North Harbour vs. Canterbury
-
-
Yes, Law 12 (e)
LAW 12, DEFINITION
A knock-on occurs 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.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead-ball line.
EXCEPTION CHARGE DOWN.
If a player charges down the ball as an opponent kicks it, or immediately after the kick, it is not a knock-on even though the ball may travel forward.
DEFINITION OF THROW FORWARD.
A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.
OUTCOME OF A THROW FORWARD
(a) Unintentional knock-on or throw forward. A scrum is awarded at the place of infringement.
(b) Unintentional knock-on or throw forward at a lineout. A scrum is awarded 15 metres from the touchline.
(c) Knock-on or throw forward into the in-goal. If an attacking player knocks-on or throws-forward in the field of play and the ball goes into the opponents’ in-goal and it is made dead there, a scrum is awarded where the knock-on or throw forward happened.
(d) Knock-on or throw forward inside the in-goal. If a player of either team knocks-on or throws-forward inside the in-goal, a 5-metre scrum is awarded in line with the place of infringement not closer than five metres from the touchline.
(e) Intentional knock or throw forward. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm, nor throw forward. Sanction: Penalty kick. A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. -
Canterbury looking a bit stunned against some decent opposition. Scrum under pressure, lineout misfiring, getting beaten to the loose ball and burned down the left flank, especially.
Missing Luke Whitelock's leadership and some of the cleaning up work he does. Sanders and Princep looking a bit ineffectual.
-
@kiwimurph A real game changer that try was. Canterbury in total control now.
-
Now, that's why I hate these sideline interviews during the game. That female reporter was interviewing someone and right at that moment Harbour scores. Let them do those damn interviews during the break or after the game! Glad the camera was still following the game, or we'd have missed it.
-
@kiwimurph I must admit I'm a bit disappointed. I expected more from Harbour and hoped for an 80 minute battle.
-
@sammyc said in North Harbour vs. Canterbury:
Someone on this board was talking up Alex hodgeman as all black quality recently.
I hope they are watching this game, soft as shit in the scrum. That's why he never got game time for the crusaders
You'd certainly be re-thinking that position. Hames might have had his problems vs the Boks, but Hodgman was up against a chubby kid from the North Shore and regularly going backwards.
Drummond wouldn't be a bad choice for the third halfback spot. Probably got a narrow points victory over Hall based on his work after half time, though between tries he had several untidy minutes.
They'd have to be looking at both. Personally, I'd take Drummond ahead of Hall because he looks more composed and makes very few mistakes. Not bad attributes for a third halfback.
-
@chris-b said in North Harbour vs. Canterbury:
@sammyc said in North Harbour vs. Canterbury:
Someone on this board was talking up Alex hodgeman as all black quality recently.
I hope they are watching this game, soft as shit in the scrum. That's why he never got game time for the crusaders
You'd certainly be re-thinking that position. Hames might have had his problems vs the Boks, but Hodgman was up against a chubby kid from the North Shore and regularly going backwards.
Drummond wouldn't be a bad choice for the third halfback spot. Probably got a narrow points victory over Hall based on his work after half time, though between tries he had several untidy minutes.
They'd have to be looking at both. Personally, I'd take Drummond ahead of Hall because he looks more composed and makes very few mistakes. Not bad attributes for a third halfback.
The chubby kid from the North Shore didn't last that long, needs to work on his fitness. The whole first half, Canterbury were off their game, come the second half Red and Black dominated. The Harbour forwards were exhausted, Hodgman put in 70 minutes solid game from him.
The Canterbury pack got it going in the second half, Harbour had no amswer.
-
@number9 said in North Harbour vs. Canterbury:
@chris-b said in North Harbour vs. Canterbury:
@sammyc said in North Harbour vs. Canterbury:
Someone on this board was talking up Alex hodgeman as all black quality recently.
I hope they are watching this game, soft as shit in the scrum. That's why he never got game time for the crusaders
The Harbour forwards were exhausted, Hodgman put in 70 minutes solid game from him.
If you ignore his scrummaging.
At times the Canterbury scrum was going backwards as fast in the second half as they were in the first.
-
@chris-b said in North Harbour vs. Canterbury:
@number9 said in North Harbour vs. Canterbury:
@chris-b said in North Harbour vs. Canterbury:
@sammyc said in North Harbour vs. Canterbury:
Someone on this board was talking up Alex hodgeman as all black quality recently.
I hope they are watching this game, soft as shit in the scrum. That's why he never got game time for the crusaders
The Harbour forwards were exhausted, Hodgman put in 70 minutes solid game from him.
If you ignore his scrummaging.
At times the Canterbury scrum was going backwards as fast in the second half as they were in the first.
I think you are blind to good forward play mate or you just don't like Canterbury. I'm from The Naki and we are hoping to uplift the Log O Wood. The Canterbury packs fitness is what I have heard we are concerned about. Hodgman has put in some big playing time that says a lot for a big man. I was hoping for more from Eves and Chubby Kid but they did not deliver. Don't worry mate Taranaki will show you how.
