Summer Tours 2018

Buer

kuang1 wrote: »

Skipping the queue at reception to get an extension lead for his playstation...brilliant.

In my biased imagination that can only be Mike Brown!

It screams Joe Marler.

Webbs

Wales will be delighted with their summer tour overall. A win against a SA team and a 2 win series in Argentina will be more than they expected.
The Welsh squad depth is what will please them most with a few players really stepping up or showing a continuing upward curve, Hill, Adams, Amos, J Davies, E Jenkins all the scrum halves and hookers. Ok the SA match was an odd one but both teams were experimental and would have been great experience for fringe players.

It will obviously have gone under the radar on this forum but along with Ireland they will be the only NH teams to have had real positives from the summer.
France are France good in parts but still so disorganised, I expected more from Scotland and they will be disappointed that their backup players have not performed and then of course there is the basket case that is England unless Jones leaves they will be no threat come world cup compared to where I thought they were 12 months ago

irishbucsfan

Forgot Wales played rugby

Burkie1203

Buer wrote: »

It screams Joe Marler.

Kyle Sinckler is my guess.

Webbs

Webbs wrote: »

Wales will be delighted with their summer tour overall. A win against a SA team and a 2 win series in Argentina will be more than they expected.
The Welsh squad depth is what will please them most with a few players really stepping up or showing a continuing upward curve, Hill, Adams, Amos, J Davies, E Jenkins all the scrum halves and hookers. Ok the SA match was an odd one but both teams were experimental and would have been great experience for fringe players.

It will obviously have gone under the radar on this forum but along with Ireland they will be the only NH teams to have had real positives from the summer.
France are France good in parts but still so disorganised, I expected more from Scotland and they will be disappointed that their backup players have not performed and then of course there is the basket case that is England unless Jones leaves they will be no threat come world cup compared to where I thought they were 12 months ago

France started very well both weeks against the All Blacks and looked right in contention at half time and until the red card. They kept things respectable last week so as far as French teams on tour go I think they'll have some positives. Will be interesting to see if they can go one better this weekend.

Depending on how the RFU react to the tour it could be very positive for England. This teams demise under Jones has been flagged since last summer in my book and I think if they make a change now they'll be back in the mix for the World Cup.

Still can't believe Scotland lost at the weekend, and they didn't play terrible - USA played a simple game well and deserved their win.

Jacovs

Not sure if the attachement will work, but last International Test match to be played at Newlands this weekend. End of an era indeed. First was in 1891 between SA and British Lions.
No option but win now.
Fairly sure the rest of the Currie Cup will be played out there before moving to Cape Town Stadium.

Dubinusa

England are stinking the joint up right now. But, they can turn it around. There's so much talent in the squad it's bewildering.
I think besides EJ the problem for them is the back row. The selection of Robshaw is crazy imo. He's no pace, late to all the rucks and really is below the standard. He wouldn't even be considered for Ireland or Wales or even France.
Another problem is the ridiculous amount of injuries sustained during training. It's stunning.
Got to love the discipline, scary bad. No one standout in a panel of Marler; Coles, Itoje, Sinckler or Hartley. It's like every match is their first. Same stupidity over and over. JS would have canned them a long time ago.
Add in Brown on the wing and Ford at 10 and you have the makings of a clusterfcuk.
The selection strategy is off and it shows. They just bought a guy in from NZ while the have Armand at Exeter? They bring in Billy V who is not fully recovered and look at the result. They import Nathan Hughes who is not very good at this level. They are below average at hooker, which is mind blowing as they have numerous options throughout the premiership.
EJ may be fired soon and if Baxter gets the job, they will right the chariot and be a good team. I hope McCall does not get the job as he would be a great replacement for JS.

bilston

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Benjamin Falls red card dismissed. free to return for next test.
http://www.allblacks.com/News/32583/benjamin-fall-red-card-hearing-outcome

While it may have been harsh surely the decision was correct? Barrett landed on his head? Is that not the key point irrespective of where Falls eyes were pointed?

irishbucsfan

bilston wrote: »

While it may have been harsh surely the decision was correct? Barrett landed on his head? Is that not the key point irrespective of where Falls eyes were pointed?

