The Silver Fern

@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...

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.

I much prefer the T20.
I just think it's odd making it 100 balls, 5 or 10 ball overs etc.
Like making rugby 75 minutes instead of 80. Kinda of whats the point.

But then if you and the family enjoy it then that's good enough

@Bones said in European Club Rugby:

@sparky said in European Club Rugby:

the abortion that is The Hundred

The hundred is great.

You forgot to insert the sarcasm emoji...

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

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.

Not sure why they put Max on new hards during the safety car. He was always going to struggle.
With only a handful of laps left he should of stayed
out on his current tyres, he would have also moved up a few positions (I think?) by not pitting when those ahead of him pitted.

But then we would have missed out on him throwing the toys out of the pram...

@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.

The only way the Brumbies v Hurricanes game isn't a dead rubber is if either the chiefs or crusaders lose. Then the brumbies v hurricanes is a straight knock out...

@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.

@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.

@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.

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.

I also remember The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole.
Adrian hearing on shortwave radio that Argentina had invaded the Falklands. Adrian wakes his parents to tell them, his dad starts to panic thinking that the Falklands are in Scotland and that the argies will be in their town by the evening.
When Adrian tells his dad that the Falklands are in the South Atlantic his dad growls at him and goes back to sleep.

@booboo said in Documentaries:

Much to discuss about this one.

A youtube documentary "Britain v Argentina: Falklands War - Full Animated Documentary, by an outfit (channel?) called Historigraph.

Firstly am not sure how many Ferners are my age, but I was 13 when Argies invaded the Falklands. So it was vividly imprinted on my memory, nightly news reports etc.

Then the Documentary series "Task Force South" that came out a few months later was compulsory viewing.

So found this fascinating, both refreshing my memory, and filling in gaps.

Secondly, I've never thought of YouTube as a "TV" ("TB") option. Not even sure how I got on to it. Perhaps something flicked up on the Chromecast after quitting out of Stan ...

Let's face it, this new fangled interwebs wasn't around when Argentina was invading the Falklands when I was 13 in 1982 ...

Anyway, loved the animation of the positioning of the warships, telling the story as the Task Force moved south, and the attacks by the Argie air force (particularly the attack on the Sheffield). (Didn't love the resultant casualties, but fascinated by the stories told.)

But it wasn't just putting the ships and planes in positional context, it was the names and reactions of the actual combatants, pilots, commanders, officers etc and their reactions and comments.

Provided some background to the political framework of the time too.

Crazy to think just 40 years ago Argentina, who we'd think of as an ally and a staunch member of whatever we'd consider is some sort of western alliance, was ruled by dictators like Galtieri and the rest of his Junta. (FYI, have coincidentally just finished a podcast series by Real Dictators, on General Videla, a predecessor of Galtieri, and one of the fluffiest of bunnies amongst South America's long list of furry rabbits. He was nasty. Hard to believe in modern times these people existed. )

The success probably kept Maggie T in power too.

Some wild stats and facts, like the attack on the Sheffield used 40% (well 2 of 5) of the entire Arg stock of Exocets. Like, that was all they had.

So many bombs hit British ships, but didn't explode.

Quite old school militarily: No smart bombs for example.

Amazing to think this was only 40 years ago.

The Rest is History did a 4 part podcast on the Falklands war, which I really enjoyed (the podcast, not the war).
I too was about 13 at the time and remember we did a school project on the war while it was still happening.
If your familiar with The Rest is History podcast then you'll know the guys are British, but they tell both sides of the story and are very sympathetic towards the argies.

A 1 camera set up would mean there will be no changing of camera angle mid-play, usually just as a player is running down the side line close to the try line. That really annoys me.
Save the fancy editing for the replay.

I think it was the NZ v SA game last year where they changed to the side line camera just as some was about to score, but all we could see was the back of the touch judge.

Slightly off topic I know...

Ok, so will EP now be a decent cricket ground with the retractable seating in the upgrade?
From the illustrations it actually looks like it could be a very good cricket ground.
I hope they also do something with the west stand, like make it connect to the north and south stands so it's just one continuous stand. It doesn't need to go as high as the north and south. It always looks odd especially with the gaps either side of it.
But I can still remember the old old west stand and the members stand, and while that corner has improved it's still looks out of place.
I'm always sceptical of the artist impressions of buildings, cause the end result seldom looks like the impressions...

A quick Google tells me EP is currently the world's smallest cricket ground with a 55 metre straight boundary. Whereas the basin reserve boundary is between 137 and 150 metres.

I wonder what would the new dimensions of EP be with the retractable seating? Does it bring it up to test standards?

Currently EP is not test standard, but it was awarded test status before the minimum boundary length was brought in, so that's how EP gets test cricket.

Is that the actual design, or just an artist impression?