Super Rugby News
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@rotated there were numerous flaws with thier criteria and a convenient way of rating some of it for dropping the 2 teams, and as such the plan got rightly shafted.
IIRC Southland should have been dead certs to drop based on the criteria, that should have had them dead last, but somehow they were safe ranked about 9th, think after that it was Northland, Ta$man, Counties and maybe one other on the cusp who had varying 'criteria' that was for/against them.
Absolutely missing the point. It was decided that two teams needed to be moved from the top tier for the betterment of the NZ rugby as a whole. You can quibble on the criteria and what teams deserved a bullet (at least four did for various reasons). But once the decision was made for the benefit of the greater good to move towards a smaller top tier competition they needed to follow through.
The Rebels, Force and even Brumbies depending on how you weigh criteria all could be the team to go. Deciding none of them because there isn't an obvious candidate is not a solution.
@Chris-B. said in Super Rugby News:
@rotated I agree somewhat that it will surprise me if they manage to get rid of any teams - there's certainly no-one I've seen with their hand up saying pick me.
Every time Ta$man picked up the phone to get another cash infusion from the the NZRU in 06-08 they were pretty much begging for it. But as you say Ta$man really is a major success story and once the convoluted contracting structure got straightened out amongst other things they've been a real producer for NZ rugby. Never was a fan of Ta$man being contracted in '08 purely from a geographic perspective, but their financial performance was so egregious at the time they couldn't avoid it.
FWIW Northland and Southland were the best candidates from a redundancy, player quality and financial perspective.
Ultimately though things have worked out pretty well. The NPC is producing better talent, the Unions finances aren't as perilous and at least in the case of Northland we got a happy compromise where their fans got their wish of staying the the Mitre 10 Cup Competition and the NZRU got their wish of seeing them play Heartland-quality rugby for the next decade.
Not that any of that had to do with the main point which is, they've decided now do it even if it has to be Waratahs, Stormers and Bulls.
-
Kepu banned after multiple offences
Sekope Kepu has accepted that he should be further sanctioned by the SANZAAR Foul Play Review Committee following a hearing under SANZAAR Judicial Rule 6.1.
Kepu was issued a Warning by the Citing Commissioner during a Super Rugby Match at the weekend. That Warning was the Player's third offence after receiving Yellow Cards in Round 1 and Round 2.
The SANZAAR Judicial Rules in Section 8 of the Tournament Manual state:
6.1
A Player who has received three yellow cards or three Warnings (or any combination thereof) arising from matches in the same Super Rugby Competition shall be required to appear before the Foul Play Review Committee appointed for the Match during which he last offended.At the same time as notification of the details of his hearing pursuant to Rule 4.1, the Player shall be sent copies of the Match Officials' Reports in relation to each incident and be advised that the purpose of the hearing before the Foul Play Review Committee is to consider the circumstances in which each yellow card and/or Warning was imposed and determine whether any further penalty should be imposed on him by reason of his persistent foul play, or the matter referred to a full hearing, pursuant to Rule 7.
Kepu has been suspended from all forms of the game for one week, up to and including Friday, April 21. The Waratahs have a bye in Round 8, therefore Kepu will serve his suspension for his next scheduled match in Round 9.
Kepu was awarded a Yellow Card in Round 1, a Yellow Card in Round 2 and a Warning in Round 7.
The SANZAAR Foul Play Review Committee of Nigel Hampton QC (Chairman), Stephen Hardy and John Langford assessed the case.
In his finding, Foul Play Review Committee Chairman Nigel Hampton QC ruled the following: "The Foul Play Review Committee conducted a detailed review of all the available evidence on all 3 incidents, including video and additional evidence, as well as evidence from the player and submissions from his legal representative, Anthony Black SC."
"With respect to sanction the Foul Play Review Committee deemed that a one week sanction was appropriate due to a number of factors including the fact the Player had committed three qualifying offences in a relatively short period of time, the fact the Player was put on notice after receiving his second Yellow Card and the similarity of the offences committed by the Player in the first two Yellow Cards and the foul play aspect of the third.
"There were mitigating factors that were also considered which included the Player's excellent Judicial record spanning a long career and his early acceptance of the suspension.
"The player is therefore suspended for one week, up to and including the Waratahs next scheduled match on Friday, April 21.”
-
Only one week for a career of being a grub? He's led a charmed life.
-
@rotated said in Super Rugby News:
Ta$man really is a major success story and once the convoluted contracting structure got straightened out amongst other things they've been a real producer for NZ rugby. Never was a fan of Ta$man being contracted in '08 purely from a geographic perspective, but their financial performance was so egregious at the time they couldn't avoid it.
I blame Lee Germon - possibly unfairly.
