There's an argument that a lot of the financial and schedule issues in the game are directly tied to the French. The Top 14 is such a dominant force, it really impacts everyone else massively
Interesting-ish All Blacks squad for the November series. Cam Roigard comes back in at 9, and some guys like Perofeta and Ruben Love have kept their places. David Havili probably a more surprising selection for me.
The guys who have missed out are Finlay Christie, Hoskins Sotutu (again) and someone like Harry Plummer and Noah Hotham who both made debuts relatively recently but miss out here.
They’ll both probably be in the All Black XV selection though.
They are in the AB xv selection, which is, in my opinion, much more interesting than this boring AB test side thats coming up here.
https://www.munsterrugby.ie/2024/10/08/all-blacks-xv-squad-named-for-the-2024-northern-tour/#:~:text=Munster%20will%20be%20welcoming%20the,Scott%20Robertson%20and%20Clayton%20McMillan.
Forwards (17)
Props Xavier Numia (25 / Hurricanes / Wellington) George Dyer (24/ Chiefs / Waikato) Saula Ma’u (24 / Highlanders / Otago) Marcel Renata (30 / Blues / Auckland) George Bower (32 / Crusaders / Otago)*
Hookers Brodie McAlister (27 / Crusaders / Canterbury) Kurt Eklund (32 / Blues / Bay of Plenty) Bradley Slater (26 / Chiefs / Taranaki)
Locks Josh Lord (23 / Chiefs / Taranaki)* Fabian Holland (21 / Highlanders / Otago) Isaia Walker-Leawere (27 / Hurricanes / Hawke’s Bay) Naitoa Ah Kuoi (25 / Chiefs / Bay of Plenty)
Loose Forwards Du’Plessis Kirifi (27 / Hurricanes / Wellington) Peter Lakai (21/ Hurricanes / Wellington) Hoskins Sotutu (26 / Blues / Counties Manukau)* Oliver Haig (22 / Highlanders / Otago) Christian Lio-Willie (26 / Crusaders / Otago)
Backs (12)
Halfbacks Noah Hotham (21 / Crusaders / Tasman)* Finlay Christie (29 / Blues / Tasman)*
First five-eighths Harry Plummer (26 / Blues / Auckland)* Josh Jacomb (23 / Chiefs / Taranaki)
Mid-fielders Quinn Tupaea (25 / Chiefs / Waikato)* Riley Higgins (22 / Hurricanes / Wellington) AJ Lam (26 / Blues / Auckland) Dallas McLeod (25 / Crusaders / Canterbury)*
Outside Backs Kiniviliame Naholo (25 / Hurricanes / Taranaki) Emoni Narawa (25 / Chiefs / Bay of Plenty)* Chay Fihaki (23 / Crusaders / Canterbury) Shaun Stevenson (27 / Chiefs / North Harbour)*
Poor Ben healys status at Edinburgh has fallen.
Hes starting for Edinburgh "A" versus bath tomorrow while the first team play the sharks with Ross Thompson starting and no real recognisable 10 on the bench (cameron scott has 1 cap for embra at 10)
I guess there was always going to be some fallout from their sheer capitulation last week versus the Lions.
Ross Thompson is a fairly tidy player IMO - when I saw him moving there I thought at the time it would be a challenge for Healy to stay ahead of him.
What length of time would Healy have to spend without a Scotland cap to become Irish qualified again? I don't see him ever getting capped but could see him at Ulster or Connacht given their lack of 10s, if he can become Irish qualified relatively quickly.
Eligible for ireland 3 years after last international cap for scotland
Perhaps it's simple a reflection of his calibre as a player?
Probably
I agree with this to an extent. Healy is a facilitator type 10 on the mould of Rose Byrne. I think the latter is quite a bit better though.
Any place to download
'Chasing The Sun 2'
PM if anyone has a link
Jonathan Davies announces his retirement. Absolute class player…
Ronnie Dawson of Wanderers, Leinster, The Barbarians, The Lions and Ireland.
May he rest in peace
FFR, LNR and Provale are opposing the new 20 minutes red card law.
Hopefully that will kill any chance of it becoming law post-trial.
Can't say I really agree with their reasoning. They talk a lot about player safety, but they also state that there's not sufficient evidence to say one way or the other. Surely there are stats to say whether the 20 minute red card has an adverse affect on player safety based on the trials that have taken place so far? Are there even stats to say that player welfare has improved with the bar lowered for red card offences concerning head contact? At the very least, there should be stats to show that the 20 minute red card results in a huge jump in the number of offences, due to players knowing the punishment isn't as severe.
Maybe there are stats out there now, but I couldn't see anything when I last looked. Judging from the n=1 sample size of Leinster v Munster on the weekend, the volume of HIA assessments definitely isn't going down.
There's zero evidence of it having any benefit to player safety whatsoever and some of the stats from the early trials showed a slight increase in cards , not a reduction.
The only "benefit" being touted is some tripe about the "spectacle" - That's it, that's the entire reason for this stupidity , the idea that fans are somehow robbed of the value of their ticket if there is an early red card in a game.
It's yet another attempt to assist Australia and to a lesser extent NZ defend their revenue streams from League.
League seem to allow any kind of tackling with little to no significant sanctions being applied.
