There is no provision to bring a try back because a ref impedes a defender. Does not exist in the law book.

I think the first 3 scrums show a pretty clear PK.

To the AB's.

The Bok prop alters his bind to Moody's arm and then exerts downward pressure. He had an excellent long bind, and then in each case he released and went onto Moody's elbow. Of course Moody's elbow went down to the ground, it had nowhere else to go. I suspect Garces saw the elbow on the ground, was not sure which team was infringing and so with the ball at the back he just played on.

The 2 scrums cited where SA got on top and the video make claimed a PK were ridiculous. The AB's went backwards but did not infringe. They did very well to get the ball out of the scrum asap to avoid a PK.

Both knockons were very marginal and should have been let go - I thought so at the time. I also thought the A Smith one might have been a knockon, though probably it was . To be consistent, having called the other two, Garces probably should called the A Smith one.

The in the side offences aren't really comparable. It's apples to oranges.

The first SA one shows the Bok player coming in from the side and going right onto the ball (he also went straight onto his hands as well, but that is by the by). Had he been allowed to profit from his in the side, his team would have probably won the ball. The other examples are very different.

The Moody one was in the side, but it was to clear out a player who was already ineffective and the ball won. I can easily see a ref just waving that on. Marginal shoulder charge that happens in just about every ruck. Not great, but hardly worth worrying about.

The Coles one certainly looks bad (and was very material because it cleared out a player on the ball) but probably wasn't in the side. He get's one foot behind the last part of the tackle before making contact with the tackle. That is enough in my view to not be in the side.

I haven't gone through the game on slow motion, but I refuse to believe that only the AB's were coming in the side to clear out like that. In fact, if they were the only team doing it, that could be seen as an indictment on the Boks for not reading the situation properly.

Notably not shown are:

• The first PK the Boks got, in which the jackler clearly went off his feet and played the ball;

• The dubious lineout PK against Whitelock, which should have been a Free Kick To NZ (not bringing the jumper down safely);

• The non YC given when 5m from the line;

• The 3-4 high tackles from the Boks that were not picked up.

So the video is a bit of right, a bit of wrong, but mainly just a lot of yawn. Anyone with enough time, and an axe to grind can make a video like this after every test match showing "grievances".

Frankly I wonder if the video might have been made by a fan from another country to troll the South African fans a little bit.

Is it OK to admit that I have a mancrush on Goodhue?

Highlanders look lethargic and generally useless.

On the plus side, there are some really unique pieces on Antiques Roadshow. I will keep you all informed if there are any high value items.

That was a good game for us really.

• BBBR had a run and looked pretty good for 30 minutes.

• ALB confirmed he is in stellar form

• The team scrambled well on defence

• We were under pressure for a while

• We were able to change strategy at half time

• No injuries, and probably no citings

• Jordie showed he is maturing and can play with poise if required

• 11 tries.

It's all good fellas. Couldn't ask for much more than that.

Fairly even first day.

Australia scored some runs but we knocked off the bulk of their batting.

We could potentially clean up the remaining 7 wickets this morning and be batting after lunch.

The plan from the Black Caps will be to bat big and bat once. Say we bowl out Aussie for 400 this morning then we should look to score 600 or so and then roll them in the second innings with our 2 pronged spin attack on a turning pitch.

Our path to victory seems fairly straightforward.

People are asking what Smith should have done. See the clip below for what he should have done*:

Dagg knew early on in the chase that he wasn't a realistic chance to compete for the ball so he pulled back and timed his run so as to tackle the catcher the moment his legs hit the ground. It's what Smith should have done. He played with fire and got burnt.

IMO It was a dreadful challenge and deserved a Red Card. Not because of an "interpretation" or because of some silly rule the refs have to follow - he deserved a Red Card because he recklessly committed an act that could have snapped a guys neck if anything had gone majorly wrong.

*Clip shamelessly stolen from the Rugbyrefs forum.

Savea has his critics and rightfully so, but he has the best leg drive of any player in the game. His ability to make metres in the tackle is very impressive.

@damo said in Black Caps vs Pakistan Series:

This pitch suits Pakistan with it's slow nature and tennis ball bounce. I have a feeling this one will be closer than the first two.

You Sir, are an idiot.

Please don't post on cricket threads ever again.

@gt12 said in Crusaders v Rebels:

@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:

@gt12 said in Crusaders v Rebels:

@Chester-Draws

Since he probably won't tell you himself, I'm pretty sure that Damo is a ref.

