Chat Forum
It is currently Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:54 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 241 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3477
Sayonara Aaron Cruden


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4097
shanky wrote:
Is there some NZ law that says the Crusaders have to win it every year?

Like some regional assistance quota or summat? :lol:


5 tries to 1 pretty much says it all in this match. Crusaders have too many bonus points now too so their one loss is covered with deeds done in past matches.

That's how it works and they exploit it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 40876
Bp win in the Chiefs home will do it for me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28222
Location: Queensland
Kiwias wrote:
Bp win in the Chiefs home will do it for me.


Totally. 5 tries to 1 as well.

Congratulations to Sam Whitelock on 150 SR matches and Aaron Cruden on his 100th.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18535
sonic_attack wrote:
shanky wrote:
Is there some NZ law that says the Crusaders have to win it every year?

Like some regional assistance quota or summat? :lol:


5 tries to 1 pretty much says it all in this match. Crusaders have too many bonus points now too so their one loss is covered with deeds done in past matches.

That's how it works and they exploit it.


:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:58 am
Posts: 2203
Location: Christchurch NZ
One hand on the trophy now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4097
Think Gatland might have an argument in unleashing a whinge in this one. That knock on try was atrocious and at a pivotal point of the game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:22 pm
Posts: 1655
sonic_attack wrote:
Think Gatland might have an argument in unleashing a whinge in this one. That knock on try was atrocious and at a pivotal point of the game.


ruined what was shaping as a great last quarter


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3477
sonic_attack wrote:
Think Gatland might have an argument in unleashing a whinge in this one. That knock on try was atrocious and at a pivotal point of the game.

Going for those penalties instead of punching for tries which you need to beat the Crusaders is what really hurt them.

Pointless scoring 3 points when they score 5 at the other end.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9013
Location: Sydney Town
No need for mathematics for tomorrow's match. Blues simply need to win to keep their title hopes alive haha Title hopes. Indeed. :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20763
Location: A vacant lot next to a pile of rubble
sonic_attack wrote:
Think Gatland might have an argument in unleashing a whinge in this one. That knock on try was atrocious and at a pivotal point of the game.


It was indeed. Although they could easily have been in that position with a man down for the push in the air that wasn't a push, so the strange calls weren't all one way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:26 am
Posts: 198
Great play from the crusaders... Taylor stepped up from last week... Whitelock keeps on plugging... and Jordan should get a shot at the ABs.

For the Chiefs... get rid of the coach...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17358
Well done Crusaders.

What could have been for the Chiefs. Instead, it was a timely win for the Crusaders to go with the timely ref's appointment.

That'll be Ben O'Keefe's last appointment this year, or at least in anything above senior club rugby, that's if there is any justice in the world. He has been appalling for some time now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17358
Fat Old Git wrote:
sonic_attack wrote:
Think Gatland might have an argument in unleashing a whinge in this one. That knock on try was atrocious and at a pivotal point of the game.


It was indeed. Although they could easily have been in that position with a man down for the push in the air that wasn't a push, so the strange calls weren't all one way.


That was very poor from Weber. You would think that there should be something from the Citing Commissioner because that was pretty close to a red. Mind you, that situation would not have arisen if O'Keefe, the gibbering fool and his TMO, obviously his twin, had got the previous try ruling correct. So your craven whataboutry is completely fallacious.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12879
Location: Coalfalls
Ted. wrote:
Well done Crusaders.

What could have been for the Chiefs. Instead, it was a timely win for the Crusaders to go with the timely ref's appointment.

That'll be Ben O'Keefe's last appointment this year, or at least in anything above senior club rugby, that's if there is any justice in the world. He has been appalling for some time now.

Two words regarding Ben:
  1. BOOooOOOOOooooOOOO
  2. BOOOOOOOOOOooooOOOOOOOOooooOOOOOOOOOOOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17358
Tussock wrote:
Great play from the crusaders... Taylor stepped up from last week... Whitelock keeps on plugging... and Jordan should get a shot at the ABs.

