Planet Rugby Forum

If I know the score and have seen the highlights, is the full game still worth a watch?

Even though the score ran out at the end, which wasnt a reflection on the game, I am not too concerned about the Chiefs. I never expected them to make the finals this year, especially loosing some good players like TKB, Cruden and Lowe. They are in a bit of a pickle now that they have some crucial injuries, but then that allows others to step up.

Cane was beast last night and has really stepped up in his role, no more in the GOATS shadow and I bet some of the Crusaders are feeling his tackles, probably got concussion from the bone rattling all the way to the cerebellum.

Disappointed with Weber, too slow with his passing from the ruck, especially in the first half and needs to look at his kicking. Would like to discuss the rules and interpretation but will leave that to another thread.

les@mooloolaba wrote:Even though the score ran out at the end, which wasnt a reflection on the game, I am not too concerned about the Chiefs. I never expected them to make the finals this year, especially loosing some good players like TKB, Cruden and Lowe. They are in a bit of a pickle now that they have some crucial injuries, but then that allows others to step up.

Cane was beast last night and has really stepped up in his role, no more in the GOATS shadow and I bet some of the Crusaders are feeling his tackles, probably got concussion from the bone rattling all the way to the cerebellum.

Disappointed with Weber, too slow with his passing from the ruck, especially in the first half and needs to look at his kicking. Would like to discuss the rules and interpretation but will leave that to another thread.

Les - sort of agree.
On senior players - yes, that's going to hurt.
Cane - agree, and good captaincy
Weber - not sure, first game - jury out...
Finals - i think they are in for a reasonable shout as 7 or 8th - in part because the AU & SA conferences will be very even as well so i expect a close race for QFs and the Chiefs have traditionally scored bonus points.

And then lets talk about:
- DMAC - i'm a massive fan but not sure
- Ngati (Maori Jesus) - look OK - before injury - but not sure why at 15
- ALB - good in sections
- Liam M - good game early off bench to the end

Overall OK, tough in Auckland this Friday...
KG

I was OK with it - sort of

I bet they (like I) would like to replay the last 15 minutes.

Fat Old Git wrote:

Tehui wrote:I didn't see the match. But it sounds like the Crusaders gave them Chiefs a hiding.

It was much closer than the final score suggested. Went silly in the final 8 minutes including several intercept trys.

Yeah sadly the Chiefs lost concentration after that penalty try... too much ground to cover with so little time left. Against the defending champs this was bound to happen

BillW wrote:

SecretAgentMan wrote:

RodneyRegis wrote:FFS. The TMO stopped it at the point of contact. It was directly on his neck, and he pulled his head round.

This debacle is not the officials' fault. They're victims, too. Who would want to be a ref under these conditions? Charged with butchering the game you love. As I said before, the law is an ass.

You're taking this real hard SAM.
The yellow card was not for the high tackle - that was just a penalty.
A penalisable offence prevented a try from being scored, so a penalty try was awarded, resulting in a mandatory yellow card.
Hell's bloody bells it happens all the time from way lesser offences, such as deliberate knock downs, early tackles etc.
Remember SBW batting a high kick dead in goal?
Made no difference to the end result.

Yes it did, it happened when the match was still a contest, and caused the match to no longer be a contest.

On it's own this incident probably wouldn't have caused so much consternation, but coming after a high swinging arm was mitigated by the actions of the attacker in ducking, it highlights the inconsistency prevalent in rulings like this.

Little comment has been made re the gutsy leadership from Sam Whitelock to twice spurn kickable penalties with a three point lead to go for the try. Great decision in that if you kick the penalty you hand field position back to the opponent with only a 6 point lead and plenty of time to play. Score the try and you have an 8 point lead but miss it and the worst that will likely happen is that you will have possession back inside the opposition half. Next All Black captain right there folks.

guy smiley wrote:

UncleFB wrote:
On it's own this incident probably wouldn't have caused so much consternation, but coming after a high swinging arm was mitigated by the actions of the attacker in ducking, it highlights the inconsistency prevalent in rulings like this.

