Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF
-
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.
I'm wondering a bit more about this, because you often hear the commentators talk about "who has come up first".
I'm certainly no expert on the front row, but surely if only the hooker has come up, as in the case of Taylor, the only way that can happen is if the bind between the opposition hooker and tighthead has fractured? Otherwise - under pressure - Taylor's head is trapped beneath their shoulders?
Who's in the front row club to explain this?
-
@shark said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Laumape defended poorly and his ordinarily eye-catching wrecking-ball runs were nowhere to be seen. Was there also an appalling kick? Truly showed his lack of dimensions last night.
He, like most of the Canes, was not helped by their poor pattern and the superior pattern of the crusaders. Just like their pattern cast the entire team in a good light
-
@canefan poor game plan, execution and players not in top form all contributed, but ultimately the Crusaders were just too good.
Right now:
Head to Head - Crusaders $1.08, Lions $7.00
$1.87 to give the LIons an 18.5 point start
$3.50 for 12 and under
$1.42 for 13+ -
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@pukunui said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Two things.
- Has a deliberate knock down really jumped from a penalty to an automatic yellow card as the commentators seem to keep suggesting? Or are they talking shit again. Either way im sick of these things. Turning me off the game big time.
This is what the lawyer, who defends cited players before the WR and SANZAAR judiciary has to say about that:
Fantastic. That is exactly what i wanted to see. It has been creeping into the commentary more and more. IMO that law's worth is debatable in the first place when it is a penalty only. To have constant calls for automatic yellow on top gives me the shits.
-
@shark said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Laumape defended poorly and his ordinarily eye-catching wrecking-ball runs were nowhere to be seen. Was there also an appalling kick? Truly showed his lack of dimensions last night.
Yes also plenty of missed tackles and poor distribution. Not a memorable night.
-
-
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Feeling sorry for the lad. Taufua deservedly called into the ABs in May, but couldn't play because of injury. If he had any chance of being called up for the RC, that chance is gone now, too. I know there's disagreement about whether he should be an AB or not, but this is just really tough luck.
Deservedly in you opinion. He’s fine in patches at Super Rugby level, but the Crusaders are stronger with Samu at 6, much better work rate.
-
@kirwan Yes, in my opinon and that of the All Blacks selectors. Taufua played at 8 before the June break and was massive until then. It was only after not playing for weeks due to injury and being moved to 6 that he wasn't as strong as before, although not half as bad as some people want to believe. For example, did anyone notice how he ran through Shields last night?
-
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@kirwan For example, did anyone notice how he ran through Shields last night?
Before he got the ball ripped off him by Jordie.
-
@kiwimurph Yep indeed, but it is funny that some people on here only look at that last part, and not at the first, when talking about some players.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/half-full-and-empty-157672090-57a8f6553df78cf45952581a.jpg)
-
@kiwimurph bro, you can discount anything like that when done by a Barrett, those fellas are gods and do anything better than anyone else!
-
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@kirwan Yes, in my opinon and that of the All Blacks selectors. Taufua played at 8 before the June break and was massive until then. It was only after not playing for weeks due to injury and being moved to 6 that he wasn't as strong as before, although not half as bad as some people want to believe. For example, did anyone notice how he ran through Shields last night?
I’d guess they have a line through his name for covering six, which will reduce his squad value dramatically.
Watching players scoot past him from scrums, he might as well not be there.
And it’s not like the AB selectors aren’t wrong sometimes or take a punt sometimes. Look at Fifita.
-
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
For example, did anyone notice how he ran through Shields last night?
We're setting the bar that low?
-
@antipodean Just one example.
-
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@kiwimurph Yep indeed, but it is funny that some people on here only look at that last part, and not at the first, when talking about some players.
Those glasses are twice as large as they need to be.
-
@cyclops said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@taniwharugby said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@chris-b yeah the canes game plan was puzzling, kicking for one, but even with the saders mid-field is usually pretty tough to crack, Laumape barely ran at it with any venom to test it last night
It looked even more puzzling because when they final had someone (Savea I think) hit it up in midfield he broke the line and made a good 20-30 metres. But then they never tried it again. It felt a bit like the 'canes had out-thought themselves, trying to double bluff the crusaders and hoping that Laumape would draw defenders in by reputation creating opportunities elsewhere, and then for whatever reason didn't switch up when that wasn't working.
I'm still confused about the application of the rules for Barrett's almost-try. I get that because the ref stopped play the restart is a scrum, but surely the ball was still live after it was placed, so the 'turnover' (i..e Bridge picking up the ball after Barrett placed it) was good so it should have been a Crusader's feed?
Probably a Canes penalty as the player picking it up didn't come through the gate
-
@pukunui said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@pukunui said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Two things.
- Has a deliberate knock down really jumped from a penalty to an automatic yellow card as the commentators seem to keep suggesting? Or are they talking shit again. Either way im sick of these things. Turning me off the game big time.
This is what the lawyer, who defends cited players before the WR and SANZAAR judiciary has to say about that:
Fantastic. That is exactly what i wanted to see. It has been creeping into the commentary more and more. IMO that law's worth is debatable in the first place when it is a penalty only. To have constant calls for automatic yellow on top gives me the shits.
I think the fern's favourite Justin can be blamed for the way this is being dealt with now. He went on and on about it a couple of seasons ago.
-
@gt12 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@shark said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
At least last night's game eases the AB midfield 'logjam' with Laumape having by far his worst game of the season. No pressure to select him now.
Agreed. His defense was woeful at times - it’s a real shame because, on attack, I think he has the tools to be awesome at the next level. On defense though, he looks a liability right now.
I would prefer to see Aso (best position looks to be 12 and he's too good not to start) starting at 12 next year with Laumape as an impact player. At this stage he's too one dimensional. If a team defends well Laumape is ordinary
-
I could make the picture smaller ...