Like, has a whistle and shorts he pulls up his ass, the full deal.

Not a particularly good one, I'm happy to admit. But law knowledge is one of my strengths.

You seem qualified to be a Super Rugby ref. It's probably the second part that is letting you down.

Poor peripheral vision/awareness, a general inability to process multiple things all at once and a lack of fitness lets me down. Some people just aren't made to be great refs I think. Still, I have found my level (first XV college stuff) and really enjoy secondary school rugby much more than senior club rugby.

But I do not appreciate people telling me what the rules say without even bothering to quote them or provide a law reference.

@NTA said in 2019 Cricket ODI WC:

@Damo said in 2019 Cricket ODI WC:

@MN5 said in 2019 Cricket ODI WC:

@Damo said in 2019 Cricket ODI WC:

Can we realistically be knocked out? Or are we in unless we see an Inzamam Ul Huq type innings?

60 off 37 doesn’t really cut it in today’s game.

Also tiny boundaries and Harris and Larsen bowling. Please

Mate don't come at me with your facts and figures.

Inzi's taking the game away from us in '92 was the single greatest innings in an ODI bar none. FACT.

dunno... I'm having a hard time picking between Ponting and Gilchrist. We're taking about innings in a CWC final, right?

Nah we're talking greatest ODI innings of all time. FACT!

@hydro11 said in Highlanders v Chiefs:

@WillieTheWaiter said in Highlanders v Chiefs:

that was a clear red recently.. did that rule change?!

He's up in the air competing for the ball. Can't believe that is a card- the threshold has been lowered further.

He was Hardly competing for the ball. Pretty standard card I think.

@WillieTheWaiter said in Highlanders v Chiefs:

that was a clear red recently.. did that rule change?!

Nah, he landed on his side.

Reds are when the player lands on neck/head/shoulder.

@WillieTheWaiter said in Highlanders v Chiefs:

@Anonymous said in Highlanders v Chiefs:

@WillieTheWaiter said in Highlanders v Chiefs:

wtf going on with sky not showing any replays of the breakdown before pens.. just show players walking to lineouts or lining up kicks.. odd.

I think they've been trying to show less replays of that over the past couple of years to try to reduce complaints about the referees

makes it fucking hard to understand the new rules if i can't see what they're getting pinged for

There aren't any new rules at the breakdown. WR just ordered refs to enforce the existing laws strictly to see what happens. It's worth a try.

@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

We had a known potential date for lockdown to end, and all businesses should have been working towards that.

FIFY

It was pretty clearly stated all along that L4 was for an initial period to be re-assessed toward the end to decide what and how to do after that.
There was never a stated end that was then extended.
Many people I know expected that any reduction would probably make sense to happen after the long weekend, especially after seeing how some people reacted over Easter.
I think when the pros and cons of changing to L3 Tonight rather than last week were added up the former won out.

Sure, but, as a business owner, surely you'd be negligent if you weren't working towards bring ready for the earliest possible date. You can't be sitting there waiting for the announcement a few days out.

Imagine you still had your restaurant. You would have been using lockout to work out plans for delivery (if viable), speaking to key staff, contacting key supply chain etc - you wouldn't be sitting still waiting for Cindy to give you the green light right?

That's simplistic in my view. The situation is fluid in terms of what is and isn't ok. It's easy to say that businesses should be ready to go, but they have staff to deal with and suppliers and possibly specific rules to follow.

Some businesses won't care that much and will be so desperate to open that they ll open with or without thinking it through. There is potential for additional clusters to open up because a business/staff don't know or care about what they're doing. The people affected are not necessarily the business or staff themselves.

A bit of extra time for the guidelines and rules to be clear is not a bad thing. Hell, if the courts didn't know what they were doing until Friday, how can a small business?

@pakman said in Coronavirus - Overall:

@Godder said in Coronavirus - Overall:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/04/16/tracking-covid-19-excess-deaths-across-countries

The Economist compares current death rates to average death rates in a lot of places. A lot of places have an unexplained increase in deaths due to an unknown source which the Economist thinks is probably the current epidemic.

What isn't really publicised is the number of deaths which weren't caused biologically by CV, but were caused by lack of medical treatment because of CV.

One could say because of the pandemic, but not of CV.