Well that's what they mean by:

In reaching that conclusion, it is important to record, that no criticism is made of the referee nor, in our opinion, would any be warranted. Unlike the referee we had the benefit of all the video footage, which showed various angles of the incident. Unlike the referee we had the luxury of time to deliberate and consider, in private, the incident. In contrast, the referee was required to make his decision in a matter of minutes in the full gaze of the public and without the benefit of all the relevant material

To be fair no one really saw ALB pushing Fall at the time until after, another TMO might have picked it up but I think it's not exactly an egregious thing to miss, it was subtle enough. Especially if you are only watching a replay that starts after it.

Buer

bilston wrote: »

While it may have been harsh surely the decision was correct? Barrett landed on his head? Is that not the key point irrespective of where Falls eyes were pointed?

I think the key to their decision is their findingin that the NZ centre impeded and came into contact with Fall which led to him reaching the ball fractionally later than he would have otherwise.

I think it's a bit of a cop out, to be honest. I feel Fall's run was impeded in minimal fashion and barely hindered him. I think the below assessment is borderline fiction unless there's an angle I'm not seeing.

The line that the Player is running is then altered by his collision with NZ #13. This collision then causes the Player to lose his balance, stumble and be propelled or pushed towards the path of NZ #10.

I think red was correct and, with the circumstances of the collision and the fact that he was absent for almost the entire game essentially, the red card be deemed a sufficient punishment on its own. I think they were incorrect to rescind it officially, though.

irishbucsfan

I thought the push was significant enough. Doesn't take much at all to stop you from being able to compete. I assume they had every possible angle at the time. Wonder if they'll publish the full decision (very much doubt it however!)

Yeah_Right

Yeah it is cop out to rescind the red. They are basically throwing the ref and his team under the bus even if they say they aren't. Gardner gave him a red card because thats what the regulations said he had to do. Rather than rescinding the red card they should just say it was punishment enough and no further sanction necessary.

I think a yellow would have been fairer call but they would need to change the rules then and give the refs some latitude to make these decisions.

I think someone else mentioned it, that the red card was based on the result of Barrett's fall and subsequent injury yet they seem to ignore the result when looking at high tackles. Should RK have tucked his arm in when he was lifted in the Aus v Ireland match? Might have drawn a red instead of just a yellow.

Squidgy Black

Red was a fair call at the time. The ref and TMO followed the rules appropriately.

Rescinding it was probably not the best call. Removing any sanction would have been fairer, but saying it wasn't a red card at the time and shouldn't have been given, isn't the right call in my opinion.

Neil3030

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I think someone else mentioned it, that the red card was based on the result of Barrett's fall and subsequent injury yet they seem to ignore the result when looking at high tackles. Should RK have tucked his arm in when he was lifted in the Aus v Ireland match? Might have drawn a red instead of just a yellow.

I don't doubt that players could potentially feel obliged to take extra risks to their personal health to get a higher sanction for the opposition. For me it's the biggest flaw of outcome-based punishment.

swiwi_

I give up. And I feel sorry for the ref.

I don't agree with the laws around high balls and cards, but while it was a harsh red, Gardner was only following what World Rugby laid out as their guidelines. We've seen numerous red cards for the same thing: one player chases, eyes only on the ball, doesn't leave the ground; the other player leaves the ground and falls dangerously. The chasing player "had a duty" etc etc etc.

One big pile of greyness now.

In any case, the cards or lack of has ruined the NZ-French series, which has been dull, with NZ playing like drains, and France reduced to 14 men for parts of both games.

Luckily we have the tense and interesting Aus vs Ire series, and 2 games in which SA have come back from a terrible start.

I'd back Ireland to dispatch NZ at present, certainly in Dublin: pack looks awful, and wouldn't scare a fly.

One thing I don't get is that the French player did leave the ground, he just didn't get very far off the ground. Does it then become a case of the player jumping highest needs to be protected? Or is it the player jumping first that should be?

If a halfback jumping for a ball got hurt by a lock standing there and reaching up to win the ball, would the lock be red carded, even though he won the ball, but didn't need to jump to win it?

I think I've thought about it way too much at this stage, but I still think it was an extremely harsh red, and should have been a yellow.

Neil3030

Basil3 wrote: »

One thing I don't get is that the French player did leave the ground, he just didn't get very far off the ground. Does it then become a case of the player jumping highest needs to be protected? Or is it the player jumping first that should be?

