Canes vs Chiefs

Smudge

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Toddy" data-cid="575489" data-time="1461835688">
<div>
<img src="http://i67.tinypic.com/snfj7s.jpg" alt="snfj7s.jpg">
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I'm waiting for the trainer to bust out: "You could say I lost my faith in science and progress."

Frye

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Smudge" data-cid="575491" data-time="1461835810">
<div>
I'm waiting for the trainer to bust out: "You could say I lost my faith in science and progress."
</div>
</blockquote>
 
You don't have to pull out the red card

MajorRage

I just checked the future. Apparently the sun comes up tomorrow, and nobody gives a shit about this non-event anymore.
 
Well at least that was the case before Rennie spoke out.

MajorRage

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Don Frye" data-cid="575492" data-time="1461836293">
<div>
You don't have to pull out the red card
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I say that to my wife one week a month.

Frye

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="575493" data-time="1461836310">
<div>
 
Well at least that was the case before RÌ¶eÌ¶nÌ¶nÌ¶iÌ¶eÌ¶ Ì¶sÌ¶pÌ¶oÌ¶kÌ¶eÌ¶ Ì¶oÌ¶uÌ¶tÌ¶ some anorak-wearing no-life Hurricanes fan made a video
 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
ftfy

Baron Silas Greenback

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="575494" data-time="1461836336">
<div>
I say that to my wife one week a month.
</div>
</blockquote>
 No you don't.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Don Frye" data-cid="575486" data-time="1461834628">
<div>
Pretty sure the Boks had the upper hand in the scrums last year at Ellis Park. They lost two props and then had to go to Golden Oldies. They didn't lose a player but should have from what I recall.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Indeed. The Laws of the Game Rugby Union are most clear.
 
Law 3: Section 3.6: Clause (d) clearly states, "In a squad of 23 players, or at the discretion of the Union/match organiser, a player whose departure has caused the referee to order uncontested scrums cannot be replaced."

Stormk84

That herald article is a joke. Pure hypothesis on the part of the narrator. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? 
Chiefs scrum had sucked for past couple Seasons, and even in some close games. And yet this is the first time I've seen golden oldies rule being applied. I'll give Rennie the benefit of the doubt for that.

Milk

<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11630438'>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11630438</a>
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">Gregor Paul: Chiefs conspiracy claims easy to counter 
The best teams do what they feel they have to do to win. It depends on emotional allegiance as to how grey area incidents are judged and that's arguably the key thing to keep in mind when considering the debate around the Chiefs and their front row shuffling against the Hurricanes. 
If the All Blacks had done something similar against the Boks, New Zealanders would be praising the smartness of coach Steve Hansen and urging South Africans to move on; to believe there was no scandal or manipulation of the rules. 
So maybe it would be best if a similar approach was applied now and for there to be universal acceptance that there really isn't much of a controversy here. 
What really happened was that the Chiefs shifted the risk in the last five minutes. They removed the prospect of conceding a kickable scrum penalty, but greatly increased the chances of the Hurricanes scoring a try. 
Given the way Hurricanes first-five Beauden Barrett had kicked that night and the way he had run, the Chiefs weren't being greatly advantaged by the depowered scrums. 
That was surely evidenced when Barrett sliced through in the last play of the game and delivered the perfect pass to Jason Woodward. 
If, as he should have, the Hurricanes fullback had caught that and fallen over the line, the scrummaging scandal would never have erupted. 
There would have been no implication that the Chiefs, defending a one-point lead with five minutes left, were advantaged by being reduced to 14 men. 
As for the rest of the story ... well, for every conspiracy claim, there is a legitimate reply from the Chiefs. 
To the question of whether Siate Tokolahi was genuinely injured, the conspiracy theory says he was fine right up until the point a trainer came on the field during a stoppage and told him he wasn't. Yet, as Rennie made clear in a heated rebuff, that same trainer had been on the field a few minutes earlier attending to Tokolahi's back. 
What's also apparent is that Tokolahi, admittedly not the most elegant or swift mover normally, is not exactly sprinting as he plods from the lineout to the last stoppage before he was replaced. 
The conspirators say the indecision about taking him off was a result of the episode being feigned and the penny taking a while to drop. The Chiefs say it was a genuine case of Tokolahi trying to battle on, unsure whether it was right or wrong to admit defeat and come off. 
This scenario plays out hundreds of times each season and no more memorably than the World Cup final where Kieran Read damaged his ankle badly in the opening five minutes and spent an age deliberating whether he could play on. And that's the thing with injuries - players are never certain of the extent of the damage, typified by the fact that Tawera Kerr-Barlow stayed on the field in Wellington despite having a broken hand. 
The conspiracy theory says the Chiefs were being dominated all night in the scrums and manipulated a shift to Golden Oldies to thwart the Hurricanes' obvious advantage. The more accurate picture is the Hurricanes went from being solid, or maybe a little more than that in the scrums, to being dominant in the two before Tokolahi came off. 
The best explanation for the Hurricanes' sudden scrummaging elevation is Tokolahi's back injury? The conspirators say that Rennie and the Chiefs coaching team weren't aware that the consequence of going to depowered scrums would be an enforced reduction to 14 men. 
But again, during the live broadcast it was clear that the Chiefs management team were told by the sideline official what the consequences of taking Tokolahi off would be before they committed to doing so. It also has to be pointed out that the Chiefs weren't under any obligation to have three men in their 23 who can play tighthead. 
Whether Siegfried Fisiihoi has or can play at tighthead is irrelevant - the Chiefs fulfilled their obligation to have two specialist tightheads, two specialist looseheads and two specialist hookers.
 
