The Silver Fern

@sparky exactly. The best way would be to schedule 3v4, then 2v5, then 1v6 on that order.
3v4, the loser can't assume they'll be the lucky loser as either #1 or #2 might lose.
2v5, likewise #2 can't afford to lose in case #1 was to slip up. #5 can never be a lucky loser.
1v6, #1 is always going to get a second chance regardless of the previous results, and #6 can never be a lucky loser.

I don't mind the concept, reward for finishing at the top after the regular season is a 2nd chance.
But having 3v4 last is just wrong.

Also, I'd like the lucky loser to be seeded last for the semis. If you lose you get a 2nd chance but kiss goodbye to home field advantage, you now have to do it the hard way.

@Dan54 OK, I totally understand the safety aspect and that has to be paramount.
It's just annoying when teams use scrums just as a means to get a penalty.
I'd make the penalty threshold higher, it just seems like you get a penalty just for being better at scrumaging.
Name another sport in which you get penalised just because the other team is better than you.
If a team goes backwards at a scrum it usually results in a penalty, does it t mean there is foul play, or just that the other team was better/stronger?
If your scrum is going forward is that not reward enough?
Take the rwc for example, if a top nation is playing a complete minnow then pretty much every scrum results in a penalty, and sometimes a yellow card.
Basically the minnow is being penalised for being a minnow...

If it was a Fijian it would have been a different colour

Didn't happen and I wasn't there in Cardiff that evening.

Me too, I mean me neither...

@antipodean said in France v Argentina:

@brodean said in France v Argentina:

@antipodean said in France v Argentina:

@brodean said in France v Argentina:

@NTA said in France v Argentina:

@brodean said in France v Argentina:

@Billy-Tell said in France v Argentina:

Looked like a penalty try to me. That was a slap in a forward direction. Even if ball maybe went sideways. Think this score line puts NZs effort into perspective. The French fullback is having a very good game. Dupont too he’s making all the right decisions.

The ball went backwards a metre.

The referee explained why he made that decision. And it was pretty obvious on repay

Yep his reasons are clearly not in the laws of rugby. The law does not mention hand direction. You must intentionally knock the ball forward to be penalised and he did not knock the ball forward. It must be intentional and it must be knocked forward. Two components need to be satisfied which weren't.

You don't have to knock on to be penalised for deliberately knocking the ball out of play.

He didn't delibrately knock the ball out of play.

Of course he did. His own body language afterwards showed that.

He knocked the ball backwards and then it bounced to the side.

His action was forwards and towards the sideline. That much is obvious. In doing so he's violated law 7 b.

.... but the ball went backwards... he gave a penalty try and yellow card for something that didn't happen, and after watching a reply of it not happening. What little chance Argentina had was ruined by an obviously wrong call.
I'm not up on all the rules, but I would of thought a knock on is dependent on the ball going forward.
Serious question, does the ball have to go forward to be a knock on. Is there a circumstance when it can be a knock on if the ball goes backwards?

I like the idea of a boutique stadium for npc games, 10,000 fans in a small stadium will be better atmosphere than 20,000 in Eden park.

I'll miss the speedway at western springs, I remember my dad taking me and my mate there in the late 70s, early 80s. It's the home of speedway, and handy for westies/petrol heads.

Having said all that, this has been talked about since before rwc2011, and we will probably still be talking about it by the time we next get to host the rwc...

@Billy-Tell said in France v Argentina:

Looked like a penalty try to me. That was a slap in a forward direction. Even if ball maybe went sideways. Think this score line puts NZs effort into perspective. The French fullback is having a very good game. Dupont too he’s making all the right decisions.

Looks like he just tried to pop it over the French head to try re-gather.
The fact it actually went backwards is what gets me. Surely it can't be a deliberate knock on if it doesn't go forward.
I think I'm pissing in the wind though...

Being demoted could be a great career move for Liam. Especially if he starts outperforming yuki.
Reading the above article it sound's like Redbull isn't a great environment to be in at the moment. I'm sure if that's the case then it will have a flow on effect to the junior team, but atleast LL will be 1 step removed from it. And both junior cars seem to be preforming well.

@antipodean said in France v Argentina:

@WestieFella said in France v Argentina:

@antipodean said in France v Argentina:

@brodean said in France v Argentina:

@antipodean said in France v Argentina:

@brodean said in France v Argentina:

@NTA said in France v Argentina:

@brodean said in France v Argentina:

@Billy-Tell said in France v Argentina:

Looked like a penalty try to me. That was a slap in a forward direction. Even if ball maybe went sideways. Think this score line puts NZs effort into perspective. The French fullback is having a very good game. Dupont too he’s making all the right decisions.

The ball went backwards a metre.

The referee explained why he made that decision. And it was pretty obvious on repay

Yep his reasons are clearly not in the laws of rugby. The law does not mention hand direction. You must intentionally knock the ball forward to be penalised and he did not knock the ball forward. It must be intentional and it must be knocked forward. Two components need to be satisfied which weren't.

You don't have to knock on to be penalised for deliberately knocking the ball out of play.

He didn't delibrately knock the ball out of play.

Of course he did. His own body language afterwards showed that.

He knocked the ball backwards and then it bounced to the side.

His action was forwards and towards the sideline. That much is obvious. In doing so he's violated law 7 b.