If a halfback jumping for a ball got hurt by a lock standing there and reaching up to win the ball, would the lock be red carded, even though he won the ball, but didn't need to jump to win it?

I think I've thought about it way too much at this stage, but I still think it was an extremely harsh red, and should have been a yellow.

I reckon it's just physics. Hit them where you are likely to upend them, and you're at fault. Whether you're on or off the ground.

Neil3030

Neil3030 wrote: »

I reckon it's just physics. Hit them where you are likely to upend them, and you're at fault. Whether you're on or off the ground.

I just refreshed myself on the laws, and I guess you're partly right. If you're in a realistic position to catch the ball, then it doesn't matter what happens to the other person. Even if you upend them and they break their neck, it's just play on.

The problem with what happened on the weekend is that he was judged to not be in a realistic position to challenge for the ball.

Jump_In_Jack

You have to be in a realistic position to make a contest of it to catch the ball,
If the opposing player is 3 feet off the ground then you also need to be able to get up high enough to realistically contest for the ball,

The main thing is that there’s nothing in the laws about having your eyes on the ball.
It’s irrelevant.

What’s actually more important is to have eyes on the catching zone, who’s there, how high are they, can you realistically get into a position to make a contest of it.

Unfortunately for France the fullback didn’t look where he was running and took a slight trip from the New Zealand 13 which put him off his stride three steps before he got there, without that contact he may well have jumped higher and could have made a good contest for it.

The French fullback had already contested well in the air a few times up to that point, so it was a pity that he had a poor moment of judgement there and injured Barrett by accident/lack of due care.

Neil3030

Gas to see what a difference 2 years makes, when you read the comments beneath this video of a suitably prickly Eddie Jones dismantling what he deemed a "stupid" question about targeting Sexton:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAoDk07UXXQ

"Good on him. Too bloody right."

"fair play to England coach stupid question"

"Perfectly put Eddie!"

"Hahaha I love Eddie!"

etc. etc.

Burkie1203

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

You have to be in a realistic position to make a contest of it to catch the ball,
If the opposing player is 3 feet off the ground then you also need to be able to get up high enough to realistically contest for the ball,

The main thing is that there’s nothing in the laws about having your eyes on the ball.
It’s irrelevant.

What’s actually more important is to have eyes on the catching zone, who’s there, how high are they, can you realistically get into a position to make a contest of it.

Unfortunately for France the fullback didn’t look where he was running and took a slight trip from the New Zealand 13 which put him off his stride three steps before he got there, without that contact he may well have jumped higher and could have made a good contest for it.

The French fullback had already contested well in the air a few times up to that point, so it was a pity that he had a poor moment of judgement there and injured Barrett by accident/lack of due care.

A few years ago this happened
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T2tHI8gIxvs

To me that's stone wall red. He actually tackled DK who was airborne. And that should be were the card colour is determined.

Fall made no attempt to tackle Barrett. He was going for the ball.

Jump_In_Jack

Burkie1203 wrote: »

A few years ago this happened
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T2tHI8gIxvs

To me that's stone wall red. He actually tackled DK who was airborne. And that should be were the card colour is determined.

Fall made no attempt to tackle Barrett. He was going for the ball.

Intent can’t be the only factor, there has to be accountability for not taking due care,
Referees aren’t mind readers, and you have to stamp out the issue off taking a player out in the air,
So it has to put the emphasis on the player being able to make a contest of catching the ball,
Otherwise guys will intentionally look at the ball and charge in under the ball knowing someone is likely to be in the air, effectively taking the player out and trying to get away with it.

For example we could kick a high ball to Folau and send Conway charging under the ball with only his eyes on the ball in the hopes he will crash into Folau. The player in the air will usually come off worse from the collision.

The answer to this whole issue of contesting high balls is the kicker must give the ball enough hang time so that a player can get under it with enough time to be aware of his surroundings and time his run so he can get up high enough to contest the catch.
If the kick is too far, and a player arrives to the ball at speed without time to assess the situation or if the player times his run badly then he just shouldn’t contest the catch, without being aware of what’s happening and running into the catching zone at speed is a recipe for causing injury and that’s basic lack of due care.