Mitigated with a YC?

The referee stated he the attacker ducked into this - without this mitigation we must presume that the Aussie prop would have been red carded (because what other option is there?) and the Chiefs would have only had to face a 14 men Crusaders team for the remainder of the game. Instead he stayed on the field and the attackers action did not enter into the discussion in the penalty try incident.

Shrekles wrote:Little comment has been made re the gutsy leadership from Sam Whitelock to twice spurn kickable penalties with a three point lead to go for the try. Great decision in that if you kick the penalty you hand field position back to the opponent with only a 6 point lead and plenty of time to play. Score the try and you have an 8 point lead but miss it and the worst that will likely happen is that you will have possession back inside the opposition half. Next All Black captain right there folks.

Didn't one come off and the other one didn't but, the Chiefs ballsed up the next phase which meant the Crusaders could still press the attack? In saying that I agree that Whitelock would be a good ABs captain. Not sure if he's the next long term though, is he going to outlast Read by much?

guy smiley wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

UncleFB wrote:
On it's own this incident probably wouldn't have caused so much consternation, but coming after a high swinging arm was mitigated by the actions of the attacker in ducking, it highlights the inconsistency prevalent in rulings like this.

Mitigated with a YC?

The referee stated he the attacker ducked into this - without this mitigation we must presume that the Aussie prop would have been red carded (because what other option is there?) and the Chiefs would have only had to face a 14 men Crusaders team for the remainder of the game. Instead he stayed on the field and the attackers action did not enter into the discussion in the penalty try incident.

You're trying to equate seperate incidents to highlight inconsistency which is neveer a good idea man... every incident has to be taken on its own merits. We know this...

in the ChCh game, both incidents for YC were ruled fairly, clearly and well in my view. I'm not sure of the Aussie prop incident you refer to... do you mean the Higgers one in the Red's game? Where he lead with the shoulder and didn't wrap the arms, causing contact to the head with his shoulder?

Clear RC, that one. Different to the 'Sadeers Chiefs game, again in my view.

I'm talking about Alaatoa, the ref explicitly stated that the sanction was mitigated by the attackers action. It was a high swinging arm - would have been interesting if DMac stayed down like Crotty did actually. While I can fully see how a Crusaders fan would not want the same consistency applied to a potential Crusaders try I think it's bollocks that the ref ascribes mitigation to some incidents and not others.

UncleFB wrote:

Shrekles wrote:Little comment has been made re the gutsy leadership from Sam Whitelock to twice spurn kickable penalties with a three point lead to go for the try. Great decision in that if you kick the penalty you hand field position back to the opponent with only a 6 point lead and plenty of time to play. Score the try and you have an 8 point lead but miss it and the worst that will likely happen is that you will have possession back inside the opposition half. Next All Black captain right there folks.

Didn't one come off and the other one didn't but, the Chiefs ballsed up the next phase which meant the Crusaders could still press the attack? In saying that I agree that Whitelock would be a good ABs captain. Not sure if he's the next long term though, is he going to outlast Read by much?

I reckon Cane will get the gig.

UncleFB wrote:

Shrekles wrote:Little comment has been made re the gutsy leadership from Sam Whitelock to twice spurn kickable penalties with a three point lead to go for the try. Great decision in that if you kick the penalty you hand field position back to the opponent with only a 6 point lead and plenty of time to play. Score the try and you have an 8 point lead but miss it and the worst that will likely happen is that you will have possession back inside the opposition half. Next All Black captain right there folks.

Didn't one come off and the other one didn't but, the Chiefs ballsed up the next phase which meant the Crusaders could still press the attack? In saying that I agree that Whitelock would be a good ABs captain. Not sure if he's the next long term though, is he going to outlast Read by much?

