Sandstorm wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 1:28 pm
We could have the Final in the same stadium every year and use one of the existing competitors' grounds. To ensure that that a finalist never gets home advantage, I suggest we pick Durban.
I really dont think that concept will work in SA except if the home franchise is involved in the final. Its not like in Europe where the supporters can go to the stadium.
OomStruisbaai wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:36 am
Just saw Bordeaux will meet the Bulls at Loftus this weekend. That will be their real test but then they will probably send a bunch of academy players.
Ja, this whole thing about sending weak teams for away fixtures is a bit weird.
It doesn’t make any difference who they are sending.
Bordeaux schedule as an example, they played Sunday night, can’t fly before Tuesday afternoon, arrive Wednesday afternoon, ( maybe a Safari tour Thursday, like they did last year lol) light practice on Friday , game on Saturday.
OomStruisbaai wrote: Mon Jan 15, 2024 10:36 am
Just saw Bordeaux will meet the Bulls at Loftus this weekend. That will be their real test but then they will probably send a bunch of academy players.
Ja, this whole thing about sending weak teams for away fixtures is a bit weird.
It doesn’t make any difference who they are sending.
Bordeaux schedule as an example, they played Sunday night, can’t fly before Tuesday afternoon, arrive Wednesday afternoon, ( maybe a Safari tour Thursday, like they did last year lol) light practice on Friday , game on Saturday.
If anyone wants to have a go at trying out the various permutations for qualifying for the Round of 16, I've created a spreadsheet. Just need to populate predicted results for the final round of pool matches (+ tries scored and red cards) and it will update the pool tables and give a projected Round of 16.
Stormers – 15 Warrick Gelant, 14 Angelo Davids, 13 Dan du Plessis, 12 Damian Willemse, 11 Ben Loader, 10 Manie Libbok, 9 Herschel Jantjies, 8 Keke Morabe, 7 Willie Engelbrecht, 6 Deon Fourie (c), 5 Ruben van Heerden, 4 Adre Smith, 3 Neethling Fouche, 2 Joseph Dweba, 1 Sti Sithole.
Subs: 16 Andre-Hugo Venter, 17 Kwenzo Blose, 18 Brok Harris, 19 Hendre Stassen, 20 Ben-Jason Dixon, 21 Hacjivah Dayimani, 22 Stefan Ungerer, 23 Suleiman Hartzenberg.
Libbok's 50th
Date: Saturday, January 20
Venue: Stade Jean Bouin, Paris
Kick-off: 18.30 (19.30 SA time; 17.30 GMT)
Referee: Luke Pearce (England)
Assistant referees: Jamie Leahy (England), Mike Hudson (England)
TMO: Stuart Terheege (England)
Last edited by OomStruisbaai on Fri Jan 19, 2024 2:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Replacements: Dave Heffernan, Peter Dooley, Jack Aungier, Oisin Dowling, Conor Oliver, Michael McDonald, Jack Carty, Oran McNulty
Bristol Bears: Max Malins; Kalaveti Ravouvou, Virimi Vakatawa, Benhard Janse van Rensburg, Gabriel Ibitoye; AJ MacGinty, Harry Randall; Jake Woolmore, Gabriel Oghre, Kyle Sinckler; Josh Caulfield, Joe Batley; Steven Luatua, Fitz Harding (capt), Magnus Bradbury
Replacements: Will Capon, Sam Grahamslaw, Max Lahiff, Joe Owen, Dan Thomas, Kieran Marmion, 22. James William, Piers O'Conor
I'd like to ask Conor Murray to officially change his name to, Conor "Fucking" Murray, because I'm sure I'm not the only person calling him that every time he appears on a Munster, let alone an Ireland squad sheet. Blade is so much better than him.
sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2024 8:48 pm
Bristol weather being down to 13 pretty well yet concede as soon as Sinckler waddles back onto the field. Coincidence? I think not.
He was more animated when he was sitting down on the naughty boy seat than he was on the pitch
sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2024 8:48 pm
Bristol weather being down to 13 pretty well yet concede as soon as Sinckler waddles back onto the field. Coincidence? I think not.