I know accidents will happen and it’s difficult to make decisions at high speed but that’s what separates the good players from the rest.

penybont exile

IMO the rules are nonsensical.

As a kick receiver I should be able to stand still under a high ball (feet on the ground) and make a catch.
If the attacker wants to jump for it then any injury sustained is on them.

This was never an issue when I played .......

molloyjh

penybont exile wrote: »

IMO the rules are nonsensical.

As a kick receiver I should be able to stand still under a high ball (feet on the ground) and make a catch.
If the attacker wants to jump for it then any injury sustained is on them.

This was never an issue when I played .......

I'd largely agree with that. I think there are 2 potential issues with laws at the moment, both of which are designed to protect players but could end up encouraging them to put themselves at more risk. The first is this high ball thing. It basically encourages all players going after these balls to get up in the air. If one stays on the ground while the other goes up then they are risking a card. So both are encouraged to get up in the air and put themselves in a more vulnerable position.

The second is the tackle height. This is encouraging players more and more to dip into contact in some way, generally by bending at the hip and leading with the head. Again, this is putting them in a vulnerable position.

There needs to be a balancing of the laws in some way to put at least some onus on players on both sides of the ball. I've no idea how to balance out the high ball one, but there should be a change to how players are allowed to go into contact in order to protect them against head injuries.

dregin

molloyjh wrote: »

I'd largely agree with that. I think there are 2 potential issues with laws at the moment, both of which are designed to protect players but could end up encouraging them to put themselves at more risk. The first is this high ball thing. It basically encourages all players going after these balls to get up in the air. If one stays on the ground while the other goes up then they are risking a card. So both are encouraged to get up in the air and put themselves in a more vulnerable position.

The second is the tackle height. This is encouraging players more and more to dip into contact in some way, generally by bending at the hip and leading with the head. Again, this is putting them in a vulnerable position.

There needs to be a balancing of the laws in some way to put at least some onus on players on both sides of the ball. I've no idea how to balance out the high ball one, but there should be a change to how players are allowed to go into contact in order to protect them against head injuries.

You can't blame bad technique on rules there to protect players. I'm guilty of the above on many ocassions, but it certainly wasn't anything to do with rules. That's just bad tackling technique.

molloyjh

dregin wrote: »

You can't blame bad technique on rules there to protect players. I'm guilty of the above on many ocassions, but it certainly wasn't anything to do with rules. That's just bad tackling technique.

What I meant by the above was the situation where a player takes the ball into contact with their head down in an attempt to "play" the high tackle laws. It makes it almost impossible to tackle them unless you're taking them around the head/shoulders or getting so low that your head is in and around their knees.

sydthebeat

molloyjh wrote: »

What I meant by the above was the situation where a player takes the ball into contact with their head down in an attempt to "play" the high tackle laws. It makes it almost impossible to tackle them unless you're taking them around the head/shoulders or getting so low that your head is in and around their knees.

Yeah this one bugs the sh!te out of me.

If you get a chance, have a look at the yellow card Liam squire yellow card here

https://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby/super-rugby/super-rugby-highlanders-beat-hurricanes-3014-in-dunedin/news-story/4f22f1df5c3e929223922f939b6d4cdd

Especially the angle at 0:45

Squires arms don't leave his side (the actually go backwards) and yet it's deemed a yellow card.

dregin

molloyjh wrote: »

What I meant by the above was the situation where a player takes the ball into contact with their head down in an attempt to "play" the high tackle laws. It makes it almost impossible to tackle them unless you're taking them around the head/shoulders or getting so low that your head is in and around their knees.

Ah, I had that completely backwards. As you were.

ScrubsfanChris

4 week ban for Moriarty.

Shefwedfan

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

4 week ban for Moriarty.

From the start of season I guess? POintless having 4 week ban in off season

The Lost Sheep

Shefwedfan wrote: »

From the start of season I guess? POintless having 4 week ban in off season

Has to include at least a game so ban ends following his sides first league game of next season.

Yeah_Right

All Blacks make a few changes. 4 debutants.


