Liam Messam shock AB recall ?
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SammyC" data-cid="594462" data-time="1467779149">
<div>
<p>he's on the bench this weekend for the chiefs?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>See gt12s post above. Toshiba have given Messam permission to play for the Chiefs for the remainder of this comp only (as he would have had for the Sevens). Then he goes to Japan and is back in NZ for 2017.</p> -
<p>Unashamed Messam fan here, but this is a good article by Paul</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11669092'>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11669092</a></p> -
Wrong thread sorry
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="594468" data-time="1467779886">
<div>
<p>Unashamed Messam fan here, but this is a good article by Paul</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11669092'>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11669092</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>It most certainly is.</p>
<p> </p>
<p style="margin-left:40px;">"In a world where parents have to be taught how to behave on the sidelines, Messam is the guiding light on how to retain perspective. His All Blacks dream smashed in 2011, he vowed only to work harder. His Olympic dream smashed in 2016, he vowed only to work harder.</p>
<p style="margin-left:40px;"> </p>
<p style="margin-left:40px;">Sport isn't fair and nor is it so serious as to justify misplacing the moral compass when injustice strikes. Fate can be both kind and cruel and true champions make peace with that, accepting both with equal grace."</p> -
<p>Sanzaar say he can't play.<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/82168514/seta-tamanivalu-out-of-chiefs-super-rugby-quarterfinal-against-stormers'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/82168514/seta-tamanivalu-out-of-chiefs-super-rugby-quarterfinal-against-stormers</a></p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="597714" data-time="1468791547">
<div>
<p>Guy who has played two games can't play, guy who has played no games can ....</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I guess the rules are particularly designed to stop e.g. the Stormers turning up in Wellington with Matfield, Habana and assorted other SA stars who might currently be playing in Europe but available for a three week "finals" contract.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="597717" data-time="1468793700">
<div>
<p>I guess the rules are particularly designed to stop e.g. the Stormers turning up in Wellington with Matfield, Habana and assorted other SA stars who might currently be playing in Europe but available for a three week "finals" contract.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Messam's case isn't really that though is it (neither is Lambie's)? He's played two games in regular season in a team with an extremely long injury list in the position he plays. That's why the Chiefs asked for a <em>special</em> dispensation. It's clearly not a case of bringing in players just for the finals.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If the Chiefs had named him in their squad on naming day last year he'd be fine to play, but because they didn't the Chiefs need to select a 7 to cover for a 6/8.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Meanwhile the Stormers have had four players brought into their squad before the finals only because they were named in the original squad back then. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's the rules as they sit, but they seem weird if they allow a player to come in who hasn't played for a player not injured but leaving to play for another team and then not let player's who have played games as 'injury' replacements play.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="597980" data-time="1468881009">
<div>
<p> </p>
<p>If the Chiefs had named him in their squad on naming day last year he'd be fine to play, but because they didn't the Chiefs need to select a 7 to cover for a 6/8.</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I guess the question they're asking is "Have you got four fit loose forwards who were named in your original squad and can reasonably cover the match requirements"?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Seems like the answer is "Yes".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Supplementary question.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Then why do you need Messam?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Probable answer - because he's a shit load better than Koloamatangi.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think even the delay in deciding on his eligibility is quite explicable, because the first question couldn't be answered until after the final play-off game.</p> -
<p>"Fit" is relative Chris. You're talking about Koloamatangi here. A player who has spent almost all of the season injured and then got injured again in his brief cameo against Wales. I assume because Mitchell Brown wasn't an original selection he couldn't be picked either. A much better choice to cover 6/8 I would have thought.</p>
-
I have no problem with a rule that prevents ringers, high-priced mercenaries who are brought in for finals to bolster a team when it matters most.<br><br>
But Messam isn't a ringer. He's been a Chief for over 10 years. He hasn't played enough regular season games because he's been trying to gain selection for the Olympics, not because he's been jet setting around selling his wares to the highest bidder.<br><br>
Like I said, I have no problem with the rule. But this is exactly what the dispensation was created for. That SANZAR has failed to recognise this is no surprise, they are for the most part, fcuking morons. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Don Frye" data-cid="598023" data-time="1468895189">
<div>
<p>Hopefully Leitch is back next week and Messam's absence shouldn't be noticed.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>A Japanese international being as good as an AB ?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now I've heard it all....</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="598026" data-time="1468895489">
<div>
<p>A Japanese international being as good as an AB ?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Now I've heard it all....</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Ideally they'd both be in the team, but I was that impressed with Leitch earlier in the season that I'd pick him ahead of a Sevens sized Messam at the mo too.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Donsteppa" data-cid="598027" data-time="1468896112">
<div>
<p>Ideally they'd both be in the team, but I was that impressed with Leitch earlier in the season that I'd pick him ahead of a <strong>Sevens sized</strong> Messam at the mo too.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>People have had a go at Messams supposed lack of size his whole career conveniently forgetting he's bigger than McCaw and only a couple of frontrowers could bench more ( I know that's not everything but still.....)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Has he really come back looking like an Auchwitz survivor ?</p> -
<p>Well, I'm not surprised about it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Frankly, I didn't expect them to let me him play and it's a good rule.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Sad that SANZAR can't see around this situation, but too bad for us as overall the rule is good and necessary - Chris B makes excellent points that can't really be argued with. Messam took his chances for sevens so too bad for him too, as much love as I have for him.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Don Frye" data-cid="598022" data-time="1468895100">
<div>
<p>Like I said, I have no problem with the rule. But this is exactly what the dispensation was created for. That SANZAR has failed to recognise this is no surprise, they are for the most part, fcuking morons.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I think it turns out that the dispensation is for the case when you genuinely don't have any cover in a particular position - and I have no idea how severely SANZAR would rule on the definition of "no cover".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Would they e.g. let the Crusaders call up Dan Carter if the only fit first five we had was Mitchell Hunt? If I were our opponents I would be thinking "fuck that". What about if even Mitch was injured, but potentially Dagg could play first five and we had 10 fit backs?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="598029" data-time="1468896302">
<div>
<p>People have had a go at Messams supposed lack of size his whole career conveniently forgetting he's bigger than McCaw and only a couple of frontrowers could bench more ( I know that's not everything but still.....)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Has he really come back looking like an Auchwitz survivor ?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Titch isn't <em>that </em>mean, despite what Kurt may say... :)</p>
