Super XV Wrap: Final pool round next weekend!

First topic message reminder :

There is one week's pool round matches to go, and although the final 6 qualifyers aren't set in stone the mathematcis of it all is pretty simple.

If the Bulls and Sharks win their last matches with a 4 try bonus point against the Lions and Cheetahs respectively then they are both in.
If they win without bonus point the Reds need to beat the Waratahs with a bonus point to get into the top six.

If the Reds do manage to best the Waratahs with a 4 try bonus point and either of the Bulls or sharks don't, then the reds are secured of qualifying by virtue of one more win in the pool rounds.

If it is between the Bulls and Sharks then the Bulls should go through due to better points difference.

The Conferences for SA and NZ has been decided and the Stormers and Chiefs can no longer be overtaken.

The Reds can still win the Australian conference, but it seems unlikely as they would need to score a 4 try bonus point win over the Waratahs and the Brumbies will need to lose by more than 7 points against the hapless Blues.

Full Log without bye log points.

Spoiler:

Conference Logs.

Spoiler:

By my reckoning the Brumbies will host the Sharks in the play offs and the Crusaders will host the Bulls in the other play off.

With the winner of the Brumbies vs Sharks to mplay the semi final against the Stormers at Newlands and the other winner between the Bulls and Crusaders to face the Chiefs in the second semi final.

Apparently not, I was wrong. I don't understand this new second player shunt rule - should the tackled player who is short of the line not have to release?

NZ refs are a joke

Well it was given again but I'm not sure what camera angle the video ref used and whether that was one continuous movement. Looks like he was short and then carried over again. That's a double movement. Chiefs hard done by two weeks in a row. Cruel.

So Stormers have the chance to go top and probably that means the Chiefs go second. So how does that work now. Are the Hurricanes able to sneak in now?

Cruel? That's absolutely fricken disgraceful mate. These knob head NZ refs are making up rules on the spot.

The same circumstances awarded a try last weekend, where the ballcarrier was stopped before the line and the "shunter" put him over. At least they were consistent here.

Great game of rugby though. Luckily I picked the Hurricanes on Sportsguru.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Well it was given again but I'm not sure what camera angle the video ref used and whether that was one continuous movement. Looks like he was short and then carried over again. That's a double movement. Chiefs hard done by two weeks in a row. Cruel.

So Stormers have the chance to go top and probably that means the Chiefs go second. So how does that work now. Are the Hurricanes able to sneak in now?

Kia the Hurricanes needed a bonuspoint win to get in.

Both the Bulls and the Sharks have to lose to give the Hurricanes a chance.

Consistently poor. You can't make a bad decision and then make the same decision because a poor one was made last week. You have to own up and say we got it wrong and then make the right ruling. I certainly hope they are called out on that and asked to give a justification of that ruling. I feel your pain EBOP.

That's advantage firmly handed to the Stormers now. They don't even need a bonus point to go top now.

biltongbek wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Well it was given again but I'm not sure what camera angle the video ref used and whether that was one continuous movement. Looks like he was short and then carried over again. That's a double movement. Chiefs hard done by two weeks in a row. Cruel.

So Stormers have the chance to go top and probably that means the Chiefs go second. So how does that work now. Are the Hurricanes able to sneak in now?

Kia the Hurricanes needed a bonuspoint win to get in.

Both the Bulls and the Sharks have to lose to give the Hurricanes a chance.

Why is that biltong?
Isnt it if any two of reds, bulls and sharks lose canes are in?

Well the first try of the Chiefs were also contentious, so maybe it went both ways today.

However it was a gutsy performance by both teams, great skills and some absolutely brilliant offloading.

Just have to mention this, SBW was marked well today by his opposite number.

Re: My dear friend Bruce cops more criticism.
by Kiwireddevil on Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:43 pm

.SANZAR Game Manager Lyndon Bray has backed Lawrence's TMO call:
“You only have to imagine that this tackle scenario happened on the halfway line and you realise that you are dealing with the same picture that our players and referees deal with many times per game,” Bray said.

“The tackler is driven off the ball carrier by the first arriving player, who does a great job of maintaining his feet as he enters the tackle, and Ellis ends up exercising an option: that is, he has the ball on the ground over the line.”