.... but the ball went backwards... he gave a penalty try and yellow card for something that didn't happen, and after watching a reply of it not happening. What little chance Argentina had was ruined by an obviously wrong call.
I'm not up on all the rules, but I would of thought a knock on is dependent on the ball going forward.

Don't get caught up in Pearce's confusion. He arrived at the right outcome possibly following the wrong process.

I guess it's one of those things I'll never understand.
Just like when I just miss a call from the wife, and when I dial back immediately she's nowhere near the phone...

@MiketheSnow I dont think it's too complicated. But I'll admit it's not simple.
I think it would be better and easier to follow if lucky loser dropped to the bottom seed, not just drop one spot.

I was at that game, me and about 50 other people.
Google tells me it was a Friday.

JKs try was running towards us, but not sure I remember it or if I'm remembering one of the 100 times I've since seen it on tv/you tube.

The opening ceremony was a sight to be hold.
I can honestly say that it was the best RWC opening ceremony up to that point.

So, brumbies v hurricanes now a straight knock out.
No lucky loser, loser is out.

I think a good game of rugby is better than a good game of almost any other sport.

BUT....

Scrums drive me stupid, watch a game from the 70' or 80's and a scrum was set, feed, and the ball was out in literally seconds. Why does the ref have to give the pack a quick re-cap of how to scrummag before every scrum, as if neither pack have seen a scrum before.
Also, scrum penalties, I'd get rid of them unless someone shoots someone.
Getting a dominant scrum and your forwards walking over the opposing forwards is reward enough. You have the ball with a dominant platform to play it.

And also knock on advantage, if one team knocks on and the other team gets the ball and can cleanly play it from the resulting ruck, then that's it, you have the ball, advantage over. Why wait 20 seconds just to go back and have a scrum in the same place you got the ball 20 seconds ago.

The more I think about the new playoff & lucky loser concept the more I think it doesn't suck.
It's 100 times better than the current format of 8 out of 12 make the playoffs.
Also, others have said if the #1 seed loses to #6 then they are still guaranteed to get through, so why wouldn't they put out a weakened team? Well if #1 did lose then they drop to a lower seed # and could therefore lose home advantage if they make end up making the final.
The higher up the table you finish the more chance you get to get a second chance.
At first I thought it was a terrible concept, but I'm coming around to it.
They probably should have given it a better name though, like 2nd chance.

Interesting vid about locating stadiums in cities...

@Canes4life said in Poll: Super Rugby 2025 Top 6:

Yeah I can see 5 working. Top team has a week off in the first round of the playoffs. 2-5 play the quarters. Top qualifiers play the semis and then the winner of each of those games plays in the final

Not sure how that would work, you'd end up with the #1 seed plus 2 winners of the quarters.

@Canes4life said in Super Rugby 2025:

@WestieFella said in Super Rugby 2025:

@frugby said in Super Rugby 2025:

@Yeetyaah said in Super Rugby 2025:

@Canes4life Surely for integrities sake that's the first game played. Would be shithouse if they both rest their top teams coz they potentially have a guaranteed second chance.

I thought 3v4 was guaranteed to be played first for this very reason?

Me too.
When the new format was announced I'd assumed that 3v4 would be first followed by 2v5, so none of those teams could afford to lose just in case #1 losses to #6.
#1 is the only team guaranteed a 2nd chance, so play their game last as the previous games are irrelevant to both teams.

If the Brumbies are hosting then it would be difficult to have their game first as it's in Aus.

As my dad used to say "if we can put a man on the moon I'm sure we sort this out"

@frugby said in Super Rugby 2025:

@Yeetyaah said in Super Rugby 2025:

@Canes4life Surely for integrities sake that's the first game played. Would be shithouse if they both rest their top teams coz they potentially have a guaranteed second chance.

I thought 3v4 was guaranteed to be played first for this very reason?

Me too.
When the new format was announced I'd assumed that 3v4 would be first followed by 2v5, so none of those teams could afford to lose just in case #1 losses to #6.
#1 is the only team guaranteed a 2nd chance, so play their game last as the previous games are irrelevant to both teams.

@Dan54 said in Super Rugby 2025:

On what games should be played first, etc in first week of finals? Should make no difference, I would expect every team to be trying to win anyway. shouldn't make any difference of other results.

If 3v4 is the last game, and #1 & #2 already won their games, them both 3 & 4 are already guaranteed through before their game even kicks off.

Yeah, there's no prefect system with an 11 team comp, especially if you want all playoff teams playing with no byes.
I'd prefer no byes because as already mentioned, it can be a momentum killer, for the team and fans alike.
8 out of 11 playoff teams is too many.
4 is too few (in my opinion anyway).
5 would be a good number, but how do you get 5 down to 4 then 2, without it being convoluted.
6 I like, but as mentioned before, the scheduling of 3v4 last is just daft.
The downside of the current system is that the lucky loser could be the 4th ranked team.
So if 1,2 & 3 win then 4 gets rewarded for lossing, and as they are already the lowest seed they don't get punished.

I hope either the chiefs or the crusaders lose (especially the chiefs, I'm a blues fan) so as the Brumbies v hurricanes match isn't a dud.

Having said that, I'm happy to see how it plays out.
This round is just to determine the semifinal line up, then it's total knockout.