The first Super Rugby game of Round 10 will be headed by championship front runners the Chiefs, who play host to the Sharks at Yarrow Stadium. Catch all the highlights and action from 5:35pm (AEST) on The Roar
The Chiefs snuck home last week in a one-point thriller against the Hurricanes, notching up their sixth win on the trot and maintaining their slim lead over the ever-present Crusaders in the standings.
Similarly, the Sharks managed to hold on by a single point last week, edging out last year’s champions, the Highlanders.
Despite their confidence-building win, the Sharks had actually gone five weeks without a W next to their name beforehand, suffering three losses, a draw and the bye to sit precariously on the wrong side of the finals equation.
In team news, both sides have been hit with injuries and will make 11 changes between them.
Chiefs coach Dave Rennie has announced four alterations to his forward pack for this week, with injuries to Atu Moli, Michael Allardice and Tom Sanders.
Hiroshi Yamashita (tighthead), Dominic Bird (lock) and Taleni Seu (blindside flanker) will all get run-on starts.
The other two changes for the home side sees Hika Elliot slot in at hooker, and Anton Lienert-Brown returning from injury at inside centre, in place of Rhys Marshall and Andrew Howell, respectively.
For the Sharks, ‘The Beast’, skipper Tendai Mtawarira, has been rested for the fixture in a completely revamped front row from last week’s victory.
Dale Chadwick, Kyle Cooper and Lourens Adriaanse will pack down in the new front row for this week, pushing aside Mtawarira (rested), Coenie Oosthuizen (bench) and Franco Marais (dropped).
Daniel du Preez is the other change to the forward pack, in at Number 8 after a neck injury to Philip van der Walt.
Coach Gary Gold has also made a couple of adjustments to his back line, with the return of outside centre Paul Jordaan pushing JP Pietersen out to the right wing. Michael Claassens will start at halfback, with Cobus Reinach missing in action from a knee injury.
Prediction
The Sharks are depleted with injuries and a rested captain, and are facing the form side of Super Rugby.
Don’t expect a blowout, but a fairly comfortable Chiefs win should be on the cards.
Chiefs to win by 19.
Can the Sharks get a big win away from home to get the second half of their season kickstarted, or will the relentless Chiefs extend their winning streak and lead atop the table? Follow all the thrills and spills of Super Rugby action from 5:35pm (AEST) on The Roar.
Shop
Roar Guru
I'm with you on this one TM (unlike the last topic!). There are plenty of times when the captain is asked to make a decision e.g scrum or line out. The same principle should apply here, line out or game (half) over.
Scott Bennett
Guest
Good prediction again Connor. You should try footy tipping
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes...we won a World Cup with it!
Rugby Tragic
Roar Rookie
OB, that's the sign of youthful exuberance and lack of experience, he needs to understand and have confidence that his team mates will do the job that is asked of them
ClarkeG
Guest
Yes like Rennie said he has been involved in 78 (I think he said) Chiefs matches and never, up until last Sat, has his team ever had to go to uncontested scrums because they did not have a suitable replacement. Conspiracy theories and unkind comments have been rife all week.:-)
Jerry
Guest
It is odd no one thought about it, I mean the "penalty-kick to touch-raise arms in victory" is a pretty common occurrence in rugby.
Jerry
Guest
I agree, in principle. But equally, the only time I can see it ever mattering is if the tapping team is guilty of gross incompetence so it'd be hard to feel sympathy for them. Unless it happens to my team in which case it's a conspiracy and a disgrace and someone must be held accountable.