I don't think it makes much difference does it? Whether they are Covid victims directly or as a result of not enough facilities to treat other illnesses that are normally treatable. Good statistics would help, but that seems unlikely in the middle of a pandemic.

I think it's important also to factor in that in perfect conditions with sufficient medical resources very few people would die of the virus. That is not the death rate that is of concern, it is probably less than 1%. The concern is those who would be treated but can't be because of lack of capacity.

My view is that this is what people who talk about the flu death rate are missing. Yes the pure death rates are similar with both viruses, but the hospitalisation rates are not similar.

@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@Damo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@Damo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@Damo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@Damo I also think that different societies/cultures behave differently and what works for one won't necessarily work somewhere else.

I reckon adding the long weekend to our lockdown shows our Govt. thinks we need to be hand held through this.

Agree first paragraph. Some societies don't need strict rules to ensure that the population acts appropriately to look after it's vulnerable people. Other societies need strong government rule, otherwise it's every body for themselves.

I agree with the govt on your second paragraph. We do.

More to the point, I also think a few extra days has allowed businesses to plan for how they will function in level 3. If they announced on Monday that we're into level 3 on Wednesday, some businesses might not have planned properly. My office is a case in point. We are ready to go tomorrow, on Wednesday we wouldn't have been.

What would be worse for the economy is level 3 being a disaster, and having to return to level 4.

I really struggle with this attitude, and quite honestly it makes me pretty angry. Who the hell decided we needed hand holding for a long weekend? And what have them the right to make that decision? The government stole 4 trading days from business who were ready to go.

The fact that your business wouldn't have been ready is totally on you, and absolutely not the fault of every other business that was more prepared.

If you're not ready to open, then don't fucking open. We trust people and businesses every day to obey a large list of laws and regulations. Operating under L3 guidelines is just another one, and we shouldn't hold the entire economy hostage because a few businesses can't be trusted.

Well I don't trust businesses who aren't ready to open not to open. It's great that you do, but I don't know what you base that on.

For us it's no big deal, our only public facing aspect at the moment is in court, and only some hearings are done in person most aren't.

What worries me, and no doubt worried the government is the businesses who are public facing and would open without much thought for others.

The other thing that worries me is that you say you are angry about it. Don't get angry about someone else having a different view to you mate. That is just silly.

Seriously, if something someone posts in a very civil political debate makes you angry, perhaps you shouldn't partake in political discussions online. Reasonable people can disagree on this sort of stuff.

It was your attitude that made me angry - you're not ready so the whole economy should wait for you. Pretty selfish IMO, and yeah, makes me pretty frustrated.

You may not don't trust others to act within the law, but where do you draw that line? Do you trust them to pay taxes? To follow OH&S guidelines?

The arbitrary extension for the long weekend was nothing to do with giving business more time anyway as they could have announced a week earlier that the original end date was going to be maintained. It was purely a government overreaching and taking away personal liberties for their agenda.

Mate you shouldn't ever get angry at someone who posts on a sports forum. I repeat that is extremely unhealthy and you should probably walk away if you are angry. I also think it's borderline to go around calling other people selfish because they have a different perspective to you.

I invite you to edit your post and remove the inappropriate language.

You obviously haven't been hanging around on the fern long enough to tackle with one of the guys who used to post here. That was nothing compared to receiving a lashing from him!

Well I normally post at Planet Rugby.

@canefan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@Damo all things considered my opinion is we did what we had to do. Protect our fragile resources from a covid tidal wave. It is more challenging now, balancing continued caution with a desire to allow the economy to restart. Whichever way they decide I am sure there will be people unhappy with how the government are handling it

I agree.

My understanding is that most of the debate is about whether we should have gone to L3 on Thursday last week or on Tuesday after a long weekend. Pretty minor issue in the scheme of things.

@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@Damo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@Damo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@voodoo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@Damo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@taniwharugby said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@Damo I also think that different societies/cultures behave differently and what works for one won't necessarily work somewhere else.

I reckon adding the long weekend to our lockdown shows our Govt. thinks we need to be hand held through this.

Agree first paragraph. Some societies don't need strict rules to ensure that the population acts appropriately to look after it's vulnerable people. Other societies need strong government rule, otherwise it's every body for themselves.

I agree with the govt on your second paragraph. We do.

More to the point, I also think a few extra days has allowed businesses to plan for how they will function in level 3. If they announced on Monday that we're into level 3 on Wednesday, some businesses might not have planned properly. My office is a case in point. We are ready to go tomorrow, on Wednesday we wouldn't have been.