Someone somewhere in a marketing team has decided that League fans won't watch a Union game with an early red card because they'll think it's all a bit "soft" or something , so they are trying this utter bullsh!t.
I look at the rule-change more from the perspective of sanctions not just on HIAs.
If its a red card offence, you should be sent off. If its a yellow card offence, you should be sin-binned. You have a bunker review if its somewhere between the two (and/or the referee is not sure) and you let the bunker look at all the angles at all the speeds and determine the appropriate punishment. Simple.
Make no mistake, this is all being done because the game/spectacle "suffers" when a player gets sent off. This is not being done to bring yellow cards up to the standard of 20 minute red cards, its to bring red cards down to less severe punishments. It's almost an admission that players can't be trusted to cut out red-card offences so lets reduce the effect of some of them, just in case.
Whatever way someone looks at it (whether you agree or disagree that it will or will not affect player safety), World Rugby reducing punishments for red card offences when the game is in the midst of CTE issues and huge concussion-related lawsuits, is at best awful timing.
My point is that if the argument is player safety, where are the stats to show that a 20 minute card has a negative effect on player welfare, or where are the stats to say that the red card laws around head contact from a few years back have had a positive effect on player welfare, or at least a reduction in HIA's? The statement from the FFR cites player welfare, but also says they can't back this up in any way. All I'm saying is that it shouldn't be that hard to prove, the stats must be out there.
I've edited because I tried, rather unsuccessfuly an English translation to the FFR statement.
There's clear evidence that enforcement impacts behaviour.
Look at the massive reduction in players making contact in the air since they started handing out red-cards for it?
It took a couple of seasons for player behaviour and coaching to adjust , but the impact was clearly there.
The same applies to head contact - It'll take a while for the behaviours and coaching to adjust to the new standards and some teams/leagues will and have adjusted faster.
What you've seen over the last 18 months is a concerted effort to undermine those changes by certain elements framed around the nonsense argument of "protecting the spectacle" for fans.
There was a clear difference in how the game was being refereed in the Southern Hemisphere vs. the North where you saw the Southern teams getting hammered by Northern Refs for things they were being let away with at home.
I referee here and at the start of last season the tackle height was lowered to the elbow for all junior and underage rugby.
It took the teams about 6 weeks to adjust and now , you just don't see the big chest high hits anymore.
Pro level takes a bit longer as they are more heavily coached and they are more deliberate in their actions - They go higher for a specific tactical reason to stop the pass and stop the player getting their arms free etc. so their defensive systems take longer to update , but consistent application of the laws over a season will get everyone in line.
AFAIK all but one of the tournaments where tackle heights have been lowered have quickly shown that it's not difficult to change player behaviour and it has an immediate, positive effect on the game.
So why do WR keep pissing about with pointless changes and not just bite the bullet on this?
I believe there is also evidence that lowering tackle height to hips and below resulted in more head impacts, as you end up having more contact between head and knee, head and hip etc.
In any case, I'm not arguing the fact that punishment can change behaviour. That's a given. All I'm asking for is stats to back up the argument for and against the 20 minute red card in relation to player welfare. The FFR cited lack of evidence, based on one Under 20 tournament, but surely the 20 minute red card has been used much more extensively than that over the last few years, and there should be some clear findings. If the 20 minute red card has been shown to have adverse impact on player welfare, then it makes you wonder why WR would try to push forward with it. On the flip side, if there is no evidence of it affecting player welfare, then why do people have an issue with it?
Australians, it's that simple.
For me this really is pandering to the 'games gone soft' choir. It's interesting to watch SH analysis at half time and after a match from NZ, SA and Oz broadcasts and compare it to Ireland, Britain and France. SH always has least one voice mourning the impact of cards on the games and or arguing that such and such an offense is a rugby incident or isn't serious enough to card, its a physical game and players want to suck it up. In the north there are arguments about the same incidents but they aren't framed as a threat to some existential aspect of the game. WR has folded in the face of the argument that audiences need something that cards prevent them having. Zero to back it up, red cards in union aren't keeping audiences watching league in Oz.
Xacto
"I believe there is also evidence that lowering tackle height to hips and below resulted in more head impacts, as you end up having more contact between head and knee, head and hip etc."
It's one thing to lower tackle height, and an entirely different thing to have players employ better tackle technique.
Any player who is used to tackling chest to chest just continues to do so at a reduced height and exposes their head to contact with hips & knees.
8 years today since Axel passed.
Still hurts.
Agreed , but if the focus shifts to a lower more "classic" tackle technique then the risks get reduced.
Again , it's a behavioural thing that will take time to really filter through , but if kids are introduced to the tackle and the ONLY tackle they are shown is the classic "cheek to cheek" and they aren't coached to try a choke tackle or a higher hit to block the pass then that tackle type goes away and the risks reduces.
They stop running in for the "old" style tackle and dipping at the last second to lower the contact point , instead they start out with a better technique from the outset.
There is no instant solution , but good coaching and refereeing over time will enforce the behavioural change.
Clegg has posted a link on the Ireland thread re IRFU coming out against the new red card trial. (or the let's pander to the Aussies and NZ law)
Hopefully other Unions follow the FFR and the IRFU.
Interesting that the statement says that there's no permanent red card for deliberate and intentional acts of foul play. Didn't know this was the case.
