Crusaders v Chiefs (SF)
-
didn't it go backwards. Ill have to watch again
-
@Winger didnt think it went anywhere, just a little fumble
-
Chiefs looking good, but a couple of patches they did look a little fatigued, despite having the ball, may have been wrong given they have looked good otherwise.
Crusaders need to get the ball
-
@taniwharugby said in Crusaders v Chiefs (SF):
another forward pass missed there, but Crusaders get a penalty.
Love the Chiefs' ambition, but boy do they throw a lot of 40:60 passes!
TKB getting distance on his passes, but half the time Crudes has to reach over his head to collect, and tempo slowed. -
@taniwharugby
watched it again. It clearly went backwards. also watched the Chiefs try again. chiefs fans could be feeling rightly pissed off -
-
For me TNW had skin contact with ball all the way to ground, so try. And I didn't think fumble at end of half went forward. So 6-10 seems tough on Chiefs.
Great scrambling by Saders.
Second will be a case of tackle fatigue versus travel fatigue. A try early in second might be enough to swing it...
-
@pakman said in Crusaders v Chiefs (SF):
For me TNW had skin contact with ball all the way to ground, so try. And I didn't think fumble at end of half went forward. So 6-10 seems tough on Chiefs.
Great scrambling by Saders.
Second will be a case of tackle fatigue versus travel fatigue. A try early in second might be enough to swing it...
Only balance to that is that Lowe should have gone to the bin.
-
shame we didnt see this from Cruden a few weeks back
-
I have zero emotional attachment to this game, but that ruling infuriates me.
We are consistently led to believe that not rolling away is a penalty, regardless if it is intentional, or the defending player has 17 guys lying on top of him at the tackle...
Just don't get it when on the odd occasion a ref rules a scrum because it was 'unplayable'....
-
-
@Donsteppa wtf....I am 30 sec behind you
-