</blockquote>
 
This article probably reflects where I stand on the issue.
 
First of all, now that I know the team that forces uncontested scrums can't replace the injured player, I don't care whether the or not the team could technically press gang another player into propping the other side of the scrum. That's up to the coach/manager to decide. Having fulfilled their obligation to provide two props for each side of the scrum, if those 2 props get injured they have the choice to either play a less familiar in that position or play a man down. I'm happy with that. It's a bit harsh if you see two props stretchered off and there's no disputing their injuries, but oh well.
 
As to whether or not the player was really injured. I choose to believe Rennie. Maybe Tokolahi would have grimaced through it if the Chiefs were dominating the scrums, but again, now that I know they have to play a man down, I don't care either way.
 
If your team didn't force uncontested scrums, then take the props off so they can high five on the sideline for the rest of the game, bring on all your backs and loose forwards from the bench and force the one man advantage. And until this starts happening more than a few times a season, then I don't think it's a big problem. In 70 odd games coaching the Chiefs, Rennie said this is the first time his side has forced uncontested scrums.
 
By the by, I'm still trying to figure out where I stand on how much a scrum should be punished for being shit. On the one hand, scrums are an important part of rugby and if you can get away with having a bad one, a lot of teams will start playing a rugby league front row. On the other hand, it's tough to see a prop copping penalties and sin-binnings, usually reserved for cheaters, just for being shit.

Winger

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="575493" data-time="1461836310">
<div>
I just checked the future. Apparently the sun comes up tomorrow, and nobody gives a shit about this non-event anymore.
 
Well at least that was the case before Rennie spoke out.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
He's handled this badly. Feeling guilty maybe? :yes:

taniwharugby

No, the Half-story-Herald have handled this badly. 
If there is a genuine case to answer, SANZAR should be leading it, not the witch hunt that the HSH have tried. 
Rennie has simply reacted to being called a cheat and a liar

SammyC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Milk" data-cid="575520" data-time="1461857459">
<div>
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11630438'>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11630438</a>
 
 
This article probably reflects where I stand on the issue.
 
First of all, now that I know the team that forces uncontested scrums can't replace the injured player, I don't care whether the or not the team could technically press gang another player into propping the other side of the scrum. That's up to the coach/manager to decide. Having fulfilled their obligation to provide two props for each side of the scrum, if those 2 props get injured they have the choice to either play a less familiar in that position or play a man down. I'm happy with that. It's a bit harsh if you see two props stretchered off and there's no disputing their injuries, but oh well.
 
As to whether or not the player was really injured. I choose to believe Rennie. Maybe Tokolahi would have grimaced through it if the Chiefs were dominating the scrums, but again, now that I know they have to play a man down, I don't care either way.
 
If your team didn't force uncontested scrums, then take the props off so they can high five on the sideline for the rest of the game, bring on all your backs and loose forwards from the bench and force the one man advantage. And until this starts happening more than a few times a season, then I don't think it's a big problem. In 70 odd games coaching the Chiefs, Rennie said this is the first time his side has forced uncontested scrums.
 