They ballsed up the first lineout but the Chiefs had to kick the ball back to them so they maintained field position, got another penalty which eventually resulted in the PT>

guy smiley wrote:

UncleFB wrote: I'm talking about Alaatoa, the ref explicitly stated that the sanction was mitigated by the attackers action. It was a high swinging arm - would have been interesting if DMac stayed down like Crotty did actually. While I can fully see how a Crusaders fan would not want the same consistency applied to a potential Crusaders try I think it's bollocks that the ref ascribes mitigation to some incidents and not others.

ah.. ok, the dirty Aussie prop gotcha.

In the Crotty incident, you can hear him telling Cane that if it weren't for the fact it was in the actof scoring and stopped that happening it would have been penalty only but the act of scoring meant it had to go penalty try / YC.

So... can you see why I am saying I'm happy with both calls being fair and clear?

Of course I know why you're happy. My patch is on the opposite side though.

Still, if a red card can be mitigated down to a yellow for the actions of the attacker then it's not beyond the realms of possibility that a penalty shouldn't be mitigated down to no sanction because of the actions of the attacker .

guy smiley wrote:

SecretAgentMan wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

Shrekles wrote:Little comment has been made re the gutsy leadership from Sam Whitelock to twice spurn kickable penalties with a three point lead to go for the try. Great decision in that if you kick the penalty you hand field position back to the opponent with only a 6 point lead and plenty of time to play. Score the try and you have an 8 point lead but miss it and the worst that will likely happen is that you will have possession back inside the opposition half. Next All Black captain right there folks.

Didn't one come off and the other one didn't but, the Chiefs ballsed up the next phase which meant the Crusaders could still press the attack? In saying that I agree that Whitelock would be a good ABs captain. Not sure if he's the next long term though, is he going to outlast Read by much?

I reckon Cane will get the gig.

Same here and it would be a good call going by what we've seen and can expect re. longevity. Cane's got more years in him... and I'll go further and suggest he'll be captain for the next RWC.

I would like to see Cane as the long-term captain.

Seriously, how was the call controversial? It was interpreted exactly as the laws currently require.

Whether the law is an ass or not, now that's a totally different conversation.

Fat Old Git wrote:Seriously, how was the call controversial? It was interpreted exactly as the laws currently require.

Whether the law is an ass or not, now that's a totally different conversation.

And when do you think this conversation will take place? After long-term rugby fans have already deserted the game in droves? As I said at the time, this feels a lot like the lawmakers, in their infinite wisdom (OK, and with a sincere desire to reduce the number of head injuries), are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Fat Old Git wrote:Seriously, how was the call controversial? It was interpreted exactly as the laws currently require.

Whether the law is an ass or not, now that's a totally different conversation.

It's controversial because it caused controversy enough for us all to argue over it (to the point that Guy used bad language at me that I haven't fully recovered from yet)? At any rate the controversial call was the ref applying a mitigating factors to the Alaatoa decision. (And TBH I don't even have a problem with that really, but you blokes have drawn a line in the sand with the other decision and a letter of the law ruling, that I'm happy for friendly fisticuffs over it )

SecretAgentMan wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote:Seriously, how was the call controversial? It was interpreted exactly as the laws currently require.

Whether the law is an ass or not, now that's a totally different conversation.

And when do you think this conversation will take place? After long-term rugby fans have already deserted the game in droves? As I said at the time, this feels a lot like the lawmakers, in their infinite wisdom (OK, and with a sincere desire to reduce the number of head injuries), are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Unfortunately the conversation seems to be more about allowing dangerous tackles in some situations, rather than about the merits of the variously consequences of making a dangerous tackle.

If we're saying giving a yellow card on top of awarding a penalty try is excessive in many situations, including this one, than I agree completely.

But mostly we're not saying that. Mostly we're talking about tiddlywinks.

guy smiley wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote:Seriously, how was the call controversial? It was interpreted exactly as the laws currently require.

Whether the law is an ass or not, now that's a totally different conversation.

It's controversial because it caused controversy enough for us all to argue over it (to the point that Guy used bad language at me that I haven't fully recovered from yet)? At any rate the controversial call was the ref applying a mitigating factors to the Alaatoa decision. (And TBH I don't even have a problem with that really, but you blokes have drawn a line in the sand with the other decision and a letter of the law ruling, that I'm happy for friendly fisticuffs over it )

I'm not sure you're taking this matter seriously.