For the Chiefs... get rid of the coach...


Maybe a bench part. However if Mo keep chucking pies at the sticks, we need a reliable kicker in the team.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17358
MungoMan wrote:
Ted. wrote:
Well done Crusaders.

What could have been for the Chiefs. Instead, it was a timely win for the Crusaders to go with the timely ref's appointment.

That'll be Ben O'Keefe's last appointment this year, or at least in anything above senior club rugby, that's if there is any justice in the world. He has been appalling for some time now.

Three words regarding Ben:
  1. BOOooOOOOOooooOOOO
  2. BOOOOOOOOOOooooOOOOOOOOooooOOOOOOOOOOOO!
  3. CUUUUuuuuUUUUuuunnNNNNnnnntttt!


Just a minor amendment, but I think it adds a certain something, doncha think?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28222
Location: Queensland
So what are the permutations for the title race? Can the Crusaders secure the title with a win next week or will it come down to the final round regardless?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:58 am
Posts: 2203
Location: Christchurch NZ
Ali's Choice wrote:
So what are the permutations for the title race? Can the Crusaders secure the title with a win next week or will it come down to the final round regardless?


Win one of the next two rounds and it’s over. Technically they could lose both with losing BP and still take the title.

Keeping in mind only the Crusaders have won winning bonus points in this competition.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28222
Location: Queensland
JPNZ wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
So what are the permutations for the title race? Can the Crusaders secure the title with a win next week or will it come down to the final round regardless?


Win one of the next two rounds and it’s over. Technically they could lose both with losing BP and still take the title.

Keeping in mind only the Crusaders have won winning bonus points in this competition.


Yes, it's been a deliberate strategy by them to go for tries over penalty kicks when possible. And given that the title is decided by a 'first past the post' system, I think it's been a good strategy. Even in our only loss last week we scored three tries to two.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4097
Blues have a bye so a couple points next week.

I think if they can take tomorrow's game with BP it'll come down to the last match Blues V Saders for the Blues to squeeze in.

I think we might have done ourselves out of a worthwhile top 2 final in all this, though I'm not too disappointed with the format as it is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28222
Location: Queensland
sonic_attack wrote:
Blues have a bye so a couple points next week.

I think if they can take tomorrow's game with BP it'll come down to the last match Blues V Saders for the Blues to squeeze in.

I think we might have done ourselves out of a worthwhile top 2 final in all this, though I'm not too disappointed with the format as it is.


Yes and no. Imagine if the final was simply a replay of the Blues vs Crusaders round 10 match? That's hard to market.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4097
It has happened. I went to two Athletic park sellouts with Brumbies V Hurricanes in a fortnight. One last round game and the following week a semi.

That's just luck of the draw and could happen at any time.

I think the best thing to happen would be a Crusader loss next week to setup the last match at Eden Park as the nail in someone's coffin.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9013
Location: Sydney Town
Ali's Choice wrote:
Kiwias wrote:
Bp win in the Chiefs home will do it for me.


Totally. 5 tries to 1 as well.

Congratulations to Sam Whitelock on 150 SR matches and Aaron Cruden on his 100th.

:thumbup: :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 12:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1983
I thought the Chiefs would be much more focused this week. I was wrong, and I think their lack of depth, for whatever reason is one thing that never helped. Wainui has never been more than a tradesman, like Nankivell, and Stephenson looked almost disinterested. The reserve 9, Milo-Harris looked miles out of his depth too, while the prop and flanker having their debut games against the Crusaders was a recipe for disaster, and that's how it turned out. To be fair Ollie Norris battled away manfully after coming on early.
Smithy was right, DMac's kicking was atrocious, and the bench made no impact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13460
Location: Melbourne
Not sure where in Hamilton Aaron Goile is from but the Stuff.co.nz reporter is a nailed on Chiefs fan.