He was more animated when he was sitting down on the naughty boy seat than he was on the pitch
Shadow of the player he once was. Another Saviour World victim.
Hmm, I think that’s a bit generous. It looks to me like he went for the stamp then tried to pull out at the last moment, and failed
He didn't go for the stamp. He's looking to step over and the boot to the face makes him drop his foot early. The bloke's never even had a yellow card in his senior career, he's not suddenly going to start looking to stamp on heads.
You only have to get breathed on for it to count as mitigation for high shots these days, so I've no idea why none was applied here.
fishfoodie wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2024 9:16 pm
that's a shite decision. The side view you can always see the green to the side of the boot, the end on view is misleading
Agreed. Phenomenal finish that deserved to be given
Hmm, I think that’s a bit generous. It looks to me like he went for the stamp then tried to pull out at the last moment, and failed
He didn't go for the stamp. He's looking to step over and the boot to the face makes him drop his foot early. The bloke's never even had a yellow card in his senior career, he's not suddenly going to start looking to stamp on heads.
You only have to get breathed on for it to count as mitigation for high shots these days, so I've no idea why none was applied here.
Yeah, I think he was raising his foot high because he was trying to step over him, but he mis-judged, & when he got smacked the foot immediately came down on Bealham.
It was bad judgement to attempt the step in the first place, over a player on the ground
Hmm, I think that’s a bit generous. It looks to me like he went for the stamp then tried to pull out at the last moment, and failed
He didn't go for the stamp. He's looking to step over and the boot to the face makes him drop his foot early. The bloke's never even had a yellow card in his senior career, he's not suddenly going to start looking to stamp on heads.
You only have to get breathed on for it to count as mitigation for high shots these days, so I've no idea why none was applied here.
Yeah, I think he was raising his foot high because he was trying to step over him, but he mis-judged, & when he got smacked the foot immediately came down on Bealham.
It was bad judgement to attempt the step in the first place, over a player on the ground
Yeah, agree with that. It's a yellow for me as stepping over the someone's face is fundamentally reckless to an extent. Would just be really harsh to cop what presumably is going to be a long ban for something that was very unlikely to have been intentional and where there was probably a lot more mitigation than has been applied for other on field incidents recently.
Hmm, I think that’s a bit generous. It looks to me like he went for the stamp then tried to pull out at the last moment, and failed
He didn't go for the stamp. He's looking to step over and the boot to the face makes him drop his foot early. The bloke's never even had a yellow card in his senior career, he's not suddenly going to start looking to stamp on heads.
You only have to get breathed on for it to count as mitigation for high shots these days, so I've no idea why none was applied here.
Yeah, I think he was raising his foot high because he was trying to step over him, but he mis-judged, & when he got smacked the foot immediately came down on Bealham.
It was bad judgement to attempt the step in the first place, over a player on the ground
OK, maybe I’ll retract that. Still not 100% convinced it wasn’t a rush of blood
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
He didn't go for the stamp. He's looking to step over and the boot to the face makes him drop his foot early. The bloke's never even had a yellow card in his senior career, he's not suddenly going to start looking to stamp on heads.
You only have to get breathed on for it to count as mitigation for high shots these days, so I've no idea why none was applied here.
Yeah, I think he was raising his foot high because he was trying to step over him, but he mis-judged, & when he got smacked the foot immediately came down on Bealham.
It was bad judgement to attempt the step in the first place, over a player on the ground
OK, maybe I’ll retract that. Still not 100% convinced it wasn’t a rush of blood
At best very careless and reckless. Player on his feet entering the ruck has to ensure he isn't reckless nor endangering another player on the ground. Whether he meant it or not, and the citing panel will decide that, he didn't take due care and attention of the player on the ground and it is a straight red given the degree of danger involved. Even if the player on the ground is interfering with play by not moving etc that is for the referee to decide and penalize and isn't an excuse for his actions.
My own view is that it wasn't an intentional stamp but neither was he all that bothered about trying to minimising any risk to the player on the ground and is responsible for his own actions and the injury and risk to them. He will be banned but reduced a little, as normal!