“He does not make a second attempt to place the ball, nor does he try to get back to his feet to get over the line. The action happened all in a natural period of time. If this had happened on halfway, Ellis would have placed the ball after the Chiefs player was driven off him, and we would have played on.”

(from http://www.frontrowgrunt.co.za/2012/07/bryce-was-right/ ).
Kiwireddevil
Admin




Posts: 6610
Join date: 2011-01-26
Location: London, England

Frankly I thought the chiefs got the run of luck and the canes deserved the try. Twenty plus phases etc.

The ref block, the sinbin, sbws slightly high tackle...the intercept try. All going the chiefs way.

I didnt see the try scored but I couldnt rule it out either.

All in all...fair result.

biltongbek wrote:

Re: My dear friend Bruce cops more criticism.
by Kiwireddevil on Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:43 pm

.SANZAR Game Manager Lyndon Bray has backed Lawrence's TMO call:
“You only have to imagine that this tackle scenario happened on the halfway line and you realise that you are dealing with the same picture that our players and referees deal with many times per game,” Bray said.

“The tackler is driven off the ball carrier by the first arriving player, who does a great job of maintaining his feet as he enters the tackle, and Ellis ends up exercising an option: that is, he has the ball on the ground over the line.”

“He does not make a second attempt to place the ball, nor does he try to get back to his feet to get over the line. The action happened all in a natural period of time. If this had happened on halfway, Ellis would have placed the ball after the Chiefs player was driven off him, and we would have played on.”

(from http://www.frontrowgrunt.co.za/2012/07/bryce-was-right/ ).
Kiwireddevil
Admin




Posts: 6610
Join date: 2011-01-26
Location: London, England

This is the nonsense bit for me, and I don't understand why the tackled player is allowed to hold on to the ball on the ground?

I don't understand it myself ASBO, but this is same as last week.

Sadly both times against the Chiefs and both times a NZ referee, once again backed up by the big chief of NZ rugby.

Pathetic. If it were another team outside NZ, like the Brumbies against the Bulls, and it were the same circumstances, you can be assured the same people would be raising hell on the matter. If either of those players were on their feet, then he must have a foot somewhere else and I'm sure the NZ ladies would have made it public by now if that were the case.

Oh, don't you worry Kia, TJ on Re Union is sure to make a stink out of this.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:Pathetic. If it were another team outside NZ, like the Brumbies against the Bulls, and it were the same circumstances, you can be assured the same people would be raising hell on the matter. If either of those players were on their feet, then he must have a foot somewhere else and I'm sure the NZ ladies would have made it public by now if that were the case.

Classic, kia!

Ha! Good work Kia. You know kiwis, try to be humble, even our sheilas.

Well, Bray has made a rod for his own back. If any of these double movement 'shunt' tries are disallowed in future games, he'll have to come out and slam the refs/TMOs.

Wonder how the Stormers will do with the pressure on them. I still think they should win, but I have seen strange things in our super rugby past. Looks likely that they will end up top without a bonus point win. Has any team ever done that?

SBW wasn't well marked, he found himself on the receiving end of high and late tackles all game. His weaknesses were on show today (as he is still fairly new to NZRU) and it made the Canes look good; in spite of this he still looks world class every time he touches the ball. The Canes prop yellow card award was right, I didn't think it was a tip tackle but thought it was a late and dangerous one. I also couldn't see how the late try was given and I could see it from the same angles as the TMO. A good game of rugby though.

It was a good and entertaining game. The way both teams moved the ball forwards, I thought the final score was going to be in the 40s. I didn't agree with the yellow card though I can see how it could be given. For me, a simple penalty. The try was something else, though. Every replay they showed was unclear to me. Looked like it should have been a 5 metre scrum to Hurricanes.

Well the game was well over doc so that was the last play bar a penalty..
I couldnt see the try either and ive got no problem with the shunt thing as long as its immediately after the last movement of the player. Dont see the big deal to be honest.

Theyre right in that if the line was the half way one the attacking side would have recycled it. Bottom lineis the line has still got to be defended.

