Axver said:Oh, so that's why 10 May seemed significant somehow.
coolian2 said:Incidentally, that was why New Zealand wore the All Blacks look-a-like jersey instead of the traditional white V.
coolian2 said:It was a replica of the jersey the first Australian team wore against New Zealand when one of the first International league game was played on May 9, 1908.
Axver said:
Ahh. Looks better without the V if you ask me.
Axver said:
Well, their first jersey was damn bland and unimaginative! Looks like somebody just went to a Target and bought a bunch of polo shirts for the guys to wear or something. The reason I say that is because I have a somewhat similar polo shirt in my wardrobe!
coolian2 said:
I can't really decide. I like the fully black one for a bunch of reasons, but the really traditional one with the white V is brilliant.
I've always liked that Rep teams from provinces and cities in New Zealand had the exact same design - the same style V - but instead of black the jersey was the predominant colour of the rep teams area.
Uniformity
coolian2 said:
It's a matter of taste, i'm not the only one who loves it out of the league fans i know.
I think those polo shirt guys may have copied league
Axver said:
That is cool. What is the origin of the V anyway?
Axver said:
I find horizontal stripes more often than not don't tend to work too well. And it was just bloody weird seeing Australia in something other than green and gold.
By the way, I don't suppose you've seen anything from the Hurricanes vs Force game in the Super 14? The try the Force scored was so not a try.
coolian2 said:
I love hoops. Second only to the V in terms of jersey coolness.
I have seen the Hurricanes/Force on the news but can't remember the Force try. Speaking of tries that weren't tries, how bad was the double movement in the league test last night? He was fucking tackled and crawled over the line - i've seen less get called as a double movement before!
coolian2 said:Ok, Channel 10. A camera, presumably in the umpires hat?
No fucking wonder nobody is taking this pseudo-State of Origin wank seriously.
Axver said:
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. Out of the loop, I guess. What's taking place?
Axver said:
Oh yes, I saw that league try! My very first thought was "HOW THE HELL WAS THAT NOT CALLED AS A DOUBLE MOVEMENT?" But I almost never see double movements called nowadays, at least in union.
In the 'Canes/Force game, the Force chipped ahead and the ball was bouncing in the in-goal zone and both a Force player and a Hurricanes player dived for it. The Force guy happened to get his hand to it first and touched it before it bounced away. There is no way there was either downward pressure or control.
coolian2 said:
I'm half watching this AFL hall of fame "it's not quite origin but it'll shut you up" game
Axver said:
Is it like VIC vs SA or WA or something?
I wonder how I've managed to not hear about this.
coolian2 said:
Ah, i've only seen the main camera angle of that. It did look a bit messy.
Axver said:
They showed it side-on on the news here. Now, I suppose I shouldn't make a final judgement call without seeing it in slo-mo, but I'm not sure you need to because it really looked like his hand just grazed it and nothing more.
Well, not as if it mattered, at least. 'Canes get the win, Force are out of contention for the top four. And the Bulls made our life even easier for us by knocking the Brumbies out of contention too.
coolian2 said:
It looks like Victoria vs SA and WA