I will admit I was taking it very seriously around 7pm on Saturday night. But the sun came up the next day so I mellowed a bit.

Actually, I lie, the sun didn't come up the next day, the weather was so shit it was grey and then bucketed down with rain - stupid non summery weather in Sydney. To make it worse I was in Manly for the day.

I was at the game and had an argument with my son while we waited for the decision.....and we were both supporting the red and blacks. His take was he saw nothing wrong with the tackle....started low and rode up....and the try was stopped....no problem.

I had the benefit of the replay on the big screen moments later. It was every thing he said....and more as the tacklers arm on the neck was what pulled the player back....head high tackle. I'll give O'Keefe his due....he never rushed the decision...consulted line umpire...TMO...watched replays...then agreed...head high tackle on which he'd already adjudicated with a Canterbury player and yellow carded...similar decision...correct call. However, because a yellow card had stopped the try, he was left in the position where he had to enact another rule.....penalty try. Correct call.

My son however was adamant it was too harsh a call...I thought it was the correct call.......we are still talking to each other and choose to disagree.

guy smiley wrote:

UncleFB wrote:
Actually, I lie, the sun didn't come up the next day, the weather was so shit it was grey and then bucketed down with rain - stupid non summery weather in Sydney. To make it worse I was in Manly for the day.

Manly always used to be ok in the summer rain... mind, I lived and worked there so it was easy and it wasn't as busy back then. I like that summer humidity there... used to cycle up the coast to Mona Vale and back and riding through the drizzle was nice.

Nice.



I'm trying more these days to be patient and rational ( ) around contentious calls. I think the refs get it right nearly every time and it's up to us to understand the Laws more.

there... I said it.

Yesterday wasn't summer rain, it felt like Palmerston North in winter except a few degrees warmer. We nearly missed the end of the cricket too, my mate was driving us down to the ferry terminal as the last over was playing out and we were watching on his phone in the car ... if Santner hadn't hot a 6 we would have missed it, we bolted as soon as he whacked it and were the last people through the gates.

I think even knowing the Laws (I've had a pocketbook copy given to me each year by a ref mate for the last 10 years) sometimes doesn't help understanding a decision. Take the Frenchie last year in the 3rd lions test for example.

terangi48 wrote:I was at the game and had an argument with my son while we waited for the decision.....and we were both supporting the red and blacks. His take was he saw nothing wrong with the tackle....started low and rode up....and the try was stopped....no problem.

I had the benefit of the replay on the big screen moments later. It was every thing he said....and more as the tacklers arm on the neck was what pulled the player back....head high tackle. I'll give O'Keefe his due....he never rushed the decision...consulted line umpire...TMO...watched replays...then agreed...head high tackle on which he'd already adjudicated with a Canterbury player and yellow carded...similar decision...correct call. However, because a yellow card had stopped the try, he was left in the position where he had to enact another rule.....penalty try. Correct call.

My son however was adamant it was too harsh a call...I thought it was the correct call.......we are still talking to each other and choose to disagree.

That is exactly how I saw it.

guy smiley wrote:

UncleFB wrote: I think even knowing the Laws (I've had a pocketbook copy given to me each year by a ref mate for the last 10 years) sometimes doesn't help understanding a decision. Take the Frenchie last year in the 3rd lions test for example.

Well, see you've enacted a Law of Universal Physics there. No-one knows what the f**k the French are up to. Especially the French. Putting them in charge of anything is just begging for trouble.

Shrekles wrote:Little comment has been made re the gutsy leadership from Sam Whitelock to twice spurn kickable penalties with a three point lead to go for the try. Great decision in that if you kick the penalty you hand field position back to the opponent with only a 6 point lead and plenty of time to play. Score the try and you have an 8 point lead but miss it and the worst that will likely happen is that you will have possession back inside the opposition half. Next All Black captain right there folks.