In any case i think this a worse result for NZ sides. Canes are probably gone and nz sides face some tough away matches to win it now.

Nz sides playing mainly NZ sides all year makes this tougher for our teams.

I forgot to add/elaborate. Sonny Bill needs to know when to pass, it seems like it is costing the Chiefs almost certain tries (although he does create and set-up a few anyway) and those passes need to be better. The offloads are good but sometimes the passes look as if he is shovelling dirt. Also, Justin Marshal is a poor commentator. He was pretty poor during the JWC too. He shouldn't be given those powers during a SH or NZ team game.

I've got to say; it's hard to not be canes-centric or Nz rugby-centric but that game was probably the best game I have watched in a long time, the last 'great' game I watched was probably the 2010 win in j'burg over SA. Both teams were trying it on with their attack but defence was also strong for both sides. There were only two scrums in the first 45 mins which says a lot about the handling of both teams, as well as the ability to recycle the ball quickly so it doesn't go dead so to limit the errors while keeping up the pace and intensity says a lot about the way these two teams played today. It had epic test match written all over it.....I'm just so happy we came through in the end!!

Taylor,
Certainly not a great result for the NZ teams. I could easily see the top three NZ teams making a good run at the championship as I really don't see much between them. And, if Slade wasn't injured, the Highlanders woud have been right there, too.

On a point of Rugby law order, I wonder about ending the match on a try/no try TMO decision. If there was no whistle from the referee signalling he would go to the TMO, then woldn't the Hurricanes have continued playing, trying to get further over the line? Seems like it penalises the attacking team when they did absolutely nothing wrong. Am I missing something?

I think it was pulled up because a try was claimed. Natural end to that is either a try or a scrum. A scrum being end of game.

Yeah if the oz and SA sides had to play the highlanders canes chiefs or crusaders twice each during the year instead of the force rebels cheetahs and lions the wouldnt be near the top. The presence of consistently weak sides in the dual round local derbies while we have four fighting largely eachother to get in makes it uneven.

I think that's one of the problems with the conference Taylor, it's a terrible system. You can't hold it against aus/sa though, they were trying to develop their game and that means new/weak Franchises. NZ always had five, correct?

That result has probably given the Stormers the title ,going on the theory home advantage is vital in the Super series results.It was always going to be a close call and the Chiefs have lost momentum recently.Stormers ,and Chiefs both have a rest and Home semis booked.On any form Bulls and Crusaders are Gimmes,Stormers very unlikely to lose.Sharks and Reds could go either way.The home team won and that is par for the course in these matchs looking at the bright side.NZ had 4 sides there or there abouts which bodes well barring disasters.The Blues have been a shambles this year but the injury list has
been horrendous.Sir John Kirwin is in the frame as Coach,and another step towards an AB Coaching berth.After coaching Italy and Japan he is used to Coaching lost causes.A clear out of the non achievers amon g the players,a solid base to work from then the only way is up.
The Crusaders back divisions have always tended to be solid as opposed to spectacular.Fruen,Whitelock[Adam] Crotty,Maitland.Guildford,Dagg,Tom Taylor,Bleyen Dahl.and Tom Marshall .Are all good young players with many years ahead of them.Finally the Crusaders are hard nosed enough to go all the way.If any side could go to SA and beat the Stormers they could as they have proven in the recent past.

New Zealand has had 4 teams in the Super Rugby since 1993, SA 3 and Australia 2.

In 1996 when the Super 12 started NZ had 5 teams, SA 4 and OZ 3. From 2006 when the Super 14 started SA also went to 5 teams and OZ to 4, NZ remained on 5.

It has only been the last two years that everyone had five teams.

So considering that NZ have had 5 teams since 1996, SA have had 5 teams since 2006, and OZ 5 teams since last year, there can be a reasoning that OZ certainly and SA perhaps to a lesser extent is still catching up on creating depth of talent.

All three countries are struggling to retain players as there are more financially viable options outside of SANZAR.

During the Super 10, SA won 1 title, and OZ 2.
During the Super 12, NZ won 8 titles and OZ 2.
During the Super 14, SA won 3 titles and NZ 2.
Last year in the Inaugural Super 15 OZ won the title.

