New Zealand Rugby Team Watch

[waiopehu oldboy]

The ban happened in a test match that wasn't a SANZAAR match so World Rugby is the relevant governing body.

Also, the changes regarding not counting byes and restricting club games from counting have only commenced this year.

They seem to have counted the club game, tho: B&IL3, Bloos v 'wolves & Bledsoe 1 would only be three.
...

 

[Braveheart81]

They seem to have counted the club game, tho: B&IL3, Bloos v 'wolves & Bledsoe 1 would only be three.
.

Yes, allowed one of them but not the lower division one.

I think it's reasonable to suggest that he may have played one game between final Super Rugby game and the first Bledisloe for a tune up.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^ I agree but seriously doubt it would've been the Club final. At least he's now free to play C-M's warmup & the AB's "game of three halves", if they don't count as part of his suspension he's obviously OK to play in them..........

 

[Dismal Pillock]

AB Training Camp Announced:

Midfielders: Richard Buckman, Ngani Laumape, Anton Lienert-Brown, Charlie Ngatai and Sonny Bill Williams.

"Um, that first name. Could you please read that one out again?"

 

[Braveheart81]

"Um, that first name. Could you please read that one out again?"

Richard Buckman.

"Fucking choice bro!"

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Still no decision on whether the "Game of Three Halves" constitutes a match in terms of SBW's suspension. What's taking so long? It's either a match or it's not, although I can't actually find any definition of "match" in the Laws which may be the problem.

 

[Braveheart81]

Still no decision on whether the "Game of Three Halves" constitutes a match in terms of SBW's suspension. What's taking so long? It's either a match or it's not, although I can't actually find any definition of "match" in the Laws which may be the problem.

It would be ludicrous in my opinion to consider it a match.

It should be considered a training activity which SBW can participate in because it isn't a game.

If they don't let him play it means they have to consider it a match for the purpose of the suspension.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Turns out the "Match of Three Halves" meets World Rugby's definition of a match after all:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...-bledisloe-cup-opener-after-appeal-successful

WR (World Rugby) don't seem to agree & will have their Regulations Committee look at it in September:

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/268782

 

[Slim 293]

Wow............

 

[zer0]

Some top class rules lawyering, but a farcical decision by the NZRU to argue in the first place, and the committee to accept it.

 

[Braveheart81]

Do you know what would be funny now? If Hansen selects Laumape at 12 for the first Bledisloe.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I fully expect WR (World Rugby) to tighten the definition in the review later in the year so that this type of loophole will no longer be available. That would be consistent with their initial stance that the trial game did not have match status.

A bit like the NZ 7s side having 8 men on the field when they scored the winning try in Sydney a couple of years ago. Definitely against the rules of the competition but not sanctioned because of lack of spine, lack of clarity around the rules. or some such rot.

Not getting on a conspiracy theory wagon, but there only seems to be one country's teams that pull these types of tricks and get away with them. Are they just smarter than the rest of us average bears?

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

From the WR (World Rugby) handbook - Regulation 1: Definitions:

"Game means rugby football played in accordance with the Laws of the Game.

"Match means a Game in which two teams compete against each other."

Clear as mud, then & no wonder that NZRU were able to exploit it, or that WR (World Rugby) are embarrassed.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Exactly. However, the usual meaning of a term or phrase also has some legal standing. The usual meaning of a game between two teams would not include three halves played by three teams anywhere else than in NZ.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I fully expect WR (World Rugby) to tighten the definition in the review later in the year so that this type of loophole will no longer be available. That would be consistent with their initial stance that the trial game did not have match status.

A bit like the NZ 7s side having 8 men on the field when they scored the winning try in Sydney a couple of years ago. Definitely against the rules of the competition but not sanctioned because of lack of spine, lack of clarity around the rules. or some such rot.

Not getting on a conspiracy theory wagon, but there only seems to be one country's teams that pull these types of tricks and get away with them. Are they just smarter than the rest of us average bears?

Us Aussies have had no problem cyclically exploiting this loophole

Remember Hooper in 2015?

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Brumby Runner]

But that situation didn't involve creating a game that didn't exist within an established competition. And iirc, the Hooper situation occurred after a similar event(s) in NZ set the precedent.

Also, it was that loophole that WR (World Rugby) set out to close with their pronouncements earlier this year. The SBW situation in my eyes is a totally new, and cynical event, almost warranting a YC to the whole of NZRugby.

 

[cyclopath]

Us Aussies have had no problem cyclically exploiting this loophole

Remember Hooper in 2015?

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

Actually, quite a few did have a problem with it, and the loophole, as said above, was rightly closed, or so it seemed.
Any which way it is sliced, this is a poor precedent to be set.

 

[Dan54]

But that situation didn't involve creating a game that didn't exist within an established competition. And iirc, the Hooper situation occurred after a similar event(s) in NZ set the precedent.

Also, it was that loophole that WR (World Rugby) set out to close with their pronouncements earlier this year. The SBW situation in my eyes is a totally new, and cynical event, almost warranting a YC to the whole of NZRugby.

BR it doesn't say a game within an established comp, I imagine because end of year tours etc are also not in established comps, and surely games in them would count.Same as a player that is injured and can't play in a test, that test counts towards suspension. By the same token I don't like any of these bending of the rules anyway, but let's not pretend that probably all other RUs would do exactly the same! I actually would personally have Crotty at 12 anyway, but if this actually gets rules tightened then all the better.

 

[Brumby Runner]

As I commented some time above, Dan, that there is such a thing as common usage in law. Common Usage I believe would establish that trial matches do not comprise an official match for sanction purposes.

But, be that as it may, I agree that Crotty is playing better at 12 than SBW anyway, and of course there is the continual conveyor belt of players coming through the NZ system whom SBW would have to fend off as well.

 

[Braveheart81]