Has a crack at the forward pass in the lead up to the Reece try, which is fair enough, but then has a very ambitious punt calling the Wainui yellow card "harsh but technically correct". Mate, it was a yellow all day long. Wainui has some talent but appears to have rocks for brains.

Of course, there was no mention of the ugly and out of character push of Reece by Weber over the sideline either, a totally unnecessary cheap shot that sent the winger over the hoardings causing him pain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10477
Location: Texas
BBB wrote:
MungoMan wrote:
BBB wrote:
I’m going for the Chiefs big time,but that no knock on call is absolutely fine by the laws of the game.

Eh?

This is the definition of knock-on:

Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

This is the definition of forward:

Forward: Towards the opposition’s dead-ball line.

Now, how was the incident not a knock-on under the laws?

I stand corrected. :thumbup:

Don’t give up. I expect the call will get some analysis early in the next week with the focus being on Strange’s last contact with the ball and his “push” back of the ball and whether that perhaps was a pass rather than losing possession. If they consider that a pass then that changes the test from simply asking if the ball “goes forward” to whether the player “throws or passes the ball forward i.e. if the arms of the player passing the ball move forward.”

It looked flaky to me because he wasn’t in control of the ball, but you don’t have to be in control of the ball to be “in possession” under the Laws, and his flailing right hand after his “pass” just made it look worse.

There is certainly a certain degree of uncertainty, of that we can be quite certain.

Add, here is an article from SARefs discussing the challenges with applying the law.

Quote:
The knock-on would probably be regarded as the easiest of law applications, bread-and-butter stuff for a referee.

By Paul Dobson, Moonsport

This may well not be the case and it may just be that the knock-on may be the most abused law in the book - the one that regularly produces wrong decisions which lead to stoppages when there should be none.

Let's start with the definition of a knock-on.

Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

There are two different players involved in the definition. The first is the player who has the ball and then loses it forward, whether because of his own carelessness or because contact with opponents has jolted it from his grasp.

There is no debate about that one.

The second type of player is one who is getting possession of the ball but fails to do so. Instead he hits it with hand or arm and it goes forward beyond his control.

In most cases the ball is coming his way from a pass or a kick or it is loose and he seeks to gather it.

It's the ball that comes his way from a team-mate's pass or from a kick that is of interest.

For a knock-on to occur in both of these cases the ball needs to go forward from the catcher's hand or arm.

Forward: Towards the opposition's dead-ball line.

It is what the hand or arm does to the ball that counts, not what the ball does because it is oval. If the hand or arm does not knock the ball forward, but it bounces forward, it is not a knock-on.

For a knock-on, the ball must come off hand or arm, not any other part of the body - not the head, not the chest, not the stomach, not the thigh, not the knee.

It is on catching kicks that things often go wrong, especially if the catcher is out in the open, on his own and waiting to catch the ball. If the ball goes to ground, you can be sure that a knock-on will be blown.

If the referee did not whistle for a knock-on, the crowd would roast him - even if the ball went behind his hands and slipped to ground and bounced forward, even if the ball hit his body and went straight down, even if the ball rebounded off his chest, even if there was no knock-on terms of the law's criteria for a knock-on.

The crowd expects the scrum and the referee delivers. It's not the same with the head as the referees have consistently not whistled for a knock-on and have an easy gesture to explain their silence, and the crowd have grown to accept it.

Perhaps, with a bit or bravery, the crowd and the players could be taught that failure to catch a ball is not necessarily a knock-on.


Last edited by Mr Mike on Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17288
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
Having spent a good day with Guy Smiley watching my club have a good win, my question as a neutral is, "Is this a replay worth watching?" Given that I know the result...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4097
Taranaki Snapper wrote:
Having spent a good day with Guy Smiley watching my club have a good win, my question as a neutral is, "Is this a replay worth watching?" Given that I know the result...


It has its moments but is probably of lesser intensity as far as Soup Aotearoa 2020 goes. Watch to be outraged and baffled by a few decisions though.