Each country has had their own challenges, OZ has no professional provincial equivalent of a Currie Cup or ITM, and the reality is rugby union is miles behind Rugby League development in terms of professional teams and player numbers.

south Africa has their own challenges, notably the Cheetahs who simply do not have the money to retain top stars. They effectively have to rebuild their squad every season, since they joined Super Rugby the Cheetahs have lost over 80 players to their Franchise, considering they have only been involved for 6 years, you cab imagine the task set upon them to rebuild continuously.

The Lions Franchise are not only mismanaged but Loffie Eloff had no clue, during his period with the Lions he would make it his goal to go to Craven weeks to contract a plathora of players for every position, last year the Lions Franchise cancelled a big number of contracts of players being paid due to the over zealousness of a coach who contracted players who never wore a Lions jersey but spent their time in contract playing varsity rugby for Johannesburg University.

Now with the Kings being touted a shot at Super Rugby the farce will only get worse.

The reality is the talent is there, but when senior management members are wasting money and talent things will never get better.

I have said the conference system is flawed and last year each country had 2 teams making the play offs where this year it seems unlikely.

The expansion of Super rugby is a step that needs to be considered from both ends, a weaker Franchise should not benefit their stronger teams, but once again for the sake of the almighty dollar, local derbies are called for on a home and away basis and that creates the farce, however NZ should have known this could bite them as they have had their development system set up for 5 teams since 1996 wheras the other two countries are at least a decade behind.

What makes this whole situation even more hilarious is that Super Rugby is said to bring in less than 40% of the revenue.

So my question is, if the focus is making money then SANZAR is being penny wise and pound foolish. Why do you ask?

Well if 60 home derbies + 60 touring matches + the 5 knock out matches brings in less broadcast revenue than 9 test matches the bean counters are doing this the wrong way round.

It seems obvious to me at least, broadcasters pay a hell of a lot more for high quality rugby, than lower quality and higher quantities.

Granted gate money helps with revenue, but at what percentage?

NZ benefitted from 5 teams for long, Oz benefits from now having a professional comp that allows them to contract 150 players professionally, SA well they might get 3 teams in the play offs

Jeez, there was a Super 10? That is going back a while. Was it Stormers that won it? Australia as a rugby team did pretty well with three franchises (or did they have a professional league below at this time?)

The lions won it in 1993, incidentally the core of the Lions team won the RWC in 1995.

queensland Reds won it in 1994 and 1995, I don't think Australia had any professional structure then, remember Pro rugby only started in 1996

My point concerning the super15 was nothing to do with the tournament in general.Just pointing out that currently 4 of the 5 NZ sides are more or less on a par.Where as if you want to be pedantic usually the 2 SA and 2 Aus are among the bottom sides and always the same one or two.Nz usually have one every season but it is rarely now the same one,it used to be the highlanders.Further IF you want to get a decent Tournament there is a good case for reverting to a Super10 rather than expanding it with useless sides.Then it really would be a Super Tournament again.

Yeah my comments(a.k.a whinging) are purely to do with teams qualifying. Five is a perfect number of teams for NZ and I wouldnt change that.

But what it gives us is depth and more cover for injuries at the test level than the other two sides so if theres a push to reduce NZ sides we would dispute it heavily.

Stormers now hold the box seat and Alan its a bit simplistic to say the chiefs have fallen off. Theyve had two fantastic, almost best of season performances this and last week against two classy sides, losing at the death by what many are calling controversial endings.

Smith and Rennie will have them firing semi finals time. Our best two sides are still in so they have every chance.

Its certainly not over yet by any means.

It`s not over till the fat lady sings but i would expect the Crusaders always assuming they win tomorrow.To win a home Qtr-final to set up an away Semi versus probably the Chiefs.I think they could just go there and win it again the Chiefs have been winning until now.Now is the wrong end of the season to be start losing,Disputed calls cut both ways the Crusaders got the short end versus the Canes.Got a good call versus the Chiefs,but most significant for me the Crusaders defended for virtually the last 20 minutes to close the game out thats experience.I doubt the Chiefs could do the same,and I have memories of the demolition job the Bulls did on them at Loftus was it 2009?
Incidentally I thought Brendon Leonard looked really sharp in the last 20 last week best since 2007 RWC when i`ve seen him.