I wonder what happens when he gets a ref that doesn't manufacture penalties to give him that field position. The call on DMac was very very harsh.

Enzedder wrote:

Shrekles wrote:Little comment has been made re the gutsy leadership from Sam Whitelock to twice spurn kickable penalties with a three point lead to go for the try. Great decision in that if you kick the penalty you hand field position back to the opponent with only a 6 point lead and plenty of time to play. Score the try and you have an 8 point lead but miss it and the worst that will likely happen is that you will have possession back inside the opposition half. Next All Black captain right there folks.

I wonder what happens when he gets a ref that doesn't manufacture penalties to give him that field position. The call on DMac was very very harsh.

It's the Crusaders or the ABs we are talking about, refs will under instructions to manufacture penalties. When will you learn?

Enz has had years honing is posting style by observing a certain segment of opposition fans during AB games.

UncleFB wrote:

BillW wrote:

SecretAgentMan wrote:

RodneyRegis wrote:FFS. The TMO stopped it at the point of contact. It was directly on his neck, and he pulled his head round.

This debacle is not the officials' fault. They're victims, too. Who would want to be a ref under these conditions? Charged with butchering the game you love. As I said before, the law is an ass.

You're taking this real hard SAM.
The yellow card was not for the high tackle - that was just a penalty.
A penalisable offence prevented a try from being scored, so a penalty try was awarded, resulting in a mandatory yellow card.
Hell's bloody bells it happens all the time from way lesser offences, such as deliberate knock downs, early tackles etc.
Remember SBW batting a high kick dead in goal?
Made no difference to the end result.

Yes it did, it happened when the match was still a contest, and caused the match to no longer be a contest.

On it's own this incident probably wouldn't have caused so much consternation, but coming after a high swinging arm was mitigated by the actions of the attacker in ducking, it highlights the inconsistency prevalent in rulings like this.

The match was only a contest because the Crusaders had played close to twenty minutes with 14 men.
You saw what happened when the Chiefs were reduced to fourteen men for ten minutes.

BillW wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

BillW wrote:

SecretAgentMan wrote:

RodneyRegis wrote:FFS. The TMO stopped it at the point of contact. It was directly on his neck, and he pulled his head round.

This debacle is not the officials' fault. They're victims, too. Who would want to be a ref under these conditions? Charged with butchering the game you love. As I said before, the law is an ass.

You're taking this real hard SAM.
The yellow card was not for the high tackle - that was just a penalty.
A penalisable offence prevented a try from being scored, so a penalty try was awarded, resulting in a mandatory yellow card.
Hell's bloody bells it happens all the time from way lesser offences, such as deliberate knock downs, early tackles etc.
Remember SBW batting a high kick dead in goal?
Made no difference to the end result.

Yes it did, it happened when the match was still a contest, and caused the match to no longer be a contest.

On it's own this incident probably wouldn't have caused so much consternation, but coming after a high swinging arm was mitigated by the actions of the attacker in ducking, it highlights the inconsistency prevalent in rulings like this.

The match was only a contest because the Crusaders had played close to twenty minutes with 14 men.
You saw what happened when the Chiefs were reduced to fourteen men for ten minutes.

The Chiefs only scored a try when the Crusaders were down to 14. Before the penalty try it was 26-23 to the Crusaders and the score blew out after that because of a) the penalty try and b) the Chiefs were just throwing the ball around in an effort to generate points and gave away intercepts.

The match was a contest for 72 minutes.

Since I didn't get an answer on the last page, is this match worth a watch? Wasn't able to watch live for various reasons.

guy smiley wrote:

Andalu wrote:Since I didn't get an answer on the last page, is this match worth a watch? Wasn't able to watch live for various reasons.

Sorry, I thought I had answered that

You've seen the highlights, yeah? Only a diehard would watch the rest. Both teams made mistakes, it wasn't a spectacle of magnificence. Cane's sprint from halfway was outstanding. Both half combinations frustrated... meh, yeah... nah.