The surprise webber airial hoarding attack and the most blatantly absurd knockon try you'll ever see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9013
Location: Sydney Town
Taranaki Snapper wrote:
Having spent a good day with Guy Smiley watching my club have a good win, my question as a neutral is, "Is this a replay worth watching?" Given that I know the result...


Chiefs gave it a crack but they looked like they knew they weren't going to win the match.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1525
I have 2 major observations about this game:

. The Reece try was a clear knock on, but in NZ it's always been a case of, 'We referees will overturn the rules if we want.'

. Put a sailor hat on McKenzie and a corncob pipe in his mouth, and he would be Popeye.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19488
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
Well, that was weird - asleep for 10 minutes, on top for 30 only to give up the try at half time.

Then it was a gradual wearing down and wearing out. Top work sadists.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 36
Been trying to work out if/how any teams can beat the Crusaders. Here's how the points are allocated again:

4 competition points to the winning team
0 competition point to the losing team
2 competition points to each team for a draw
1 competition point as the Try Bonus, to the team that scores three more tries than their opponents
1 competition point as the Loss Bonus, to the team that loses by fewer than 8 points

But are 2 points also awarded when a team has a bye?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1566
Location: Saint Paul
jdogscoop wrote:
Not sure where in Hamilton Aaron Goile is from but the Stuff.co.nz reporter is a nailed on Chiefs fan.

Has a crack at the forward pass in the lead up to the Reece try, which is fair enough, but then has a very ambitious punt calling the Wainui yellow card "harsh but technically correct". Mate, it was a yellow all day long. Wainui has some talent but appears to have rocks for brains.

Of course, there was no mention of the ugly and out of character push of Reece by Weber over the sideline either, a totally unnecessary cheap shot that sent the winger over the hoardings causing him pain.


Must have dozed off this morning and missed the Wainui yellow.

In other news, Stephenson and Weber were jank, utter jank. The only Chiefs I rated were Boshier and Sowakula.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5950
Harsh but technically correct is a fair assessment. The truth is the laws want to YC anyone hitting a ball they have no chance of catching, but not penalise anyone genuinely attempting to catch. This has been translated to knocking up = good and knocking down = bad. A stupid and hamfisted way of handling it (hur hur) imo.

This case fits the genuine attempt but knock down, so the laws state YC. Technically correct, but harsh as he was making an attempt to catch the ball, which the IRB doesn’t really want to penalise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6332
What was he trying to do? Claw the ball back?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5950
Flockwitt wrote:
What was he trying to do? Claw the ball back?


YC or knock on?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4768
Location: The other side of midnight
Ted. wrote:
Fat Old Git wrote:
sonic_attack wrote:
Think Gatland might have an argument in unleashing a whinge in this one. That knock on try was atrocious and at a pivotal point of the game.


It was indeed. Although they could easily have been in that position with a man down for the push in the air that wasn't a push, so the strange calls weren't all one way.


That was very poor from Weber. You would think that there should be something from the Citing Commissioner because that was pretty close to a red. Mind you, that situation would not have arisen if O'Keefe, the gibbering fool and his TMO, obviously his twin, had got the previous try ruling correct. So your craven whataboutry is completely fallacious.

I thought Weber was going to spend 10 mins for that and was really surprised he didn’t. So yes I wouldn’t be too surprised if the Citing Comm did want another look


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1940
Couch wrote:
sonic_attack wrote:
Think Gatland might have an argument in unleashing a whinge in this one. That knock on try was atrocious and at a pivotal point of the game.

Going for those penalties instead of punching for tries which you need to beat the Crusaders is what really hurt them.

Pointless scoring 3 points when they score 5 at the other end.

And kicking away good possession, they showed they could rumble it up and then go wide. Crusaders just too good for us I'm afraid.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:23 am
Posts: 836
Another thing I noticed in the game yesterday with Mounga, we all know how good his running game is, but I actually think his passing is just getting better all the time, f*** me he puts players into space at times.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 241 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CarrotGawks, Google Adsense [Bot], Leinster in London, Saint, World Class Phil and 59 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group