Crusaders vs Chiefs
-
@antipodean said in Crusaders vs. Chiefs:
Moral of the story; dive low at the line.
Another to add to the list....fall or jump into tackles.
Score?
-
@taniwharugby 33 23 after the penalty try
-
The rules are there for safety purposes but I fear every game I am going to be watching this year is going to have problem in and around high tackles which is going to hugely influence results.
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders vs. Chiefs:
If Alaatoa is a red because ducking doesn't matter - that has to be a Yellow card and penalty try.
If you want to bring that into then, I thought Boshier would have got the diving defence, attacker was diving so, so reduced to no penalty.
-
Might as well play tiddly winks..!
-
Wait, the shit barrett didn't drop that? Jesus...
Patriots indeed.
-
@gt12 said in Crusaders vs. Chiefs:
RC for Taimanivalu?
Forceful contact with the head, it should have been.
Who cares that M Mac almost fell into his knee, ‘falling tackler’ isn’t a defence these days.
Who cares that it was purely accidental, contact with the head is contact with the head.Come on refs stick to the rules.
-
@gt12 said in Crusaders vs. Chiefs:
Fucking McKenzie.
Chiefs fans will get used to saying that too now he's their first choice five-eighth.
-
No question the better side has won this evening,
but all you ever ask for consistency from the officials,having watched all 4 x games..inconsistency in around the high tackle interpretation is already creating confusion for supporters and viewers. -
@steven-harris said in Crusaders vs. Chiefs:
The rules are there for safety purposes but I fear every game I am going to be watching this year is going to have problem in and around high tackles which is going to hugely influence results.
Except Steven that the laws aren't there for safety mate, they're primarily there to appease social and mainstream media, lest they lower rugby's appeal to corporate sponsorship.
These administrators and lawmakers have made a pigs breakfast of the game since the last WC and their sole objective has been to placate social justice fuckwits who'd never travel to a game rather than the people who actually "own" and love the game.
If you're fair dinkum about player welfare, then you start by decreasing the games played, not try to micro manage every fucking collision.
That yellow and penalty try make the game barely recognisable, and random as a legitimate contest.
A pox on them all
-
@siam said in Crusaders vs. Chiefs:
@steven-harris said in Crusaders vs. Chiefs:
The rules are there for safety purposes but I fear every game I am going to be watching this year is going to have problem in and around high tackles which is going to hugely influence results.
Except Steven that the laws aren't there for safety mate, they're primarily there to appease social and mainstream media, lest they lower rugby's appeal to corporate sponsorship.
These administrators and lawmakers have made a pigs breakfast of the game since the last WC and their sole objective has been to placate social justice fuckwits who'd never travel to a game rather than the people who actually "own" and love the game.
If you're fair dinkum about player welfare, then you start by decreasing the games played, not try to micro manage every fucking collision.
That yellow and penalty try make the game barely recognisable, and random as a legitimate contest.
A pox on them all
Quoted just so everyone can read that twice.
-
I'm sympathetic to the lawmakers on this one. The research from the NFL is terrifying and the physicality of the game is only increasing which will mean more and more concussion and head trauma. We can't just accept it as a cost of the game but there is clearly more work needed to get the balance right because I agree that the too often good tackles are being penalised.
I don't think shortening the season will be a solution though since the nfl season is 16 to 20 games, or about half the length of the rugby one.
