Wellington v Hawkes (RS)
-
This whole thing has gotten WAY overblown. As many have said, the shield has broken before... the better question I'd be having, is why were Hawke's Bay allowed such a blowout by their coaches when they have a quarter final in a week's time. I think it is good that the player's care about winning the shield, but regardless of it breaking, seems they were partying to silly o'clock, getting absolutely wasted.
@frugby said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
This whole thing has gotten WAY overblown. As many have said, the shield has broken before... the better question I'd be having, is why were Hawke's Bay allowed such a blowout by their coaches when they have a quarter final in a week's time. I think it is good that the player's care about winning the shield, but regardless of it breaking, seems they were partying to silly o'clock, getting absolutely wasted.
thats a good point, save it for silly sunday
-
It used to be that the reserve prop (when there was only one) was the unofficial minder.
The original RS was heavy enough so the new one must be a solid piece of wood. But obviously not solid enough...
@Bovidae said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
It used to be that the reserve prop (when there was only one) was the unofficial minder.
The original RS was heavy enough so the new one must be a solid piece of wood. But obviously not solid enough...
A straight break like that looks like two pieces of wood used and joined (badly) in the recent repair job
-
@Bovidae said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
It used to be that the reserve prop (when there was only one) was the unofficial minder.
The original RS was heavy enough so the new one must be a solid piece of wood. But obviously not solid enough...
A straight break like that looks like two pieces of wood used and joined (badly) in the recent repair job
@Nevorian said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
@Bovidae said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
It used to be that the reserve prop (when there was only one) was the unofficial minder.
The original RS was heavy enough so the new one must be a solid piece of wood. But obviously not solid enough...
A straight break like that looks like two pieces of wood used and joined (badly) in the recent repair job
It wasn't a repair job, the entire shield was replaced.
-
-
-
@Nevorian said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
@Bovidae said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
It used to be that the reserve prop (when there was only one) was the unofficial minder.
The original RS was heavy enough so the new one must be a solid piece of wood. But obviously not solid enough...
A straight break like that looks like two pieces of wood used and joined (badly) in the recent repair job
It wasn't a repair job, the entire shield was replaced.
@Machpants said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
@Nevorian said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
@Bovidae said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
It used to be that the reserve prop (when there was only one) was the unofficial minder.
The original RS was heavy enough so the new one must be a solid piece of wood. But obviously not solid enough...
A straight break like that looks like two pieces of wood used and joined (badly) in the recent repair job
It wasn't a repair job, the entire shield was replaced.
So replaced with two pieces of timber?
-
-
@Donsteppa said in Wellington v Hawkes (RS):
"Dropped", "plaster", "bad repair job".
"How convenient" - Four Square.
What is Copium?"
-
Just keeps giving, some great comments
-
@mariner4life Hawkes Bay's not North Queensland, the Magpies or a visiting Val Holmes would struggle to source coke in Hastings or Napier.
I've been trying for years without success.
-
Was a but on stuff from Bernie McCahill, he said Peter Fatialofa looked After the shield when they had it...
-
as i say, much more worried about what happened AFTER it was initially broken (photos, posted on social media, possible drugs etc) than the break itself, spirited off straight away and fixed as quick as possible would have been much better
-
On Wednesday, NZR announced its findings from a 10-day investigation that included interviewing players and testing the shield for illicit substances.
The outcome supported HaWkes Bay Rugby Union chief executive Jay Campbell's claims that the damage was a "genuine accident" and not the result of excessive celebrations.
NZR also concluded there was insufficient evidence from both testing and the investigation to determine what the white substance shown on the shield was.
A test for illicit substances would have identified the powder as an illicit substance if there was any. I'm not surprised it wasn't. I guess there wasn't a test available to identify the substance as Plaster of Paris, which the maker of the Shield used to prevent the metal part of the Shield from denting. -
After suffering through innumerable episodes of Border Security etc the machines they use for testing for illicit substances are pretty thorough picking up presences even with the minutest of samples. Stands to reason that if there was any coke on it it would have been picked up without doubt. The fact that it was not detected must be a bitter blow to the knockers of the NPC Finalists. It is noticeable they have not proffered apologies for their incorrectly jumping to conclusions without the shred of actual evidence.