What would be worse for the economy is level 3 being a disaster, and having to return to level 4.

I really struggle with this attitude, and quite honestly it makes me pretty angry. Who the hell decided we needed hand holding for a long weekend? And what have them the right to make that decision? The government stole 4 trading days from business who were ready to go.

The fact that your business wouldn't have been ready is totally on you, and absolutely not the fault of every other business that was more prepared.

If you're not ready to open, then don't fucking open. We trust people and businesses every day to obey a large list of laws and regulations. Operating under L3 guidelines is just another one, and we shouldn't hold the entire economy hostage because a few businesses can't be trusted.

Well I don't trust businesses who aren't ready to open not to open. It's great that you do, but I don't know what you base that on.

For us it's no big deal, our only public facing aspect at the moment is in court, and only some hearings are done in person most aren't.

What worries me, and no doubt worried the government is the businesses who are public facing and would open without much thought for others.

The other thing that worries me is that you say you are angry about it. Don't get angry about someone else having a different view to you mate. That is just silly.

Seriously, if something someone posts in a very civil political debate makes you angry, perhaps you shouldn't partake in political discussions online. Reasonable people can disagree on this sort of stuff.

It was your attitude that made me angry - you're not ready so the whole economy should wait for you. Pretty selfish IMO, and yeah, makes me pretty frustrated.

You may not don't trust others to act within the law, but where do you draw that line? Do you trust them to pay taxes? To follow OH&S guidelines?

The arbitrary extension for the long weekend was nothing to do with giving business more time anyway as they could have announced a week earlier that the original end date was going to be maintained. It was purely a government overreaching and taking away personal liberties for their agenda.

Mate you shouldn't ever get angry at someone who posts on a sports forum. I repeat that is extremely unhealthy and you should probably walk away if you are angry. I also think it's borderline to go around calling other people selfish because they have a different perspective to you.

I invite you to edit your post and remove the inappropriate language.

that made me laugh. I'm sure the mods will do their thing if they think I've been innapropriate.

If I misinterpreted your attitude, that you support the extension because it gave less-prepared businesses like yours time to get ready, at the expense of the rest of the economy, then sure, I'm sorry for that. But if I understood you correctly (and note that you haven't clarified or corrected me) , then yeah I find your attitude selfish. I'm not apologising for that.

As for my anger, you don't have to worry about me - I'm not stomping around the house punching the walls. I'm just "internet" angry, venting into my phone keyboard.

Yeah I just think that the current risk averse approach of the government is good. You clearly don't.

I think it is better to go slowly and ensure we avoid a longer than necessary lockdown, than risk having to go backwards. That would in my estimation be significantly worse for the economy not least because it would make people distrustful of the next time we relaxed. The last thing we want is people too afraid to go outside. Most of these businesses that are opening up need customers to function, regardless of what the laws are.

Makes not much difference to me because the business I work at is not really public facing (for clarity it's not my business). Lots of businesses are public facing and these sorts of things are difficult for them to navigate.

Hardly selfish on my part because I am thinking about others who are more vulnerable to the disease than me. That sort of loaded language diminishes political discussions and is unhelpful.

I am sure we all believe that we are expressing reasonable viewpoints, otherwise we would be expressing different views. I didn't ask you to apologise, that would be silly.
I just wondered if you might reflect whether calling someone selfish for expressing a different view to yours is helpful. Laugh if you want but that seems an odd position to take.

@Toddy said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

@Damo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:

More to the point, I also think a few extra days has allowed businesses to plan for how they will function in level 3. If they announced on Monday that we're into level 3 on Wednesday, some businesses might not have planned properly. My office is a case in point. We are ready to go tomorrow, on Wednesday we wouldn't have been.

Am I right in thinking you work for a law firm? Why weren't you ready to go?

Well for one thing we were waiting for guidance from the courts as to what would happen with hearings/conferences. We kept getting mixed signals about what sorts of stuff would be operating and what wouldn't. Nobody is still quite sure what is happening with short cause stuff, except that it has to be done in person. (What about, for example the 65 year old lawyer who doesn't want to, or the 70 year old witness who has to attend?). We also have a high percentage of elderly staff.

Ultimately it makes little difference to us because we aren't currently public facing. A cafe or restaurant wondering about how to operate with remote delivery is in a different position. I note that even McDonalds is being criticised for it's current plans.