I know what the laws say. They are simply wrong just like any law is when taking absolutely.bimboman wrote:If it's a penalty then it's clearly a yellow and penalty try,Torquemada 1420 wrote:Yup. There has to be some empathy with the intent and the situation. That was as good a tackle as you could see there. A year ago, he would have been hailed a hero.Ali's Choice wrote:I'm a Crusaders fan but I think that was a ridiculously harsh call. I'd have been happy with just a penalty.
SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
- Torquemada 1420
- Posts: 29067
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
- Location: Hut 8
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
- RodneyRegis
- Posts: 15700
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
What? That was a high tackle 10 years ago, let alone one. Not really sure what all the tears are for.Torquemada 1420 wrote:Yup. There has to be some empathy with the intent and the situation. That was as good a tackle as you could see there. A year ago, he would have been hailed a hero.Ali's Choice wrote:I'm a Crusaders fan but I think that was a ridiculously harsh call. I'd have been happy with just a penalty.
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
Your bestie Thai guy is the reason I don’t come here much ... so ...enjoyguy smiley wrote:Hareaway wrote:If you look at the tackle he could not go any lower .. oh it’s you ..guy smiley wrote:You were also talking about a swinging arm for a tackle that was quite similar.Hareaway wrote:You all wanna go back and see where I said ref will get them home ....
A penalty try ?? Suck my cock![]()
![]()
You're gonna pollute a few rivers with that attitude.
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
Absolutely. it was a cracking game till the PT, though the Chiefs have not helped themselves since then and the Crusaders have really turned the screws.Ali's Choice wrote:Damien McKenzie is certainly a work in progress. He's going to do some freakishly good things in the 10 jersey this year but he's also going to make some shocking errors as well.
This scoreline doesn't reflect the game. Tough luck Chiefs fans you didn't deserve this margin.
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
I blame fluorescent boots.guy smiley wrote:BBB wrote:Seems to be a massive overreaction on this thread to that penalty try.
The high tackle law has been like this for a couple seasons now.
The game is hardly ruined.![]()
I blame the rise of women's rugby. It's ruined the fans.
-
- Posts: 8737
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
Yeah, I've switched off as well. What's the point in watching this farce?
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
Cheer up petal.SecretAgentMan wrote:Bullshit. It's not rugby as I know it... knew it.guy smiley wrote:BBB wrote:Seems to be a massive overreaction on this thread to that penalty try.
The high tackle law has been like this for a couple seasons now.
The game is hardly ruined.![]()
I blame the rise of women's rugby. It's ruined the fans.
- Maniototo Man
- Posts: 2258
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
- Location: Well South
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
I think you mean rort.Rugby2023 wrote:It's a rout.
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
Realistically didn’t expect to go to the defending champions home patch and win, but this is still disappointing
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
The Chiefs are going to be a big threat this year but that is a good start for our boys.
-
- Posts: 2122
- Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:09 am
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
McKenzie isn't a 10's arse. Why should the Chiefs be the test lab for one of Hansen's wacky ideas?
- Torquemada 1420
- Posts: 29067
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
- Location: Hut 8
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
Did you watch any rugby in the last 10 years? I defy you to find a single, similar decision before 2017?RodneyRegis wrote:What? That was a high tackle 10 years ago, let alone one. Not really sure what all the tears are for.Torquemada 1420 wrote:Yup. There has to be some empathy with the intent and the situation. That was as good a tackle as you could see there. A year ago, he would have been hailed a hero.Ali's Choice wrote:I'm a Crusaders fan but I think that was a ridiculously harsh call. I'd have been happy with just a penalty.
Even if you can, I reckon I could find 10x that number where such an action was hailed as "a brilliant, last ditch tackle".
- guy smiley
- Posts: 33236
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
- Location: in transit
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
Hareaway wrote:
Your bestie Thai guy is the reason I don’t come here much ... so ...enjoy
He's an idiot.
the first card was fair but not malicious. Player was falling into it which made it look worse. This one we're arguing over was similar in the dropping player but the tackler started over the shoulder.
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
Cheifs look to be losing their Mana early this season.damn those injuries don't look too good.
Re: the penalty try. We'll get used to it folks. Long term injuries is not worth the tough couch potato talk.
Re: the penalty try. We'll get used to it folks. Long term injuries is not worth the tough couch potato talk.
- Ali's Choice
- Posts: 29981
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
- Location: Queensland
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
Final score 45-23.
A 22 point win in a NZ conference derby game is almost unheard of. I am very happy with the result - but that was not a great performance.
A 22 point win in a NZ conference derby game is almost unheard of. I am very happy with the result - but that was not a great performance.
