RugbyRebels

Bit of sad news, as Kurtis Haiu, who played as a lock/blindside for the Blues a few years ago has died at age 31 from the cancer that ended his career. Cancer can go fuck itself.

cashead wrote:Bit of sad news, as Kurtis Haiu, who played as a lock/blindside for the Blues a few years ago has died at age 31 from the cancer that ended his career. Cancer can go fuck itself.

Indeed.

Horrible scoreline in Bloomers today, winless Sunwolvers go down 92-17

I copped a lot of flak for questioning their inclusion as well... Erm

The only good thing about next week is they're playing at home to the Jags, and if they lose, which I imagine they will, at least the Argies will pick up their fist vistory since round 1. They're on a very tough tour at the moment.

Meanwhile, Kiwis still dominating. Crusaders the Real Madrid of Rugby !!

First time I have ever seen this

Waratahs v Brumbies 57 mins
Brumbies have a 5m attacking scrum.
Ball is fed in and comes to No8's feet.
Brumbies are moving forward and the 8 is keeping the ball in the scrum with his feet.
Ref says use the ball 3 times even though the Brumbies scrum is moving forward.
Ref then blows the whistle and give Waratahs the put in as Brumbies hadn't 'used the ball'

Is this a law that is being used in SH that a scrum is like a rolling maul ?

What?!

Ha!

3 - 0 to the NZ franchises over the weekend.

You just have to hope that they don't knacker each other before the playoff rounds.

Dacre wrote:First time I have ever seen this

Waratahs v Brumbies 57 mins
Brumbies have a 5m attacking scrum.
Ball is fed in and comes to No8's feet.
Brumbies are moving forward and the 8 is keeping the ball in the scrum with his feet.
Ref says use the ball 3 times even though the Brumbies scrum is moving forward.
Ref then blows the whistle and give Waratahs the put in as Brumbies hadn't 'used the ball'

Is this a law that is being used in SH that a scrum is like a rolling maul ?

That's strange. You hear refs say "use it" but I've never seen a consequence if they don't

Interesting that Pro Rugby is going only with geographical names (Sacremento and Denver got off to winning starts yesterday). I think that is really crucial in terms of attracting and maintaining a fan base. Does anyone else think Super Rugby made a big mistake by pandering to the whims of country yokels and dispensing with its geographical team names?

Nope. The colours and years with the geographical identifiers cemented the association.

With local fans, perhaps, but what about the overseas market? Do you think these names - "Blues, Reds, Rebels, Lions, Sharks" etc mean anything to potential viewers in Japan, Argentina and elsewhere? Even in Britain they just seem to regard Super Rugby as a joke, and perhaps this is one of the reasons why.

rowan wrote:With local fans, perhaps, but what about the overseas market? Do you think these names - "Blues, Reds, Rebels, Lions, Sharks" etc mean anything to potential viewers in Japan, Argentina and elsewhere? Even in Britain they just seem to regard Super Rugby as a joke, and perhaps this is one of the reasons why.

Why would a geographical name attract overseas viewers? Arsenal seems to do alright in wendyball without it.

You forget that the main purpose of Super Rugby in NZ is produce All Blacks. As long as makes enough money to do that (which clearly it does) the NZRU has zero interest in growing a foreign fan base for its sub-brands. That is why it is the All Blacks playing in the USA, not the Chiefs.

Lizard wrote:

rowan wrote:With local fans, perhaps, but what about the overseas market? Do you think these names - "Blues, Reds, Rebels, Lions, Sharks" etc mean anything to potential viewers in Japan, Argentina and elsewhere? Even in Britain they just seem to regard Super Rugby as a joke, and perhaps this is one of the reasons why.

Why would a geographical name attract overseas viewers? Arsenal seems to do alright in wendyball without it.

You forget that the main purpose of Super Rugby in NZ is produce All Blacks. As long as makes enough money to do that (which clearly it does) the NZRU has zero interest in growing a foreign fan base for its sub-brands. That is why it is the All Blacks playing in the USA, not the Chiefs.

