Crusaders vs B&I Lions
-
@Catogrande said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Crucial Good post mate, it sort of reinforces how I felt about the game (and is therefore correct
) If I were to sum up a one word description of the Crusaders it would be naïve. You can argue the toss about the rights and wrongs of the refereeing of the scrum, but they simply did not adapt. Same with the rush defence.The only bit I would quibble with on your post is the inference that it is the ref's responsibility to tell the teams how he will be reffing a certain aspect of the game. To me it is up to the team management to ask questions if they think there are areas of uncertainty. I mean it's not as if these blokes don't do any research is it?
Should be a bit of both surely? It's not a good look for the game when players are puzzled by a totally different interpretation. If WR can't get refs around the world aligned on how they rule things then the backup is to ensure there are no surprises.
-
@Bovidae said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@mooshld As someone who would have seen Raynal ref more than most, was this how it normally is for him (scrums and lack of communication)?
Well I have only seen him once I think in the top 14 and I seem to remember him doing a bit more talking then he did on the weekend. You could make the argument that hes more comfortable in French but he was not like this in Chicago either so who knows bad day at the office for him maybe.
-
@mooshld said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
... Jordan Taufua found that his dominance didn't translate.
I know some people don't like Refs that coach...
...
Oh and why the fuck kick the ball from in front of the posts to the sideline? It was arrogant and a shit call from Sam. You put that over your playing the Lions not the western force.
Not picking on you @mooshld but what's with the fascination with Jordan Taufua. Seems to be everywhere.
He's the shorter 2017 version of Elliot Dixon or Jarrad Hoeata for me. Full of bluff and bluster but never going to be physical enough at Test level.
And the next point I have cherry picked ...
... i agree entirely, but I won't call it "coaching". That's lazy clickbait. Call it "communicating".Third...
...yep. seriously strange call. -
@booboo said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@mooshld said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
... Jordan Taufua found that his dominance didn't translate.
I know some people don't like Refs that coach...
...
Oh and why the fuck kick the ball from in front of the posts to the sideline? It was arrogant and a shit call from Sam. You put that over your playing the Lions not the western force.
Not picking on you @mooshld but what's with the fascination with Jordan Taufua. Seems to be everywhere.
He's the shorter 2017 version of Elliot Dixon or Jarrad Hoeata for me. Full of bluff and bluster but never going to be physical enough at Test level.
And the next point I have cherry picked ...
... i agree entirely, but I won't call it "coaching". That's lazy clickbait. Call it "communicating".Third...
...yep. seriously strange call.You can't argue that Taufua doesn't make meters at super level, plenty of other Cantabs have been saying hes ready to take the next step. Not on the weekends evidence. So I think we agree there.
-
-
@Crucial said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Catogrande said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Crucial Good post mate, it sort of reinforces how I felt about the game (and is therefore correct
) If I were to sum up a one word description of the Crusaders it would be naïve. You can argue the toss about the rights and wrongs of the refereeing of the scrum, but they simply did not adapt. Same with the rush defence.The only bit I would quibble with on your post is the inference that it is the ref's responsibility to tell the teams how he will be reffing a certain aspect of the game. To me it is up to the team management to ask questions if they think there are areas of uncertainty. I mean it's not as if these blokes don't do any research is it?
Should be a bit of both surely? It's not a good look for the game when players are puzzled by a totally different interpretation. If WR can't get refs around the world aligned on how they rule things then the backup is to ensure there are no surprises.
For me that's it in a nutshell. The laws are there but are open to interpretation. This is a known known and coaches really ought to be on top of stuff like this. Although it is somewhat different, the stuff the Eyeties pulled on England in the 6N falls into such a category. Should the ref have pre-warned England on how he would interpret the ruck area? To my mind the answer is "No". It is up to the coaching staff and then the players on the field. England really should have cottoned on a whole lot quicker and just bashed it up the guts but the bitched and moaned to the ref. FFS how much do these guys get paid? Do your research, then do your fuckin job.
-
I find it a bit of a no-brainer that players who have never been exposed to rugby "at the next level" (aka test rugby) will struggle in a match against a test team that plays with the intensity of test rugby. That doesn't make those players bad, it just means that they are not ready to play for the All Blacks. Jordie Barrett wasn't ready last year either, but he got the opportunity to have an apprenticeship with the ABs during the EOYT, and so did Fifita. Similarly, Ardie Savea, Jeff To'omaga-Allen, Tom Franklin and Melani Nanai have spent time training with the All Blacks, learning from the best. For the latter three, that hasn't resulted in a call-up (yet), presumably because the coaches have watched them closely during that time and later during Super Rugby and concluded that they didn't have what it takes to be an All Black (yet).
I can think of a bunch of guys, who have shown a lot of talent the last year, or two years, to be deserving of a similar opportunity. I myself have never suggested that players like Mo'unga or Taufua (or Havili for that matter) should play for the ABs this year, but I think it would be a good idea that they (and also players like, for example, Riccitelli, Goodes, Fatialofa, and maybe also Stevenson, Buckman and a couple of others) are exposed to the AB environment, get an opportunity to learn, also giving the coaching team the opportunity to watch them more closely. To me, this makes the whole discussion of having an All Blacks Development team (whether you call them New Zealand 'A', Junior All Blacks, New Zealand Barbarians or something else) relevant. It would be hugely beneficial for the development of new All Blacks if a team like that could play in the Pacific Nations Cup again, or a tournament in parallel to the Rugby Championship (that would make great curtain raisers). The limit on the eligibility for the Maori All Blacks team makes it unsuitable as a development team for the ABs, but at the moment they are being used as such for Maori players. For some reason, NZR are not investing in a development team and instead, some of these players are called in as injury cover (Akira, Goodhue, Fifita). I seriously hope some more/other players get that opportunity later this year, because I think it can make that step up from SR level to test level easier for players and more efficient/useful for the coaching staff. Not all players can make that step up as easily as someone like Scott Barrett last year, who according to Hansen fitted in as if he had been in the AB environment for years.