1. Joe Moody (33)
2. Codie Taylor (31)
3. Owen Franks (97)
4. Samuel Whitelock (98) - captain
5. Scott Barrett (18)
6. Shannon Frizell
7. Ardie Savea (24)
8. Luke Whitelock (4)
9. Aaron Smith (73)
10. Damian McKenzie (14)
11. Rieko Ioane (15)
12. Sonny Bill Williams (46)
13. Jack Goodhue
14. Waisake Naholo (18)
15. Ben Smith (65)

16. Liam Coltman (1)
17. Karl Tu'inukuafe (2)
18. Ofa Tuungafasi (16)
19. Jackson Hemopo
20. Matt Todd (13)
21. TJ Perenara (44)
22. Richie Mo'unga
23. Jordie Barrett (4)

sydthebeat

Delighted for my landers boys.

Frizell really had come from nowhere to this point, but has deserved the call up, even if he only has 4 super rugby starts. Matt todd must have to wonder what he has to do to get such an acclaim.

Jackson Hemopo will give you grunt from the first minute to the last, he's just a non stop engine and always an available ball carrier.

Richie mounga was always going to profit from Sopoagas defection, but it will be interesting to see how he goes at test level.

Dog Botherer

England (3rd Test v South Africa): Elliot Daly; Jonny May, Henry Slade, Owen Farrell (capt), Mike Brown; Danny Cipriani, Ben Youngs; Joe Marler, Jamie George, Kyle Sinckler; Joe Launchbury, Maro Itoje, Chris Robshaw, Tom Curry, Nathan Hughes.

Replacements: Luke Cowan-Dickie, Alec Hepburn, Harry Williams, Jonny Hill, Mark Wilson, Sam Simmonds, Ben Spencer, Denny Solomona.

Eddie’s broken the emergency glass there. Pinning his England career on Cipriani having a stormer.

Dog Botherer

France:

15. Ben Fall
14. Teddy Thomas
13. Remi Lamerat
12. Wesley Fofana
11. Gael Fickou
10. Anthony Belleau
9. Morgan Parra (capt)

1. Dany Priso
2. Camille Chat
3. Uini Atonio
4. Bernard Le Roux
5. Yoann Maestri
6. Mathieu Babillot
7. Kelian Galletier
8. Kevin Gourdon.

Replacements:

16. Adrien Pelissie
17. Cyril Baille
18. Cedate Gomes Sa
19. Felix Lambey
20. Alexandre Lapandry
21. Baptiste Serin
22. Jules Plisson
23. Maxime Medard

Lots of rotation for France. Guess it is a dead rubber.

Squidgy Black

Dog Botherer wrote: »

England (3rd Test v South Africa): Elliot Daly; Jonny May, Henry Slade, Owen Farrell (capt), Mike Brown; Danny Cipriani, Ben Youngs; Joe Marler, Jamie George, Kyle Sinckler; Joe Launchbury, Maro Itoje, Chris Robshaw, Tom Curry, Nathan Hughes.

Replacements: Luke Cowan-Dickie, Alec Hepburn, Harry Williams, Jonny Hill, Mark Wilson, Sam Simmonds, Ben Spencer, Denny Solomona.

Eddie’s broken the emergency glass there. Pinning his England career on Cipriani having a stormer.

Think he should've brought Daly in at 13 and put Brown at 15.

I'm just in amazement at how weak that bench is week after week.

Dog Botherer

Dog Botherer wrote: »

England (3rd Test v South Africa): Elliot Daly; Jonny May, Henry Slade, Owen Farrell (capt), Mike Brown; Danny Cipriani, Ben Youngs; Joe Marler, Jamie George, Kyle Sinckler; Joe Launchbury, Maro Itoje, Chris Robshaw, Tom Curry, Nathan Hughes.

Replacements: Luke Cowan-Dickie, Alec Hepburn, Harry Williams, Jonny Hill, Mark Wilson, Sam Simmonds, Ben Spencer, Denny Solomona.

Eddie’s broken the emergency glass there. Pinning his England career on Cipriani having a stormer.

****ing lol. What do you do when your team has no direction and awful discipline. Pick Danny Cipriani.

The only pity is that Tadhg Furlong isn't there to step him again.