By the by, I'm still trying to figure out where I stand on how much a scrum should be punished for being shit. On the one hand, scrums are an important part of rugby and if you can get away with having a bad one, a lot of teams will start playing a rugby league front row. On the other hand, it's tough to see a prop copping penalties and sin-binnings, usually reserved for cheaters, just for being shit.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Not sure I agree with this part of the article:
 
If the All Blacks had done something similar against the Boks, New Zealanders would be praising the smartness of coach Steve Hansen and urging South Africans to move on; to believe there was no scandal or manipulation of the rules.

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="575531" data-time="1461873610">
<div>
He's handled this badly. Feeling guilty maybe? :yes:
</div>
</blockquote>
 
How has he handled this badly? He hasn't said a word until defending himself from being called a cheat and liar by an organisation that they cooperate with on a regular basis and had every opportunity to get both sides of the story before riling up shit with their piece the other day.
If I was Rennie I would be pissed off too.
He has fronted up and explained the bits that weren't in the story along with clarifying what actually was happening during the exchanges between trainers and game managers etc instead of everyone guessing.
What else was he meant to do? Jump to the media with a pre-emptive explanation? That would have certainly attracted accusations of getting your excuses in early.

Crucial

That second HSH article is a poorly disguised attempt to keep the 'controversy' alive.

Hooroo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="575536" data-time="1461877109">
<div>
Not sure I agree with this part of the article:
 
If the All Blacks had done something similar against the Boks, New Zealanders would be praising the smartness of coach Steve Hansen and urging South Africans to move on; to believe there was no scandal or manipulation of the rules.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
World Cup Final... I'd be all over it! Stoked in fact.

Rembrandt

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="575541" data-time="1461878130">
World Cup Final... I'd be all over it! Stoked in fact.</blockquote>
 
I'm not so sure. Would not at all be happy with 4 years of whiney opposition telling us we won because we cheated..especially if they had a point!

Hooroo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rembrandt" data-cid="575556" data-time="1461885259">
<div>
I'm not so sure. Would not at all be happy with 4 years of whiney opposition telling us we won because we cheated..especially if they had a point!
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I love hearing a good whine! It just elevates my smugness levels

Crash

Just re-watched the game.
Aside from his kicking Barrett was on fire, and left Cruds in the shadows.
Without Ngatai's organisation in midfield the Chiefs suffered.
On a number of occasions Barrett attacked the weak inside shoulder of Cruden and found space - especially glaring in the Woodward non-try where he wrong-footed Cruds from the ruck, and gassed him.
Chiefs need to fix this.

Winger

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="575537" data-time="1461877379">
<div>
How has he handled this badly? He hasn't said a word until defending himself from being called a cheat and liar by an organisation that they cooperate with on a regular basis and had every opportunity to get both sides of the story before riling up shit with their piece the other day.
If I was Rennie I would be pissed off too.
He has fronted up and explained the bits that weren't in the story along with clarifying what actually was happening during the exchanges between trainers and game managers etc instead of everyone guessing.
What else was he meant to do? Jump to the media with a pre-emptive explanation? That would have certainly attracted accusations of getting your excuses in early.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
He should have kept his cool. He didn't. If the Chiefs are entirely clean on this front there is no need to get angry. So if he had calmly explained again that the prop was injured and we have never had this situation before then it would all have died down. Now I do wonder. Just maybe they wanted uncontested scrums
 
But even if they did these are the rules now. Maybe other teams should use this tactic in situations like the Chiefs were in. Go down to 14 men and just hang in there edit and the rule is much better now. where teams have to go down to 14 men. Whereas before it sucked

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="575648" data-time="1461911830">
<div>
He should have kept his cool. He didn't. If the Chiefs are entirely clean on this front there is no need to get angry. So if he had calmly explained again that the prop was injured and we have never had this situation before then it would all have died down. Now I do wonder. Just maybe they wanted uncontested scrums
 
But even if they did these are the rules now. Maybe other teams should use this tactic in situations like the Chiefs were in. Go down to 14 men and just hang in there
</div>
</blockquote>
 
did you listen to the interview? He said he was pissed off, didnt lose his cool, or is there another interview where he lost his cool?

The Silver Fern

Canes vs Chiefs