The Hurricanes rediscover their spark

True. Maybe they should become more like Connacht - everyone's favourite SECOND team. There's a permanent kiss of death.

The Hurricanes started the year with three straight wins. It was the trip to South Africa and the first game back where they faltered. Personally I don't see what's wrong with them playing themselves back into contention. Every side plays the same amount of games and the points system is the same for everyone. A lot of teams talk big and say they're not done on the season yet and that they can still make the semis and win a championship, but the Hurricanes actually believe it's possible and that's what you'd like from all of your 6/7/8 teams in any competition. There are A LOT of Super 14 games where I don't need to see the return bout. It probably will stop a side like the Hurricanes from making the semis in the future but at what price? Who's going to watch more Lions games?

pothale, OJ, the same could be said of the Sharks. They had a poor start to the season (and a lot of bad luck), but are doing well in the second half. I don't think there is anything wrong with a short season though. The provincial season in NZ is just as short and its fine. Just means that you have to hit the ground running. I don't think the top players are going to play more rugby from next year are they? Because the All Blacks won't be playing provincial rugby at all will they? Maybe the South Africans will play more, and the Australians will (but thats mainly cause they hardly play any at the mo without a domestic comp).

OJ - I'm sure you're right. The Hurricanes remind me of the Cardiff Blues in the Magners. They were poor from the beginning of the season all the way through until February with just 4 wins on the board. And then they put on a big gallop at the end of the season - also winning 5 games in a row coincidentally (27% of all games). They beat Munster tonight in the final round but couldn't prevent them getting a losing bonus point to take the 4th spot for the playoffs. Hopefully that's not a portent for the Canes. :)

Pothale, if the Hurricanes make the semi-finals it'll be because they won five games in a row. Five games out of thirteen. That's more than a third of the season.

There is something perverse about a team that was languishing in 7th, 8th and 9th spot for most of the tournament to be suddenly in with a chance of winning the S14 just two games later. It is the basic flaw that has existed in the truncated S14 structure that is thankfully to be consigned to the bin with the advent of the S15 next season and making the S15 teams play more games - and on a home and away basis for part of it. It'll be interesting to see what effect - if any - the increased number of games might have on the overall performance of the SANZAR test teams with players having to endure longer seasons and more games similar to teams/players elsewhere. Although the Magners League also increases next year with the addition of the Italian teams giving the Irish, Welsh, Scottish, and Italians another four league games to play on top of test and Heineken/Amlin Cup games. Something's gotta give.

Win and you are in. What a great season this has turned out to be. Canes, Crusaders, Tahs and Brumbies all possible semi finalists with their destinies in their own hands. No excuses and no having to wait for other results, just go out and do the business. Who has the ticker for it ?

It was ballboy and his ilk who called for Walshes suspension so I think the accusation is leveled at the wrong person.

lol Not true at all. NSW lost to Highlanders and I thought the ref had a good game. Same with their losses to Bulls and stormers. Also Marks did not have a good game when Tahs beat the Sharks.

pretty much eastboy

So in English Ballboy, that means if Peters team wins the ref is ok he's tops, should Peter's team lose he is an inconsistent airhead that needs to be suspended :-)

Jerry if you bend down and pull down or pull back at the same time the opposite prop will be pulled down as he is driving forwards. It was years ago and I would have to get a clip but from memory it was not clear cut. I am saying a ref has to be consistent in what they let go and what they penalise. Say he lets people off their feet at rucks all day and then gives 1 penalty at fulltime in front of the posts which determines the winner you would be unhappy. Sure the penalty is correct BUT he had allowed the offence all game. Everyone wants consistency. Kaplan wasnt.

That doesn't really make sense Peter - if the opposition prop bends at the waist he's gonna get his head driven up his arse. You can't pull a player down by bending at the waist. And again - penalties don't require repeat offending and refs aren't required to give warnings before penalties. Prior collapses don't mean there were offences, and lack of penalties doesn't pardon future infringements. It was pretty clear cut.

ballboy, no I wasnt whinging, I was giving critique, and providing wishful thinking stating facts that NSW have a very poor record under Kaplan and have a lower chance under him. What humble pie? What have I got wrong? I never said ACT would lose to reds or highlanders, Or reds would beat Canes. I did say if Brumbies dont make it they have themselves to blame. I am critical of the reffing when they are inconsistent and seem to favour a team, in most cases a home team. However I also support the refs when I think they get it right.

OJ the 2 best refs in form ATM are Mark Lawrence and Dickinson. The fair choice would be Mark Lawrence. Kaplan, Joubert, and Bryce Lawrence are all in poor form.

Jerry it has to do with consistency if we have had collapses through the game and no penalties and no warnings. There were previous collapses with no penalties and no warnings. Also if the opposing prop is a hinge that can make Baxter collapse face down as he is driving forward and he has no resistance. It was not clear cut.

I think the Australians are working their way back to Peter Marshall.

Why does that make it dodgy? Penalties don't require repeat offending, and previous good behaviour doesn't give you a get out of jail free card if you do infringe. From memory, Baxter was prone, face down on the turf with his knees on the ground and his opposing prop was still on his feet bent at the waist. It's pretty obvious who's responsible for the collapse in those situations.

whinging again Peter K? You should administer some of your own medicine. It's on the shelf there, right next to the black kettle just behind the humble pie.

Well, who's it going to be? Joubert? Walsh? Jonker? Bryce Lawrence? We're running out of refs here.