I did hear a pretty horrific story from someone who should know about healthy contracts being written for people barely on the fringes. Sounded very much like they may have got their initial financial forecasts horrifically wrong - but, who knows.
-
Aus rugby just can't work out how deep in the friend zone they are.
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@Damo although our conference being the toughest is better for our rugby long term though
This. The derbies are throwing up a very high standard of rugby in NZ. Look at the Blues vs Clan, currently the two "bottom" teams of the conferences, but a great game and neither team is far away from the other three above them.
-
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
Hilarious:
It seems they need reminding about their behaviour over the years. Of course, you can join our competition ARU, as a thank you for voting for us to host the 2011 RWC.
-
@rotated I missed no point...your rant implied that the only reason changes didnt happen was because of the teams under the pump moaned about it.
That, is categorically wrong, the changes didn't happen because the criteria was flawed and would not have held up to legal challenge.
Whether there are the same issues for Super rugby, are yet to be seen.
-
Crusaders expect to have Read, Mo'unga, Goodhue and Tamanivalu available for the Sunwolves.
But Crotty and Ioane are out.
Be interesting to see quite what team gets named. There might be a temptation to rest a couple like Sam Whitelock and Owen Franks.
-
@Chris-B. be a good game to start all of the ones back from injury to blow out the cobwebs and gain a bit of confidence, but yeah be interesting with the likes of Sammy & Franks coming off a bye, maybe from the bench
-
@taniwharugby Should have been an opportunity to give a few guys a week off from training and what not to completely freshen up. I'd imagine there will be several objectives in the Sunwolves' game - reintegrating the injured, resting a few who've had heavy workloads, maybe giving a few debutants a chance - and winning with a bonus point.
Don't forget that one Razor!
-
@Chris-B. They have to work on their points differential, too. That's the reason why the Stormers are now 1st placed and not the Crusaders. Might be crucial at the end of the round robin. Also, always be aware of the banana skin! Nothing worse than underestimating a team and lose when you could have easily won if you had taken the opponent a bit more seriously.
Btw, I'm quite sure the players have had plenty of opportunity to relax last week. I've seen a lot of hunting & fishing photos and photos from guys "at home" (in home province, not being Canterbury).
Edit: haven't plenty of debutants already had their chance? Forced by injuries of others? Hunt, Bridge, Mataele, Heiden Bedwell-Curtis etc etc
-
@mariner4life said in Super Rugby News:
Aus rugby just can't work out how deep in the friend zone they are.
This is rather generous. More like person I went to high school with and see at a reunion and agree to catch up some time status.
The tweet is laughable. What possible benefit would there be to an Aus/NZ comp for NZ?
-
@MN5 said in Super Rugby News:
@pukunui said in Super Rugby News:
Ffs. The biggest problem with super rugby isn't that there are a couple of shit teams. It's the stupid conference system and fucked up finals format where teams don't play the same opposition yet are put into a rankings table as if they do, then come finals time a team can have less points than others but gets a home final.
The new comp will be just as much of a joke. What is the point of over half the teams making the finals?
If you have to have conferences then keep them totally seperate and then have a knock out comp with the top 2 from each conference for the champions cup.I fully expect more shit teams to be added and formats to change in another two years.
It wasn't broke when it was Super 12. Why did the fisheads ( great description btw Norm Hewitt ) feel the need to fix it? I do understand expansion and adding a couple of teams but the convoluted and confusing nature of the competition means it has alienated a shitload of fans which is typified by attendances at games.
Yep. When each team played all others once and then the top four went through to semis, was easy. It seems ludicrous that teams can get through playing no NZ teams at all, and the comp now goes for so bloody long I think people get bored.
-
@Mokey said in Super Rugby News:
@MN5 said in Super Rugby News:
@pukunui said in Super Rugby News:
Ffs. The biggest problem with super rugby isn't that there are a couple of shit teams. It's the stupid conference system and fucked up finals format where teams don't play the same opposition yet are put into a rankings table as if they do, then come finals time a team can have less points than others but gets a home final.
The new comp will be just as much of a joke. What is the point of over half the teams making the finals?
If you have to have conferences then keep them totally seperate and then have a knock out comp with the top 2 from each conference for the champions cup.I fully expect more shit teams to be added and formats to change in another two years.
It wasn't broke when it was Super 12. Why did the fisheads ( great description btw Norm Hewitt ) feel the need to fix it? I do understand expansion and adding a couple of teams but the convoluted and confusing nature of the competition means it has alienated a shitload of fans which is typified by attendances at games.
Yep. When each team played all others once and then the top four went through to semis, was easy. It seems ludicrous that teams can get through playing no NZ teams at all, and the comp now goes for so bloody long I think people get bored.
I get bored before it even starts and I used to watch it pretty religiously.