-
-
@pakman said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Crucial Not a great advert for Sam W as future AB skip.
As @Stargazer says. maybe not at the moment. He isn't ready.
I wouldn't judge him on that though. I would judge him on whether he shows learnings from what happened. -
@Catogrande said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Crucial said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Catogrande said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Crucial Good post mate, it sort of reinforces how I felt about the game (and is therefore correct
) If I were to sum up a one word description of the Crusaders it would be naïve. You can argue the toss about the rights and wrongs of the refereeing of the scrum, but they simply did not adapt. Same with the rush defence.The only bit I would quibble with on your post is the inference that it is the ref's responsibility to tell the teams how he will be reffing a certain aspect of the game. To me it is up to the team management to ask questions if they think there are areas of uncertainty. I mean it's not as if these blokes don't do any research is it?
Should be a bit of both surely? It's not a good look for the game when players are puzzled by a totally different interpretation. If WR can't get refs around the world aligned on how they rule things then the backup is to ensure there are no surprises.
For me that's it in a nutshell. The laws are there but are open to interpretation. This is a known known and coaches really ought to be on top of stuff like this. Although it is somewhat different, the stuff the Eyeties pulled on England in the 6N falls into such a category. Should the ref have pre-warned England on how he would interpret the ruck area? To my mind the answer is "No". It is up to the coaching staff and then the players on the field. England really should have cottoned on a whole lot quicker and just bashed it up the guts but the bitched and moaned to the ref. FFS how much do these guys get paid? Do your research, then do your fuckin job.
Not the best comparison. What Italy were doing has nothing to do with interpretation. They weren't being 'tricky' they were simply playing in an unorthodox manner within the laws. The laws clearly state when an offside line is formed.
With the scrums the other night my understanding is that the ref was penalising the Crusaders front row for making too much contact (leaning) before his call to set. The laws do not mention the amount of contact allowable at all. The describe other things that shouldn't be done such as head to head contact and how things should be done (ear to ear set up). Most refs these guys have had in their careers have never told them that they can't 'lean' only that they can't push (which is written in the laws). Leaning doesn't gain any advantage it is a way of ensuring good position and a stable engagement. For this ref to pull that interpretation (that because is isn't stated as a permissible act it is therefore illegal) comes entirely into the realm of 'the ref is the sole judge of fact'.
I maintain that this ref was not prepared well enough or decided that he would simply run things his way and not the way that may be expected. If he had watched any Crusaders games closely before this one he would have noticed the pre-engage and let them know in his briefing that it wasn't acceptable under his interpretation. Just as in his scrum briefing to the halfback he should make it clear if he expects the ball to be cleared if available.PS: saying that the Crusaders should have done their homework is a bit more of an unknown. They would have researched the ref and looked for tapes of games but if they never saw him penalise anyone for leaning because in his realm of games teams don't do that, how are they to guess his response?
-
@Crucial said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Catogrande said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Crucial said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Catogrande said in Crusaders vs B&I Lions:
@Crucial Good post mate, it sort of reinforces how I felt about the game (and is therefore correct
) If I were to sum up a one word description of the Crusaders it would be naïve. You can argue the toss about the rights and wrongs of the refereeing of the scrum, but they simply did not adapt. Same with the rush defence.The only bit I would quibble with on your post is the inference that it is the ref's responsibility to tell the teams how he will be reffing a certain aspect of the game. To me it is up to the team management to ask questions if they think there are areas of uncertainty. I mean it's not as if these blokes don't do any research is it?
Should be a bit of both surely? It's not a good look for the game when players are puzzled by a totally different interpretation. If WR can't get refs around the world aligned on how they rule things then the backup is to ensure there are no surprises.
For me that's it in a nutshell. The laws are there but are open to interpretation. This is a known known and coaches really ought to be on top of stuff like this. Although it is somewhat different, the stuff the Eyeties pulled on England in the 6N falls into such a category. Should the ref have pre-warned England on how he would interpret the ruck area? To my mind the answer is "No". It is up to the coaching staff and then the players on the field. England really should have cottoned on a whole lot quicker and just bashed it up the guts but the bitched and moaned to the ref. FFS how much do these guys get paid? Do your research, then do your fuckin job.
PS: saying that the Crusaders should have done their homework is a bit more of an unknown. They would have researched the ref and looked for tapes of games but if they never saw him penalise anyone for leaning because in his realm of games teams don't do that, how are they to guess his response?
Ah mate, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one I think, but I take your point as above.
-
What is funny is how the Crusaders giving up a few technical penalties has been translated by many sources as an AB front 5 was pushed around all over the park at scrumtime...
Planet rugby the latest.
-
Not sure the video is still attached, but if so watch Lions scrum domination: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/sport/rugby/codie-taylor-all-blacks-have-smarter-against-colossal-lions-pack