Chiefs are not the 2009 side and all year have been easily the best combined attack/ defensive side. By a mile. If anything the saders are flatlining given everyones available.

Good thing as they can get better.

So Im confident we'll be there or abouts. Any of those left other than the bulls can win it now. Theyve been flat for a while now and have to travel.

Blues hitting some form. If only eh. Main thing I've noticed is that they havn't been making silly mistakes and turning the ball over like they were early in the season. Man they used to be hard to watch, but they played really well today, deserved the win.

Excellant performance by the blues, its taken since february, but Im happy with that display, to think that the bottom NZ team can utterly dick the top Australian team tells me that things arent all that bad.

Ja, and they kicked the top team in Aus away.

Just watching the Crusaders and the force, does anybody know how a guy like Phil Blake gets to be coach of a Super xv side?

fern
Things are looking good for the Bokky boys?

Anyway strap yourselves in weve got a big night of rugby watching to go.

Morning/evening all,
Just to show what a global formum we have, I just got home from overnight coverage at the hospital. Still not even 4:00am here! So pardon me if I am incoherent.

Not surprised Brumbies lost. I think they are a very mediocre group managed very well by Jake White. With the Reds suffering injuries earlier, I think they are better now than earlier and would be a better representative for the Aussie conference.

I see the comments here and there about reducing the number of teams in the English Premiership and in Super Rugby. Since this is about exposure and money for the broadcasters and the sport, the chances of turning the clock back to fewer teams is not going to happen until everyone start losing money. Whether it would provide a better kind of Rugby it not the point. Expanding in to new markets, especially in Australia is important. In SA, they have their internal issue to sort. I do admit it is a shame about the top 4 NZ teams as they just about as good as any team in the comp.

Evenin doc

I' ve died and gone to heaven, the misssus is out of town on conference and I'm home alone like Cory Calkin with a couple of bottles of of good pinot Noir. talk about global forum we have, take a seat, and whats your pleasure a Wine a beer or a glass of the "good stuff"?

You would not believe how long it tokk me to typew that!!! and Ive only done one game.

Need a glass of the good stuff. Summer here, so a nice gin would go well. Haven't slept in about 24 hours and are keyed up after a real busy night. Might as well sit and watch the Rugby, eh?

Can anyone in NZ shed some light on what the NZ refs are smoking these days? The poor old Force are going to get towelled up anyway, they don't need decisions going against them to add to their woes.

Full Credit
My take on Kiwi referees on what of Ive seen in the last 24 hours is in terms of ranking:

No 1: Glenn Jackson (whos reffing the game thats on at the moment.

No 2 ; Daylight at the South Pole in January.

No 3 Possibly Chris Pollock.

After that is a raffle as to whoes the least inept.

Eveyrone seems to be trying to P..s in the pocket of Paddy or Lyndon Bray...

Glenn Jackson could probably come out and play a better 10 for the Force than they have now.

Doc

Actually thats quite funny, at times you get the feeling that he's going to pick up the ball and say " now look here you thick bunch of cretens this is how you do it".. and he probably would would.

Funny you mentioned that. A few times this season I saw him ref, I swore he looked like he was going to do exactly that.

I really like the guy, hes got such a good feel for the game, that I bet the morons that write write the laws of the game ever envisaged would ever occur.

Funny story from the hospital last night (just a few hours ago, really):
A drunk guy is brought into the Emergency by a woman. He had a severely broken arm, the ulna broke through the skin and there was a fair amount of blood. As we worked to stop the bleeding and get his arm stabilised, he starts complaining that he was in pain whenever he urinated. Seems his girlfriend, or some girl, gave him the olde time disease. So he got drunk and got angrier and angrier at his situation. Got so jacked up he punched a wall in anger and broke his arm.
The line of the night: One of the nurses with me at one point tells him, “Sir, we are trying to fix your arm and stop you from bleeding to death. If you don’t stop complaining about your dick, I am going to cut the feckin thing off.”

I love her.

Dr G, I feel sure there's a moral in that story somewhere?