Liam Messam shock AB recall ?

Nepia

Guy who has played two games can't play, guy who has played no games can ....

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="597714" data-time="1468791547">
<div>
Guy who has played two games can't play, guy who has played no games can ....
</div>
</blockquote>
 
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.

Gary

yeah when I first read it thought it was a bit harsh but then again thems the rules and you are right if they allow this wouldn't be long before a completely different team fronts up for the final.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="597717" data-time="1468793700">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
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 special dispensation. It's clearly not a case of bringing in players just for the finals.
 
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.
 
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. 
 
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.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="597980" data-time="1468881009">
<div>
 
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.
 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
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"?
 
Seems like the answer is "Yes".
 
Supplementary question.
 
Then why do you need Messam?
 
Probable answer - because he's a shit load better than Koloamatangi.
 
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.

Bovidae

"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.

Frye

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. 
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. 
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.

Frye

Hopefully Leitch is back next week and Messam's absence shouldn't be noticed.

Frank

First prop-gate, now this.
 
Rennie plays it to the edge. Let me guess, he's "bloody annoyed / furious" about it ?? :fishing:

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Don Frye" data-cid="598023" data-time="1468895189">
<div>
Hopefully Leitch is back next week and Messam's absence shouldn't be noticed.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
A Japanese international being as good as an AB ?
 
Now I've heard it all....

Donsteppa

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="598026" data-time="1468895489">
<div>
A Japanese international being as good as an AB ?
 
Now I've heard it all....
</div>
</blockquote>
 
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.

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Donsteppa" data-cid="598027" data-time="1468896112">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
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.....)
 
Has he really come back looking like an Auchwitz survivor ?

gt12

Well, I'm not surprised about it.
 
Frankly, I didn't expect them to let me him play and it's a good rule.
 
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.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Don Frye" data-cid="598022" data-time="1468895100">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
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".
 
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?

Donsteppa

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="598029" data-time="1468896302">
<div>
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.....)
 
Has he really come back looking like an Auchwitz survivor ?
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Titch isn't that mean, despite what Kurt may say... :)

taniwharugby

<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11677414'>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11677414</a>

Scotty Stevenson: Liam Messam ruling is a bad joke

<div>3:42 PM Tuesday Jul 19, 2016</div>
<div>
<ul class=""><li> </li>
</ul></div>
<div>
<div>
<img height="310" src="http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/201630/Messam3_620x310.jpg" width="620" alt="Messam3_620x310.jpg">New Zealand All Blacks and Chiefs flanker Liam Messam. Photo / Getty Images.</div>
So Liam Messam can return for the Chiefs to play two matches that potentially - and in reality - had major ramifications for the make-up of the Super Rugby playoffs but can't play in those playoffs because he hasn't played four games this season.
Well, that sounds reasonable. If by reasonable you mean the complete opposite.
Of all the decisions made this season, this has got to be the craziest. Unless you consider the Patrick Lambie decision. He is ineligible to play for the Sharks in the playoffs because he has been injured for most of the season, and was injured - get this - playing rugby for both the Sharks and the Springboks.
You can fall back on the rule book as much as you like, but Super Rugby's administration has got this wrong - wrong because if a player can play in one competition game he should be able to play in them all. You can't suddenly get to the knockout stages and say, 'now it counts'. Ask any player from a team that has missed out on the post-season, they can tell you every game is important.
<div> </div>
The decision is wrong because it makes a mockery of the oft-repeated line that Super Rugby wants to be the best competition with the best players in the world. Well, last time I looked, Lambie was a 50-test Springbok and Liam Messam a Rugby World Cup-winning All Black and twice recipient of the Super Rugby grand final man-of-the-match medal.
But they now can't play, because of 'rules'.
Messam is a veteran of more than 100 games for the Chiefs, a loyalist to both New Zealand rugby and the Sanzaar competition. That he has been treated this way is a bad joke. Hiding behind the 'rules is rules' argument is a slap in the face for a player who deserves nothing but respect from the people administering this competition.
If that's the way we treat the legends of Super Rugby, I pity the poor young fools signing their first contracts. Welcome aboard kids. You may as well pack your bags and head to France. Sure, you'll be herded about like cattle by bored, rich owners, but at least the weather will be nice. Plus you won't have to bust your ass in your local competition for 10 years before you learn how little you are valued.
 
When will this game cut its fans a break? Already they have been told to cool their jets when it comes to the playoff system - a system many have struggled to understand from day one, and continue to be perplexed by. Already they have been left baffled by in-game rulings that are never fully explained. What's so hard about fronting up? The referees get a full debriefing after every match yet the fans are left to figure it out on their own.
Already fans have been left to consider the merits of an expansion programme that has given us the Kings, Sunwolves and Jaguares. We are told Super Rugby must expand or die, and there is truth in that claim. But, please, fans are only just able to swallow that line. Now they're expected to chase it down with something even less palatable.
On the Messam ruling, Sanzaar media and communications manager Greg Thomas, said:
"Special dispensation hasn't been granted because Sanzaar are satisfied that the Chiefs can field a normal, full-strength side of 23 players for the following match." How is it within Sanzaar's remit to decide on what a coach's 'full-strength' side looks like? Surely that is what coaches are for, and they are the only ones who can make that call.
If Sanzaar are now the sole arbiter of 'full strength' and are genuinely worried about maintaining the integrity of this competition, then allow me to remind you all of the Lions team selected by Johan Ackermann last weekend. Is 'under-strength' not something the administration is qualified to comment on?
It's no secret Super Rugby is at war with other competitions in the world for the services of the best players. By refusing to allow two of them to play this weekend, Super Rugby has shot itself in the foot. And there's nothing reasonable about that.
</div>
<div>
Read more by <a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.nzherald.co.nz/scotty-stevenson/news/headlines.cfm?a_id=815'>Scotty Stevenson</a> <a class="" href="http://dynamic.nzherald.co.nz/feedback/author/index.cfm?a_id=815" title="">Email Scotty Stevenson</a>
</div>

Tim

Was Messam contracted by the Chiefs for the season? Surely representing a national team is a good reason for an exemption?

taniwharugby

I think that is the sticking point, he wasn't contracted by the Chiefs, but I guess he was to the NZRU?

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="597995" data-time="1468884885">
<div>
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"?
 
Seems like the answer is "Yes".
 
Supplementary question.
 
Then why do you need Messam?
 
Probable answer - because he's a shit load better than Koloamatangi.
 
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
So you're saying that the bigwigs in SANZAR have no understanding of the differences in position between 6/8 and 7? 
 
The Chiefs now have two 7s and no 6 cover unless they use their lock cover in that position and then they have no lock cover.
 
I wonder if the fact they played Cane at 8 in a one off game is counting against them now? Even though his entire career has been as a 7.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="598061" data-time="1468907197">
<div>
So you're saying that the bigwigs in SANZAR have no understanding of the differences in position between 6/8 and 7? 
 
The Chiefs now have two 7s and no 6 cover unless they use their lock cover in that position and then they have no lock cover.
 
I wonder if the fact they played Cane at 8 in a one off game is counting against them now? Even though his entire career has been as a 7.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
They have Tevita Koloamatangi who is primarily a 6 who can play 7 for the Mako$. :)
 
What does Bardoul play?
 
Sanders is a 6/8 and as you say, it's hard to say Cane can't play 8 when he's played there.

The Silver Fern

Liam Messam shock AB recall ?