South Africa v Ireland (Sat/Sun)

[Lizard]

Match of the round, to decide who meets France and who meets New Zealand in the QFs.

This will be great.

*yeah I edited the obvious mistake. Fuck you.

[16th man]

Match of the round, to decide who meets Ireland and who meets New Zealand in the QFs.

This will be great.

This some new ploy to increase the chances of Ireland making it through the quarters?

[16th man]

Apparently Boks going 7/1 on the bench.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Apparently Boks going 7/1 on the bench.

Hope so. It'll make World Rugby more likely to change the laws to limit the 'usable' subs to 4 (of 8).

[Puja]

Apparently Boks going 7/1 on the bench.

South Africa: Willemse; Arendse, Kriel, De Allende; Kolbe; Libbok, De Klerk; Kitshoff, Mbonambi, Malherbe; Etzebeth, Mostert; Kolisi (capt), Du Toit, Wiese.

Replacements: Fourie, Nche, Nyakane, Kleyn, Snyman, Van Staden, Smith, Reinach.


Ridiculous.

Puja

[16th man]

Assuming Kwagga is the potential Auxillary back.

[Which Tyler]

I'm no front row expert, but I really worry about the safety of putting a flanker in to scrum at hooker against a decent team.

If I were the ref, and ultimately responsible for judging safety, I'd want to see some evidence of him playing hooker in multiple matches before allowing him as a specialist.
Otherwise, no specialist = uncontested scrums, and the team forcing that loses an extra player.
I would also, of course, tell them that the moment I saw the team announcement.

ETA: what are the rules currently? Initially the increase in bench size was dependant on there being 3 specialist front rows, if that's still the case, then SA are already in breach, and presumably have to drop their 23rd man.

7:1 split is high risk, mediocre reward, I dislike it, but it's not "wrong".
8-man bench with only 2 front rowers, as far as I'm aware, isn't actually allowed.
You don't become a specialist front rower because Tassie says so, you become one by dedicating training, and playing time there.

[16th man]

I reckon it's okay so long as Van Straden only comes on as a hooker.

I say alright, but only in terms of the subs rules. It' obviously utter nonsense.

Hope it completely backfires and they end up with their line out falling apart, whilst having a couple of forwards stuck out in the backs getting the run around.

[Lizard]

Law 3.12:
“It is a team’s responsibility to ensure that all front-row players and front-row replacements are suitably trained and experienced.”

Ref has no say.

[Puja]

I'm no front row expert, but I really worry about the safety of putting a flanker in to scrum at hooker against a decent team.

If I were the ref, and ultimately responsible for judging safety, I'd want to see some evidence of him playing hooker in multiple matches before allowing him as a specialist.
Otherwise, no specialist = uncontested scrums, and the team forcing that loses an extra player.
I would also, of course, tell them that the moment I saw the team announcement.

ETA: what are the rules currently? Initially the increase in bench size was dependant on there being 3 specialist front rows, if that's still the case, then SA are already in breach, and presumably have to drop their 23rd man.

7:1 split is high risk, mediocre reward, I dislike it, but it's not "wrong".
8-man bench with only 2 front rowers, as far as I'm aware, isn't actually allowed.
You don't become a specialist front rower because Tassie says so, you become one by dedicating training, and playing time there.

Fourie is the nominated hooker sub and does have experience playing hooker professionally in French club rugby, so he's not a complete neophyte. I'd be hugely worried if there were another injury and they were left putting Van Staden in against a top pack.

Puja

[Danno]

Starting to feel like I'm the only person that thinks a 7-1 bench is a meme team and it deserves to backfire horribly.

[Lizard]

Just wait until Rassie reads Law 3.11:
“A replacement front-row player may start the match in another position.”

7-1 bench and a spare 7 starting at 12?

[Puja]

Starting to feel like I'm the only person that thinks a 7-1 bench is a meme team and it deserves to backfire horribly.

Oh no, we're right there with you.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Fourie is the nominated hooker sub and does have experience playing hooker professionally in French club rugby, so he's not a complete neophyte.

Thank you, I was completely unaware of that bit.
It's been a while, and never specialist, but he's done the training, and he's played against decent opposition, so it's up to him if he wants to take the risk.

Law 3.12:
“It is a team’s responsibility to ensure that all front-row players and front-row replacements are suitably trained and experienced.”

Ref has no say.

And yet the ref does has the say - as shown by ref.s sometimes refusing to allow that the player is suitably trained and experienced.
I will allow that once designated as the specialist, and ref may have no say in rejecting that.

[Numbers]

I'm no front row expert, but I really worry about the safety of putting a flanker in to scrum at hooker against a decent team.

If I were the ref, and ultimately responsible for judging safety, I'd want to see some evidence of him playing hooker in multiple matches before allowing him as a specialist.
Otherwise, no specialist = uncontested scrums, and the team forcing that loses an extra player.
I would also, of course, tell them that the moment I saw the team announcement.

ETA: what are the rules currently? Initially the increase in bench size was dependant on there being 3 specialist front rows, if that's still the case, then SA are already in breach, and presumably have to drop their 23rd man.

7:1 split is high risk, mediocre reward, I dislike it, but it's not "wrong".
8-man bench with only 2 front rowers, as far as I'm aware, isn't actually allowed.
You don't become a specialist front rower because Tassie says so, you become one by dedicating training, and playing time there.

There are numerous examples of backrowers changing to hooker, Brits and Shaun Evans at the Sacrlets are two that spring to mind and then Tom Youngs who used to be a centre and was good enough to start for the Lions at hooker, the coaches aren't stupid enough to risk player injury and it's not as if they won't have been practicing in training.