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
Yep. Not much first-five cover in the squad thoughWaka Nathan wrote:McKenzie isn't a 10's arse. Why should the Chiefs be the test lab for one of Hansen's wacky ideas?
-
- Posts: 8737
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
The law is an ass. Don't be an apologist for an ass.guy smiley wrote:Hareaway wrote:
Your bestie Thai guy is the reason I don’t come here much ... so ...enjoy
He's an idiot.
the first card was fair but not malicious. Player was falling into it which made it look worse. This one we're arguing over was similar in the dropping player but the tackler started over the shoulder.
- Marshall Banana
- Posts: 12822
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:57 pm
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
If that was a yellow, then how in the hell did Alaalatoa's swinging arm to McKenzie's head not get a red?
Also, why did the tackle on McKenzie late in the first half not get yellow carded? It was clearly high - the ref even played advantage for it.
Also, why did the tackle on McKenzie late in the first half not get yellow carded? It was clearly high - the ref even played advantage for it.
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
Fark, been trying to watch this on a really really choppy, intermittent internet access. Almost as frustrating as seeing the 2 interecept tries being given away in the last 5 minutes.
Congrats Saders, was a great finish to that game.
Plenty to be happy about from the Chiefs, given how unknown they were going to be this season, but the amount of errors and injuries isn't something that can be sustained.
Congrats Saders, was a great finish to that game.
Plenty to be happy about from the Chiefs, given how unknown they were going to be this season, but the amount of errors and injuries isn't something that can be sustained.
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
No he didn’tguy smiley wrote:Hareaway wrote:
Your bestie Thai guy is the reason I don’t come here much ... so ...enjoy
He's an idiot.
the first card was fair but not malicious. Player was falling into it which made it look worse. This one we're arguing over was similar in the dropping player but the tackler started over the shoulder.
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
naki wrote:The tackle was on the shoulder and as low as humanly possibleRodneyRegis wrote:It's really weird. The Kiwis especially seem to want to see early retirements and brain injuries.BBB wrote:Seems to be a massive overreaction on this thread to that penalty try.
The high tackle law has been like this for a couple seasons now.
The game is hardly ruined.
I’ve got no problem with red cards for forceful initial contact with the head
to stop the try " I was only as off side as I humanly needed to be"
- Enzedder
- Posts: 20223
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
- Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
It was a game for men then. Mothers cooked the mince on toastRodneyRegis wrote:If only they had tried to do something about contact with the head when you were younger.Enzedder wrote:Well, if That is rugby now I am not going to pay to watch.
- guy smiley
- Posts: 33236
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
- Location: in transit
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
It's a shame because of the pen try and yellow... circumstances pretty much demanded that under the Laws. Tackler made contact at the neck, fercryinoutloud. You can't start a tackle at the neck.naki wrote:Realistically didn’t expect to go to the defending champions home patch and win, but this is still disappointing
What happened after that decision spoilt things with the score blowing out, for sure.
- Torquemada 1420
- Posts: 29067
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
- Location: Hut 8
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
Early doors for both sides and your mob not normally the fastest out of the blocks so any win a good one?Ali's Choice wrote:Final score 45-23.
A 22 point win in a NZ conference derby game is almost unheard of. I am very happy with the result - but that was not a great performance.
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
It blew out in the end but it was a hard fought win - the first and last 20 were good for the crusaders. Very impressed with the Mounga, Crotty and Goodhue midfield. McKenzie had some good runs but was a shit 10.Ali's Choice wrote:Final score 45-23.
A 22 point win in a NZ conference derby game is almost unheard of. I am very happy with the result - but that was not a great performance.
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
So why go the bullying route over all farmers being polluters ? fudge you you bloody asshole I don’t give you shit over your job but if m fair game for you and Thai guy ?guy smiley wrote:Hareaway wrote:
Your bestie Thai guy is the reason I don’t come here much ... so ...enjoy
He's an idiot.
the first card was fair but not malicious. Player was falling into it which made it look worse. This one we're arguing over was similar in the dropping player but the tackler started over the shoulder.
Happy bullying
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
Well you’re just being silly now.bimboman wrote:naki wrote:The tackle was on the shoulder and as low as humanly possibleRodneyRegis wrote:It's really weird. The Kiwis especially seem to want to see early retirements and brain injuries.BBB wrote:Seems to be a massive overreaction on this thread to that penalty try.
The high tackle law has been like this for a couple seasons now.
The game is hardly ruined.
I’ve got no problem with red cards for forceful initial contact with the head
to stop the try " I was only as off side as I humanly needed to be"
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
Very flattering but a win is a win. Picking up a bonus point could be important later on in the NZ conference.
- Maniototo Man
- Posts: 2258
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
- Location: Well South
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
A harsh result for the Chiefs. Didn't deserve to win but didn't deserve to lose with that score line.