OK, cheers. If I was a Crusaders fan I'd watch it regardless, but watching my team lose a in a rusty game, a few days after it was played? I'll pass.

UncleFB wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

UncleFB wrote:
Actually, I lie, the sun didn't come up the next day, the weather was so shit it was grey and then bucketed down with rain - stupid non summery weather in Sydney. To make it worse I was in Manly for the day.

Manly always used to be ok in the summer rain... mind, I lived and worked there so it was easy and it wasn't as busy back then. I like that summer humidity there... used to cycle up the coast to Mona Vale and back and riding through the drizzle was nice.

Nice.



I'm trying more these days to be patient and rational ( ) around contentious calls. I think the refs get it right nearly every time and it's up to us to understand the Laws more.

there... I said it.

Yesterday wasn't summer rain, it felt like Palmerston North in winter except a few degrees warmer.

I've not had the dubious pleasure of fair dinkum winter rain at a game in Palmerston North; but I've sat there, shivering a tad in my mackintosh, watching a game on a rainy Saturday afternoon in September. (The occasion of the Famous Victory over the Cantabs, he says humblebragging outrageously).

Sydney people deserve all that discomfort and worse, but without the last-minute elation of an unexpected win....

Andalu wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Andalu wrote:Since I didn't get an answer on the last page, is this match worth a watch? Wasn't able to watch live for various reasons.

Sorry, I thought I had answered that

You've seen the highlights, yeah? Only a diehard would watch the rest. Both teams made mistakes, it wasn't a spectacle of magnificence. Cane's sprint from halfway was outstanding. Both half combinations frustrated... meh, yeah... nah.

OK, cheers. If I was a Crusaders fan I'd watch it regardless, but watching my team lose a in a rusty game, a few days after it was played? I'll pass.

I just realised that I always thought your name was spelt 'Analdu' and was a play on the word Anal.

I actually made this account in Andalusia, Spain. Hence the bull, I'm not from the Naki.

guy smiley wrote:

Andalu wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Andalu wrote:Since I didn't get an answer on the last page, is this match worth a watch? Wasn't able to watch live for various reasons.

Sorry, I thought I had answered that

You've seen the highlights, yeah? Only a diehard would watch the rest. Both teams made mistakes, it wasn't a spectacle of magnificence. Cane's sprint from halfway was outstanding. Both half combinations frustrated... meh, yeah... nah.

OK, cheers. If I was a Crusaders fan I'd watch it regardless, but watching my team lose a in a rusty game, a few days after it was played? I'll pass.

Yeah, no need. Nothing academic to gain through watching it.

Although, as you say, Cane's try was majestic as was Whitelock's

MungoMan wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

UncleFB wrote:
Actually, I lie, the sun didn't come up the next day, the weather was so shit it was grey and then bucketed down with rain - stupid non summery weather in Sydney. To make it worse I was in Manly for the day.

Manly always used to be ok in the summer rain... mind, I lived and worked there so it was easy and it wasn't as busy back then. I like that summer humidity there... used to cycle up the coast to Mona Vale and back and riding through the drizzle was nice.

Nice.



I'm trying more these days to be patient and rational ( ) around contentious calls. I think the refs get it right nearly every time and it's up to us to understand the Laws more.

there... I said it.

Yesterday wasn't summer rain, it felt like Palmerston North in winter except a few degrees warmer.

I've not had the dubious pleasure of fair dinkum winter rain at a game in Palmerston North; but I've sat there, shivering a tad in my mackintosh, watching a game on a rainy Saturday afternoon in September. (The occasion of the Famous Victory over the Cantabs, he says humblebragging outrageously).

Sydney people deserve all that discomfort and worse, but without the last-minute elation of an unexpected win....

I assume you mean people who live in Sydney!

Well the discomfort sucked, but walking on to the ferry knowing we'd just won a tight one made the rain hurt a bit less - and to be completely honest I don't give a shit about cricket, but getting one over the Poms anytime is enjoyable.