ClarkeG
Guest
Jerry it's only a non issue if it never becomes a issue. Already we are seeing defending players rushing the kicker - which is illegal for the record. A penalty kick can not be charged. I just can't see why the lawmakers see fit to expose the non offending team to an extra risk (small risk admittedlely) when the intention of the law is to reward the same team.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Yes that's true. My original point was something was introduced unnecessarily. Teams used to be able to kick the ball out from a penalty where time was up. They've now changed that to 'teams must now tap the ball and kick it out' when time is up, if they don't want a lineout. Why introduce that change? Just because they changed something else, it doesn't mean they need to introduce something unnecessarily. It's not about the minimal impact it might or might not have, it's about the quality of the process of introducing new rules. Did they know and accept that teams winning the penalty would have to tap and kick it out if they didn't want the lineout. I doubt they even considered it.
Jerry
Guest
I agree it's the logical approach that's why I said so in the post you replied to. But I think it's also a bit of a non issue as the kicking team would only mess up the tap about 1 time out of 20 and they'd only concede the ball following that mess up another 1 time out of 20 (figures pulled out of thin air obv) as the other team is back 10. So on the very odd occasion a team buggers up the tap and does so badly enough that the other team gets the ball, they probably deserve everything they get - it's not like a kick to touch from a penalty has never missed touch.
ClarkeG
Guest
Jerry we have explained in our posts above what the problem is with the tap. Let's take last nights game. 80m playing time as elapsed. The Chiefs are in front on the scoreboard. They are more than happy to end the game at this point from the penalty.The Chiefs can't kick the ball out directly. If they do then they are required to throw the ball to a lineout. Cruden taps the ball to himself. He drops it or knocks it on. The Sharks rush in. You are making the assumption the game is over. How is that so? The Sharks are now playing under an advantage if there has been a knock on. If he has simply dropped it then it is play on. Then whatever happens happens. The Sharks might secure the ball from the skirmish - game still on. The Chiefs might concede a penalty - game still on. So no matter how slim the chances might be that this could happen the point is that there is potential for it to happen. So why not just take the logical approach and allow the non offending team to kick directly to touch and then allow them to indicate they choose to not play on at which point the referee ends the game.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Tap kick before placing it, AND after kicking it. Those ones will be worth four points for the extra skill levels. Nothing silly about that. The game needs challenges. ?
Jerry
Guest
Yeah, plus there could be a situation where a fullback/wing allows the ball to go into touch not realising it was under advantage and then sees the throw in given to the other side.
Jerry
Guest
What's the problem with a tap though? Sure, common sense would say the team kicking should have the option of ending the game, but even if you mess up the quick tap and drop it...knock on, game over. Sure, you might miss touch but that could happen anyway.
ClarkeG
Guest
No I can't run with that one Moa I’m afraid simply because the team that has caused the ball to go into touch is being rewarded with the throw in. The only time this should happen is when the ball is kicked to touch from a penalty.
ClarkeG
Guest
and if they choose to kick for goal to end the game as NB says would he like them to tap kick before they place the ball on the kicking tee ? ok we are just being silly now :-)
moaman
Roar Guru
No you have got it CG; the defending team hoof the ball out upfield just after Ref says "avantage' for a penalisable offence.The Ref could award them the option of the lineout where the ball went out (and the throw -in,of course) or the chance to kick it again if they thought they could peel off more territtory.
ClarkeG
Guest
But the point is the non offending team is being asked unnecessarily to perform an extra step where there is potential for them to stuff up. Keep in mind they are the non offending team. When kicking for touch from a penalty the only potential for a stuff up is if the kicker stuffs up that specific kick. But now there are two opportunities for stuff ups. Why would the law makers put that onto the non offending team when the intention of the law is to reward the non offending team.
taylorman
Roar Guru
Ha ha...how about...before kicking it out the kicker has to moonwalk five steps backwards while his team do the graveyard dance to Thriller, except for the front row who all need to do the gangnam style while singing the Hills are alive from the Sound of music...then they can kick it out.??
ClarkeG
Guest
But the lineout would have to be in a advantageous position to the non offending team. If not then there would have been no advantage. Also you are proposing I think (apologies if I have mistaken your meaning) a team would be awarded a lineout where they have actually taken the ball out of play. The only time this occurs presently is when a team kicks into touch from a penalty.