-
- Posts: 2002
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
O'Keefe must be cross eyed doesn't know forward from back. Poor showing from him tonight. 

Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
The. Tackler. Did. Not. Make. Contact. At. The. Neckguy smiley wrote:It's a shame because of the pen try and yellow... circumstances pretty much demanded that under the Laws. Tackler made contact at the neck, fercryinoutloud. You can't start a tackle at the neck.naki wrote:Realistically didn’t expect to go to the defending champions home patch and win, but this is still disappointing
What happened after that decision spoilt things with the score blowing out, for sure.
You’ve moved down from saying it was the head at least. Soon you’ll be at the actual point of contact

- Marshall Banana
- Posts: 12822
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:57 pm
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
Chiefs would be a million times better off with Marty at 10, Maori Jesus at 12, and D-Mac at 15.naki wrote:Yep. Not much first-five cover in the squad thoughWaka Nathan wrote:McKenzie isn't a 10's arse. Why should the Chiefs be the test lab for one of Hansen's wacky ideas?
D-Mac was the best fullback in the comp last year.
-
- Posts: 8737
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
That's just bollocks. Get a grip, ffs.guy smiley wrote:It's a shame because of the pen try and yellow... circumstances pretty much demanded that under the Laws. Tackler made contact at the neck, fercryinoutloud. You can't start a tackle at the neck.naki wrote:Realistically didn’t expect to go to the defending champions home patch and win, but this is still disappointing
- guy smiley
- Posts: 33236
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
- Location: in transit
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
naki wrote:The. Tackler. Did. Not. Make. Contact. At. The. Neckguy smiley wrote:It's a shame because of the pen try and yellow... circumstances pretty much demanded that under the Laws. Tackler made contact at the neck, fercryinoutloud. You can't start a tackle at the neck.naki wrote:Realistically didn’t expect to go to the defending champions home patch and win, but this is still disappointing
What happened after that decision spoilt things with the score blowing out, for sure.
You’ve moved down from saying it was the head at least. Soon you’ll be at the actual point of contact

the hips? He did well to get so low so quick.
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
Quite an enjoyable game until the penalty try. That tackle happens all the time without the same result. If it was any other player than glass Crotty they would have just got back up and carried on, actually I take that Glass Maori Jesus Ngatai would have stayed down too.
Tana was wrong, it is tiddly winks.
Tana was wrong, it is tiddly winks.
- World Class Phil
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:42 pm
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
Slow mo showed it didn't start at the neck, initial contact with his arm was to the shoulder.guy smiley wrote:It's a shame because of the pen try and yellow... circumstances pretty much demanded that under the Laws. Tackler made contact at the neck, fercryinoutloud. You can't start a tackle at the neck.naki wrote:Realistically didn’t expect to go to the defending champions home patch and win, but this is still disappointing
What happened after that decision spoilt things with the score blowing out, for sure.
Yes arguably the defender should have been in better position and would have been more likely to tackle 'legally' but with that quick ball what can you do but make an attempt and hope it comes off?
Like other posters have said, the fact that letting Crotty score instead of going to make the tackle would be less risky is literally the safer option now which makes zero sense.
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
Māori Jesus is even shaped more like a block busting 12 now also, he’s piled on some poundsMarshall Banana wrote:Chiefs would be a million times better off with Marty at 10, Maori Jesus at 12, and D-Mac at 15.naki wrote:Yep. Not much first-five cover in the squad thoughWaka Nathan wrote:McKenzie isn't a 10's arse. Why should the Chiefs be the test lab for one of Hansen's wacky ideas?
D-Mac was the best fullback in the comp last year.
Doesn’t matter, he’s now injured of course
-
- Posts: 2002
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
talking shit smiley, tackle started at the upper arm or shoulder. Take your pirate patch off.guy smiley wrote:It's a shame because of the pen try and yellow... circumstances pretty much demanded that under the Laws. Tackler made contact at the neck, fercryinoutloud. You can't start a tackle at the neck.naki wrote:Realistically didn’t expect to go to the defending champions home patch and win, but this is still disappointing
What happened after that decision spoilt things with the score blowing out, for sure.

- Enzedder
- Posts: 20223
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
- Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
Re: SR: Crusaders v Chiefs: MATCH THREAD: Sat 24th Feb
You were reading my posts from earlier in this threadMarshall Banana wrote:Chiefs would be a million times better off with Marty at 10, Maori Jesus at 12, and D-Mac at 15.naki wrote:Yep. Not much first-five cover in the squad thoughWaka Nathan wrote:McKenzie isn't a 10's arse. Why should the Chiefs be the test lab for one of Hansen's wacky ideas?
D-Mac was the best fullback in the comp last year.