FellasFellas

Dog Botherer wrote: »

France:

15. Ben Fall
14. Teddy Thomas
13. Remi Lamerat
12. Wesley Fofana
11. Gael Fickou
10. Anthony Belleau
9. Morgan Parra (capt)

1. Dany Priso
2. Camille Chat
3. Uini Atonio
4. Bernard Le Roux
5. Yoann Maestri
6. Mathieu Babillot
7. Kelian Galletier
8. Kevin Gourdon.

Replacements:

16. Adrien Pelissie
17. Cyril Baille
18. Cedate Gomes Sa
19. Felix Lambey
20. Alexandre Lapandry
21. Baptiste Serin
22. Jules Plisson
23. Maxime Medard

Lots of rotation for France. Guess it is a dead rubber.

France with that 20's coming through will be dangerous going forward. Wouldn't be surprised to see Ntamack and those backrowers in their RWC squad.

ScrubsfanChris

_______ Home _______|_______ Away _______|___ Kick off (Irish Time) ___|______________ Channel ______________


New Zealand|France|Sat - 08:35|Sky Sports Action + Main Event
Australia|Ireland|Sat - 11:00|Sky Sports Action + Main Event
South Africa|England|Sat - 16:05|Sky Sports Action + Main Event
Argentina|Scotland|Sat - 20:45|Channel 4 + HD



Games with no Irish/UK broadcaster:

_______ Home _______|_______ Away _______|___ Kick off (Irish Time) ___|______________ Channel ______________


Fiji|Tonga|Sat - 04:00|TBC
Japan|Georgia|Sat - 06:45|J Sports 4
Canada|USA|Sat - 20:00|TheRugbyChannel.tv (Paid Streaming)

ScrubsfanChris

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

_______ Home _______|_______ Away _______|___ Kick off (Irish Time) ___|______________ Channel ______________


New Zealand|France|Sat - 08:35|dodgy stream + Main Event
Australia|Ireland|Sat - 11:00|dodgy stream + Main Event
South Africa|England|Sat - 16:05|dodgy stream + Main Event
Argentina|Scotland|Sat - 20:45|dodgy stream + HD



Games with no Irish/UK broadcaster:

_______ Home _______|_______ Away _______|___ Kick off (Irish Time) ___|______________ Channel ______________


Fiji|Tonga|Sat - 04:00|dodgy stream
Japan|Georgia|Sat - 06:45|dodgy stream
Canada|USA|Sat - 20:00|dodgy stream (Not Paid Streaming)

FYP

ScrubsfanChris

Deleted User wrote: »

FYP

Now now, we can't condone those sort of shenanigans, atleast publicly that is

ScrubsfanChris

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

Now now, we can't condone those sort of shenanigans, atleast publicly that is

To be fair you are doing god's work with those posts!

Elvisjuice

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

Channel 4 HD is Free to air though.

Anyone with a satellite receiver, subscription or not, can add the channel, even SKY boxes.

https://www.whathifi.com/news/freesat-loses-channel-4-hd-and-all4-over-carriage-fee-dispute


what freq are you getting c4hd free on ?

ScrubsfanChris

Oh and forgot to add, Germany are playing Samoa on Saturday too.
World Rugby might stream the game but it would be early hours Saturday morning here anyway.

ScrubsfanChris

Elvisjuice wrote: »

https://www.whathifi.com/news/freesat-loses-channel-4-hd-and-all4-over-carriage-fee-dispute

what freq are you getting c4hd free on ?

Channel 4 HD - 11126 V 22000 5/6

In reference to your link, it was recently dropped from the Freesat EPG because of a pay dispute apparently. So I've the channel added in the non-freesat mode, which is a bit of a pain because while you can still record you can't schedule future recordings.

Elvisjuice

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

Channel 4 HD - 11126 V 22000 5/6

In reference to your link, it was recently dropped from the Freesat EPG because of a pay dispute apparently. So I've the channel added in the non-freesat mode, which is a bit of a pain because while you can still record you can't schedule future recordings.

sweet that worked thanks , was doing my nut in last week to find right freq gave up when I saw that stuff online.

Burkie1203

Apparently Nick Isiekwe got a fractured hand in wrestling training on Monday.


https://twitter.com/RugbyPass/status/1009791517395955712?s=19

fitz

Off to a decent start, we've made it through haka and a Frenchman hasn't been sent off yet...

clsmooth

Great start by the French

The Premier Man

Incredible first 10 mins by France against new Zealand