn't we. So according to the laws he's wrong.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="569490" data-time="1459633312">
<div>
Well we went through all this last year in the saffa test didn't we. So according to the laws he's wrong.
</div>
</blockquote>
I can't remember that TBH, but, I'm not saying he's correct about the laws, but correct to whinge about it - the Highlanders had a prop, who has propped on the loosehead before, they should have played proper scrums.
 
Speaking of props, anyone know Edmonds' status? The Highlanders are an injury yard for Magpies players.

Bones

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="569493" data-time="1459633608">I can't remember that TBH, but, I'm not saying he's correct about the laws, but correct to whinge about it - the Highlanders had a prop, who has propped on the loosehead before, they should have played proper scrums. 
Speaking of props, anyone know Edmonds' status? The Highlanders are an injury yard for Magpies players.</blockquote>
It's not their call to make, so no, the highlanders shouldn't.

Crazy Horse

Nisbo wasn't wrong because he was expressing his opinion that the law is stupid. I don't know enough about propping to have an opinion either way.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="569494" data-time="1459633674">
<div>
It's not their call to make, so no, the highlanders shouldn't.
</div>
</blockquote>
I'm not arguing what the law is, or what Nisbett thought the law was, just that he was correct that it was stupid.
 
Although, reviewing the law (3.5 and 3.6) I couldn't actually find anything about front row players nominated for specific position so is it a SANZAR directive maybe?

Bones

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="569502" data-time="1459634460">I'm not arguing what the law is, or what Nisbett thought the law was, just that he was correct that it was stupid. 
Although, reviewing the law (3.5 and 3.6) I couldn't actually find anything about front row players nominated for specific position so is it a SANZAR directive maybe?</blockquote>
It was covered pretty in depth last year when it happened, can't remember the exact stuff but seems you have to nominate what fr position they cover. In any case he should know it very well after that and not have to have a long whinge about it during live commentary. So he's wrong...

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="569503" data-time="1459634742">
<div>
It was covered pretty in depth last year when it happened, can't remember the exact stuff but seems you have to nominate what fr position they cover. In any case he should know it very well after that and not have to have a long whinge about it during live commentary. So he's wrong...
</div>
</blockquote>
So, it must be a SANZAR directive then, because the Laws only state you have to nominate front rowers, and it's the teams job to ensure they're suitably trained.
 
But, again, you seem to be missing my point (deliberately at this stage?) that his whinge about how stupid it was was is fine - it was stupid that the Highlanders had a player on the field, who had played loosehead prop but they were playing golden oldies scrums.

Dan54

Well I'm with Nisbo on this one, I know it a rule somewhere, but doesn't mean to say you can't say it's stupid, a competent loosehead prop can't play his full role because they have already used their supposed reserve loosehead prop??

Bones

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="569505" data-time="1459635024">So, it must be a SANZAR directive then, because the Laws only state you have to nominate front rowers, and it's the teams job to ensure they're suitably trained. 
But, again, you seem to be missing my point (deliberately at this stage?) that his whinge about how stupid it was was is fine - it was stupid that the Highlanders had a player on the field, who had played loosehead prop but they were playing golden oldies scrums.</blockquote>
I'm not missing the point, I think you are. It's during live commentary. If it's in an opinion article or a discussion panel type show it'd be great. But instead he has a big fucking whinge on live telly. Show some class.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="569509" data-time="1459635233">
<div>
I'm not missing the point, I think you are. It's during live commentary. If it's in an opinion article or a discussion panel type show it'd be great. But instead he has a big fucking whinge on live telly. Show some class.
</div>
</blockquote>
No, I'm not missing your point, I've got it every time, I also think he went on with the whinge too long, but I don't have an issue with him bringing it up - it's commentary, not a PhD defence, they can chuck in their opinions on occasion (but as I said he took it on too long).

Bones

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="569512" data-time="1459635646">No, I'm not missing your point, I've got it every time, I also think he went on with the whinge too long, but I don't have an issue with him bringing it up - it's commentary, not a PhD defence, they can chuck in their opinions on occasion (but as I said he took it on too long).</blockquote>
Oh, so we're in agreement, you're just arguing for the sake of it. Right...

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="569513" data-time="1459635782">
<div>
Oh, so we're in agreement, you're just arguing for the sake of it. Right...
</div>
</blockquote>
No, I think it's fine for him to make that comment, I just think he went on to long. It appears you don't think he should make the comment. I don't think we're in agreement at all.
 
If the argument is over Nisbo being a dick, then yes we are in agreement.

The Silver Fern

Highlanders V Force