The Silver Fern

@Machpants said in North Harbour v Canterbury:

@dingo said in North Harbour v Canterbury:

I wish the M10 teams got to play all season with their Soup/AB players. How fantastic would that be!!

It will be interesting, in that the ABs will have to take a mega squad to Oz for the RC, so there maybe another 10 more players removed from M10 at the pointy end. That could really effect the finals

Bro. I'm old school. I remember when Wellington last won the NPC/M10. I was in the UK. Our Wellington team with its (few) ABs beat Canterbury with its ABs. You saw what it meant to the players. Forits supporters we watched at 11Am and partied all day and nght.

I like this version of the M10. ABs play with Super Rugby players who play with NPC/M10 players who a few weeks ago were really good club players . A club player like me could easily imagine it could be you (if you weren't so old, broken and generally were a bit shit).

I wish the M10 teams got to play all season with their Soup/AB players. How fantastic would that be!!

@Machpants said in North Harbour v Canterbury:

@Bones said in North Harbour v Canterbury:

Great pace.

Gatland not fafita

To be fair. Gatland isn't bad at M10 cup level. He must wonder why he came home with his dad.

@Bones
I'm trying to remember when it was. I remember we had mutual friends.

Were you in Wellingtown in 2005 when Lions were in town? I was a bit more active foruming back then.

Fuck. To easy try.

@Bones said in North Harbour v Canterbury:

@antipodean a baby stole your dingo?

So...@bones....you clearly remember we caught up many years ago and where my userid came from.

@Bones

Bro. Not wrong.

And fortanatly something remembered by userid/pwd.

Gentlemen.

Haven't forumed on TSF for a year or two for various reason but popped in to say that I'm really enjoying this Cant versus NH game. Its like the old days!!

@machpants said in NZ vs. Aust - Japanese yawn edition:

@stargazer said in NZ vs. Aust - Japanese yawn edition:

Todd on for Squire, so who'll play at 7?

Read at six!

On the attacking scrum, Read was at six, Ardie at Eight. On the defensive scrum, they reversed.

@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

I don't recall a lot about Marc Ellis

"I don't recall a lot about Marc Ellis"

All you need to know about Marc Ellis is why is famous from a RWC perspective. He is famous for it due to a similar characteristic he shares with DMac. Not just being an outside back moved inside but he also looks for what is on for himself first because he backs himself (in my opinion). Its both what makes him good and bad (in a team game) at the same time.

@donsteppa said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

DMac is there over Mo’unga because several NZ rugby journalists and the AB’s brains trust seem to be blindly in love with the razzle dazzle and “exciting risk taking” of DMac. Which is so amazing that we have to convert him to first five so he can cause even more damag... err... sorry... exciting plays.

Yeah, I’m still sulking about last week.

DMac is the RWC2019 Marc Ellis. There to beat up some minnow on a flat track. Please please please lets have BB and Mounga in the first choice 23 for the important games.

@canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@kiwimurph said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

So why is DMac in the AB matchday 23 and Mounga not?

You'd think the BB/Mounga combination (with BB dropping back to 15) would be better than the BB/DMac combination too.

This is a great point. I think that combo gives us more options and provides potentially better security if BB is crocked

I agree but maybe only because of seeing Mounga in this Super season. He seems to be both the better injury replacement for BB if that happens, but also a pretty good impact replacement if BB drops back to 15 (with a reshuffle in back three depending on who is playing well). Just seems to give more positive options than DMac.

@kiwimurph said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

So why is DMac in the AB matchday 23 and Mounga not?

You'd think the BB/Mounga combination (with BB dropping back to 15) would be better than the BB/DMac combination too.

Precision point kick there

@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@act-crusader said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@dingo I look forward to the still shots and arrows pointing to who stands up first.

No need. As far as I can tell no one has argued it wasn't Codie. The only argument appears to be that because the Crusaders was scrum was dominant (again unargued) therefore because of the zen of the thing, the penalty against the canes was/wasn't due to an obvious rule infringement.

I don't agree with that analysis. Looked to me like Taylor popped up because the canes hooker or TH stood up rather than going backwards. It doesn't matter that codie was the first to pop up if the reason he popped was due to the canes not maintaining a bind.

I think we are in agree to disagree territory. You see what you see. I see otherwise. To be fair, you have a Ref who agreed with you at the time.

@act-crusader said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@dingo I look forward to the still shots and arrows pointing to who stands up first.

No need. As far as I can tell no one has argued it wasn't Codie. The only argument appears to be that because the Crusaders was scrum was dominant (again unargued) therefore because of the zen of the thing, the penalty against the canes was/wasn't due to an obvious rule infringement.

@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.

Though Codie came up first, the reason he popped up was because the canes players were back pedalling and bailed out, forcing the scrum up rather than backwards.

Looked a reasonable call to me.

So what were they penalised for exactly? From the rules book.

They didn't collapse. They weren't popped. To me it didn't look like their Loose forwards released early...So what?

I'm not arguing it wasn't the right decision but why? What was the exact infringement ruled?

Not maintaining a bind is the technical offence.

Colloquially it is standing up under pressure, causing the scrum to disintegrate.

Yeah, so the Crusader who stood up should be penalised. Not the canes.

Going backwards while maintaining a bind is not penalisable.

@canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team

Particularly when you decide to hand them points like that.

@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.

Though Codie came up first, the reason he popped up was because the canes players were back pedalling and bailed out, forcing the scrum up rather than backwards.

Looked a reasonable call to me.

So what were they penalised for exactly? From the rules book.

They didn't collapse. They weren't popped. To me it didn't look like their Loose forwards released early...So what?

I'm not arguing it wasn't the right decision but why? What was the exact infringement ruled?