[Numbers]

Anyway, my money if on SA for this one, they looks very strong at the moment, if they can use their backs (they didn't aseem to want to against Scotland) then I see them as favourites for this albeit only slightly, it should be a good game hopefully.

[Puja]

I'm no front row expert, but I really worry about the safety of putting a flanker in to scrum at hooker against a decent team.

If I were the ref, and ultimately responsible for judging safety, I'd want to see some evidence of him playing hooker in multiple matches before allowing him as a specialist.
Otherwise, no specialist = uncontested scrums, and the team forcing that loses an extra player.
I would also, of course, tell them that the moment I saw the team announcement.

ETA: what are the rules currently? Initially the increase in bench size was dependant on there being 3 specialist front rows, if that's still the case, then SA are already in breach, and presumably have to drop their 23rd man.

7:1 split is high risk, mediocre reward, I dislike it, but it's not "wrong".
8-man bench with only 2 front rowers, as far as I'm aware, isn't actually allowed.
You don't become a specialist front rower because Tassie says so, you become one by dedicating training, and playing time there.

There are numerous examples of backrowers changing to hooker, Brits and Shaun Evans at the Sacrlets are two that spring to mind and then Tom Youngs who used to be a centre and was good enough to start for the Lions at hooker, the coaches aren't stupid enough to risk player injury and it's not as if they won't have been practicing in training.

None of those played hooker for the first time since school in a top-level international match after a couple of weeks' training and a few minutes against a broken Romania though, which is what they will be asking Van Staden to do if something happens to Mbonambi or Fourie in training this week.

Puja

[BaldiePete]

Scotland’s Stuart Mcinally started as a back row at Edinburgh. After converting he spent a season on loan at Bristol (then in the 2nd tier) learning the position. IIRC Fraser Brown has started an international in the back row.

[canta_brian]

Ok, so assuming Dupont is out for the quarters after last night, and assuming Foster doesn't keep setting new precedents of shiteness with the ABs and we don't shit the bed against Italy. Do both Ireland and South Africa want to win this? Or is a Dupontless France a more enticing quarter making a loss the preferred result?

[Puja]

Ok, so assuming Dupont is out for the quarters after last night, and assuming Foster doesn't keep setting new precedents of shiteness with the ABs and we don't shit the bed against Italy. Do both Ireland and South Africa want to win this? Or is a Dupontless France a more enticing quarter making a loss the preferred result?

I don't see why not. Dupont is a massive player for them, but they've got a *lot* of depth and France at home are still more scary than you!

Puja

[Numbers]

I'm no front row expert, but I really worry about the safety of putting a flanker in to scrum at hooker against a decent team.

If I were the ref, and ultimately responsible for judging safety, I'd want to see some evidence of him playing hooker in multiple matches before allowing him as a specialist.
Otherwise, no specialist = uncontested scrums, and the team forcing that loses an extra player.
I would also, of course, tell them that the moment I saw the team announcement.

ETA: what are the rules currently? Initially the increase in bench size was dependant on there being 3 specialist front rows, if that's still the case, then SA are already in breach, and presumably have to drop their 23rd man.

7:1 split is high risk, mediocre reward, I dislike it, but it's not "wrong".
8-man bench with only 2 front rowers, as far as I'm aware, isn't actually allowed.
You don't become a specialist front rower because Tassie says so, you become one by dedicating training, and playing time there.

There are numerous examples of backrowers changing to hooker, Brits and Shaun Evans at the Sacrlets are two that spring to mind and then Tom Youngs who used to be a centre and was good enough to start for the Lions at hooker, the coaches aren't stupid enough to risk player injury and it's not as if they won't have been practicing in training.

None of those played hooker for the first time since school in a top-level international match after a couple of weeks' training and a few minutes against a broken Romania though, which is what they will be asking Van Staden to do if something happens to Mbonambi or Fourie in training this week.

Puja

What would be the point of putting someone in that position if they would be prone to injury, it doesn't favour the Boks to do that so why would they do it?

This to me is a non-issue.

[Which Tyler]

Ok, so assuming Dupont is out for the quarters after last night, and assuming Foster doesn't keep setting new precedents of shiteness with the ABs and we don't shit the bed against Italy. Do both Ireland and South Africa want to win this? Or is a Dupontless France a more enticing quarter making a loss the preferred result?

Big assumption.
Appears to be a Zygomatic arch fracture. If simple, then medical advice would be 3 weeks out; they've got 3.3 weeks before the QF.
Whilst not the same level, Lucu and Couillard are not bad players by any stretch; not sure there's a NH team they wouldn't start for if available.

[Puja]

There are numerous examples of backrowers changing to hooker, Brits and Shaun Evans at the Sacrlets are two that spring to mind and then Tom Youngs who used to be a centre and was good enough to start for the Lions at hooker, the coaches aren't stupid enough to risk player injury and it's not as if they won't have been practicing in training.

None of those played hooker for the first time since school in a top-level international match after a couple of weeks' training and a few minutes against a broken Romania though, which is what they will be asking Van Staden to do if something happens to Mbonambi or Fourie in training this week.

Puja

What would be the point of putting someone in that position if they would be prone to injury, it doesn't favour the Boks to do that so why would they do it?

This to me is a non-issue.

Because they want to get Pollard back into the squad, but in order to do so, they have to gamble that they won't get a hooker injury that forces them to use their backup plan, which they appear to be willing to do.

Puja

[Spiffy]

Have the Boks got a counter to Ireland's 5:3 bench split?

[Puja]

Have the Boks got a counter to Ireland's 5:3 bench split?

Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that Ireland can substitute nearly half of their backline in one go if they want to. Needs to be a change to IRB regulations to stop that sort of thing.

Puja