Arsenal is a geographical name. It's an area of London.

Puja

Lizard wrote: Arsenal seems to do alright in wendyball without it.

I thought Arsenal was a place, my dear old Gran told me that's where my Grandfather was born before being poached by NZ at the ripe old age of 2 years.

Quick Google suggest the team is named after the Woolwich Arsenal, munitions factory near where they were originally based.

No it isn't. I lived literally next to their old stadium for several years. The area is called Highbury. The Arsenal tube station was renamed from Gillespie Road after a campaign by the club.

Arsenal was in fact previously called Woolwich Arsenal, after the actual geographical area it was in (Woolwich, where there was an arsenal). It changed its name when it moved to Highbury.

rowan wrote:With local fans, perhaps, but what about the overseas market? Do you think these names - "Blues, Reds, Rebels, Lions, Sharks" etc mean anything to potential viewers in Japan, Argentina and elsewhere? Even in Britain they just seem to regard Super Rugby as a joke, and perhaps this is one of the reasons why.

Conversely it could be a benefit in marketing. Names like Canterbury and Auckland are basically meaningless to many NH fans anyway. Speaking personally, I dislike 'official nicknames'* but not everyone has that issue and perhaps for those prospective customers separating teams from their geographical origin makes them easier to develop an affection for**. It seems to have become standard practice in many sports (with the exception of football) - most of the English premiership teams have added nicknames at some stage (Wasps even added 'London' to their name for a while, unnecessarily). I'd be quite interested in knowing if 'exciting branding' does make any difference or whether it's just a standard response by marketing departments when tasked with appearing to be proactive.

I think contemporary Super Rugby is only considered a joke by people who are ignorant of the games or have invested so much personally in European professional rugby that they don't want any evidence that they're watching and paying for a substandard product. I also think in the early 000s when standards between NH and SH were more even, there did appear to be different emphases in particular skills. Nowadays, I think few NH teams (perhaps Sarries and Toulon? Any others) would be competitive in the Soup.

*I generally end up disappointed that the fixture did not show the promised clash between e.g. an actual highlander and a lion.
**Not that that has been a problem for Liverpool of Man U in footy.

I'd like to see the US teams jerseys before commenting on their marketing strategy. They are probably full of eagles sodomising bears and renderings of Red Dawn scenes.

The Czech Republic has apparently changed its name to Czechia this week (http://www.theguardian.com/weather/2016 ... a-new-name). Will this make them more appealing to rugby fans? I think they missed a chance to get a cool nickname like the Czech Mates or something.

morepork wrote:I'd like to see the US teams jerseys before commenting on their marketing strategy. They are probably full of eagles sodomising bears and renderings of Red Dawn scenes.

It's not quite that bad.

Denver - awful
Ohio - hand me downs from a 3rd div French side
San Diego - Afrikaans Super Rugby standard (i.e. Not bad for someone who has had a taste bypass)
Sacramento - solid, fairly traditional. Pity about the colour combo.
San Francisco - Crusaders' training kit. OK.

See http://www.prorugby.org/media

My God they have raped the Pacific Islands. The bastards.

Love the smell of geography in the morning.

Don't you think part of the charm with Barca is the fact they're based in a beautiful city? Also, I know football fans who go to places just because they have a famous football team. Whos' going to be inspired by names like the 'Blues, Reds, Lions & Sharks?' They don't mean anything to anyone except the local fans who actually know which region they're from...

rowan wrote:Don't you think part of the charm with Barca is the fact they're based in a beautiful city? Also, I know football fans who go to places just because they have a famous football team. Whos' going to be inspired by names like the 'Blues, Reds, Lions & Sharks?' They don't mean anything to anyone except the local fans who actually know which region they're from...

I agree. I mean what rugby fan has google, or ears to hear commentators say "We bring you the Blues v Crusaders from Eden park, Auckland".

I said the 'potential' viewers. First you gotta rope them in...

zer0 wrote:Love the smell of geography in the morning.

Pull my finger.