Highlights: Chiefs edge Hurricanes in Super Rugby

The separation thingee is just silly. No where in the laws does it mention separation. The only question should be - has the player grounded the ball whilst holding it.

He never lost control of the ball. Did you hear the TMO say there is no clear seperation?? He said that because there was no clear seperation!!! Therefore "TRY"

The Canes were helped out big time by the Ref. He reffed against the Chiefs all night at the breakdown when the Canes were doing the exact same thing and getting away with it. He missed a forward pass in the leadup to a canes try and "missed" 2 knock-ons by the canes while they were in attack. And he was incorrect at the WC. Not a good Ref by anyones standards. As for the chiefs choking well Ive never heard winners being described as chokers and they WON so I hope they choke all the way to the title

Im surprised ZG hasnt started calling the All Blacks the All Whites as he can certainly argue that black is white

I refer you to the above link in which Rod Hill (NZR) gives an explanation. Front rowers can fill in for uncontested scrums (no other suitable replacements) where another is off for blood or concussion tests but if the player they are on for does not return to the game then they have to leave - i.e. their team plays with 14.

The pass judged forward in the European Cup game is a poor comparison with the Horrell and Kellaway passes. They are not much alike. The former involves no tackle and no momentum through the ball being carried. As we have a very favourable camera angle (virtually in line) we are able to see in this case that the pass is clearly and obviously forward. If only they were all as easy to see as this one. Only the asst ref on the far side could tell us why he did not see the need to immediately call that pass forward. You have mentioned a number of issues - including length of pass, where the pass is caught, players heights and lengths of their strides, hands not going backwards, how long the ball is in the air, mown lines on the field etc - to justify your view that the pass by Horrell is clearly forward. Guess what I'm looking at. Whilst accepting that I'm viewing it from a deceptive angle I'm looking at the ball as it comes from Horrell's hands and asking myself did it come out of his hands forward. If I can't determine that it did then I can't call it forward. If this pass is forward I doubt that it as clearly forward as you think so. I think your view is much exaggerated. We agree to disagree.

In every other situation where a front row player is forced off the field, the team is required at the next scrum to reinstate the 3 front rowers for the purposes of a scrum whether contested or uncontested. The Chiefs should have been forced to substitute another player to bring Fishhoi off the bench to reinstate the 3 front rowers as the rules dictate. The rule does not state a player must be directly available, just available, which Fishihoi was through interchanging another player. There is always differences of interpretation, but i would be extremely confident to take my argument to court.

The discussion between the referee and sideline match official confirmed why. There was no suitable replacement for the injured front row player causing the referee to order uncontested scrums. Under these circumstances the injured player can not be replaced. The Chiefs could still have used all of their 8 substitutes - but not to the front row.

yep. Seata is a 6'2" guy and i assume his stride to be at least a meter (and it is more given that height) . when he catches the ball he is one stride ahead of horrell. i urge u to stop the visual at the time he catches the ball. seta is airborne (as any ruinner is ) and in front of horrell - by a stride.

easily a metre foward? seriously?

This is more or less how Rod Hill (NZR Referees High Performance Manager) described what went down. The Chiefs starting THP was substituted in the first half. At half time this player was confirmed as an injured player thus removing him from the game. The replacement THP then left the field injured in the second half. Chief’s management advised sideline match officials they had a front row substitute but that player was not suitably experienced in the THP position. Because a replacement would result in uncontested scrums the Chiefs were by law unable to make a replacement for the injured player. Rod Hill can be heard at 2m @ http://120.138.20.16/WeekOnDemand/radiosport/2016.04.24-12.30.00-S.mp3

Kuruki - If a player is unable under the laws to be used as a replacement then it sort of goes without saying - that player is unavailable as a front row replacement. He could be used as a replacement in another position but not in a front row position where uncontested scrums will result. Uncontested scrums do not happen of course whenever a front row player is suspended or sent off but it can get to that point if there are no available suitable replacements.

but u have not answered yet , why they had to be 14? the way i understand subs, a team can do 8 subs and in case of blood , concussion or front row , a player who has been subbed can come back on. as long as any team does not do substitutions more than 8 times. if 8 subs are done , either they play with less players or a injured gy stays on . if chiefs had not used their 8 interchanges , why do they have to p[lay with 14? i can understand if they have done 8 and then there are no fit front rowers available. it happened in a aviva semi or something last year too , and on that case the team used a hooker as a prop and swore he does not know to prop a scrum :D

I guess that depends on what available means? because there was an available front row forward on the bench and under the rule he should have replaced another player on the paddock in order for the front row to consist of three front row forwards. It's the same way they go about it during a front row red or yellow card. When a scrum arrives another player must be replaced by a front rower otherwise using that logic, uncontested scrums would happen whenever a prop or hooker was sent off.

Yes Jerry and that's why there is no excuse for any match official, coach or captain not knowing the law. And for the same reason you would have thought Nisbett and Marshall knew what was going down.

There is no available front row replacement because the player could not be replaced. Thus any other player can then move to the front row in an uncontested scrum.

I recall after that match it was pointed out that the Boks should have had to play with 14. That game is the reason I knew the law in the first place and why I could helpfully (and probably annoyingly in a know it all way) explain to the people sitting next to me why the Chiefs had to go down to 14.

3.6 (e) If they are available, a team must have three front row players in the front row at all times. in an uncontested scrum, only when there is no available replacement or substitute is any other player permitted to play in the front row. Fishihoi was the substitute available. Which means Brodie Rettalick was illegally packing in the front row which could be used as a tactical ploy to field a more mobile pack during uncontested scrums, i think that's why the rule says three genuine front rowers must be used if available so you can;t simply play loose forwards across the front row for added mobility.

Let's not be surprised commentators Nisbett and Marshall were confused. They often are. They should have been onto it however as they were at Ellis Park last year when the same thing happened. On that occasion however the match officials erred by allowing the Springbok player to be replaced. One thing for commentators to be confused but there is no excuse for a professional coach or captain to be confused. But of course the most important people in this regard are the match officials and in this case they appear to have got it right.

Yup - its all good mate....