• Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

Reds v Crusaders

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Rugby Matches
crusadersreds
151 Posts 34 Posters 4.5k Views
Reds v Crusaders
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • chimoausC Offline
    chimoausC Offline
    chimoaus
    wrote on last edited by
    #89

    Perhaps we could copy the NFL and have a specialist goal kicker we wheel out, at the moment I would have Parker.

    ShadowTrooperS 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • ShadowTrooperS Offline
    ShadowTrooperS Offline
    ShadowTrooper
    replied to chimoaus on last edited by
    #90

    @chimoaus Josh Ioane has been good. BB was ok.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • ShadowTrooperS Offline
    ShadowTrooperS Offline
    ShadowTrooper
    wrote on last edited by
    #91

    Scott Robertson will be pissed with losing the BP though, I know I was. Thought the Saders gave that away far too easily. And what was with the 14 Players at the death b@llocks about? Surely they could have given Mitch Hunt a head injury (even if the medicos had clonked him on the head,) before they dragged him, I mean what plonker couldn't count??

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • 9 Offline
    9 Offline
    98blueandgold
    wrote on last edited by
    #92

    Did any notice how poor Mounga was last night? Kicking was off but it was his passing was terrible. Haven't seen that for a while.

    StargazerS boobooB 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • StargazerS Offline
    StargazerS Offline
    Stargazer
    replied to 98blueandgold on last edited by
    #93

    @98blueandgold I disagree. His passing and game management were excellent. Only forgot his kicking boots again. The player who's passing was terrible was Drummond.

    KirwanK 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • Crazy HorseC Offline
    Crazy HorseC Offline
    Crazy Horse
    wrote on last edited by
    #94

    I am a fan of Mo'unga, but I do think a couple of concerning elements have crept into his game since last year. The obvious is his goal kicking. He's normally more reliable than what we have seen from him lately so hopefully the trough he is in is temporary. The other thing that bugs me is that he is missing touch too often from penalties. He seems to be going for too much distance. He did it for the ABs last year too.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • KirwanK Offline
    KirwanK Offline
    Kirwan
    replied to Stargazer on last edited by Kirwan
    #95

    @Stargazer said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @98blueandgold I disagree. His passing and game management were excellent. Only forgot his kicking boots again. The player who's passing was terrible was Drummond.

    No, he had a few passes that went to ground and almost gave away an interception. Looked rushed more than normal, most likely due to the weaker pack with all the ABs out.

    Take away the easy ride behind a dominant pack and he looked fairly average. Drummond having a mare didn’t help either. He was all kinds of shit.

    1 Reply Last reply
    3
  • CyclopsC Offline
    CyclopsC Offline
    Cyclops
    wrote on last edited by
    #96

    That's two weeks in a row that we've lost the bonus point by giving away late tries. Hopefully it won't matter (and definitely won't if we keep winning) but it's hurt teams before. Hopefully the end of the All Black time limits will help with that.

    S 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • S Offline
    S Offline
    Steven Harris
    replied to Cyclops on last edited by
    #97

    @Cyclops definitely nowhere their best..I think a lot of the handling errors will frustrate the coach..like how they went back to some good old fashioned forward play to just let the Reds forwards know who’s the boss

    CyclopsC 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • antipodeanA Online
    antipodeanA Online
    antipodean
    replied to hydro11 on last edited by
    #98

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @Siam said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    Man I hate that yellow card. Player doing nothing wrong trying to get back into a defensive line and a halfback cynically exploiting it (and getting rewarded for it).

    Why is it always assumed that the halfback's pass wasn't going to find the supporting player?

    This one, the "catcher" was in position with his hands ready. Similarly with Aaron Smith in a test last year, the ball was going straight to Scott Barrett.

    He could have but he also had other options. I'm okay with that one being a penalty, I just don't think it should be a yellow.

    In that area of the field with the opportunity his lazy running ruined, it should be a YC.

    H 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • CyclopsC Offline
    CyclopsC Offline
    Cyclops
    replied to Steven Harris on last edited by
    #99

    @Steven-Harris said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @Cyclops definitely nowhere their best..I think a lot of the handling errors will frustrate the coach..like how they went back to some good old fashioned forward play to just let the Reds forwards know who’s the boss

    Yeah, that's the good thing about this start, we're looking a long way short of our best (except for the first half against the canes), but still getting wins.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • H Offline
    H Offline
    hydro11
    replied to antipodean on last edited by
    #100

    @antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @Siam said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    Man I hate that yellow card. Player doing nothing wrong trying to get back into a defensive line and a halfback cynically exploiting it (and getting rewarded for it).

    Why is it always assumed that the halfback's pass wasn't going to find the supporting player?

    This one, the "catcher" was in position with his hands ready. Similarly with Aaron Smith in a test last year, the ball was going straight to Scott Barrett.

    He could have but he also had other options. I'm okay with that one being a penalty, I just don't think it should be a yellow.

    In that area of the field with the opportunity his lazy running ruined, it should be a YC.

    Do you agree it should be a yellow card even if the ball doesn't get thrown into him?

    antipodeanA 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • antipodeanA Online
    antipodeanA Online
    antipodean
    replied to hydro11 on last edited by
    #101

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @Siam said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    Man I hate that yellow card. Player doing nothing wrong trying to get back into a defensive line and a halfback cynically exploiting it (and getting rewarded for it).

    Why is it always assumed that the halfback's pass wasn't going to find the supporting player?

    This one, the "catcher" was in position with his hands ready. Similarly with Aaron Smith in a test last year, the ball was going straight to Scott Barrett.

    He could have but he also had other options. I'm okay with that one being a penalty, I just don't think it should be a yellow.

    In that area of the field with the opportunity his lazy running ruined, it should be a YC.

    Do you agree it should be a yellow card even if the ball doesn't get thrown into him?

    Then it wouldn't hit him would it?

    H 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • H Offline
    H Offline
    hydro11
    replied to antipodean on last edited by
    #102

    @antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @Siam said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    Man I hate that yellow card. Player doing nothing wrong trying to get back into a defensive line and a halfback cynically exploiting it (and getting rewarded for it).

    Why is it always assumed that the halfback's pass wasn't going to find the supporting player?

    This one, the "catcher" was in position with his hands ready. Similarly with Aaron Smith in a test last year, the ball was going straight to Scott Barrett.

    He could have but he also had other options. I'm okay with that one being a penalty, I just don't think it should be a yellow.

    In that area of the field with the opportunity his lazy running ruined, it should be a YC.

    Do you agree it should be a yellow card even if the ball doesn't get thrown into him?

    Then it wouldn't hit him would it?

    Obviously. So no yellow for you?

    antipodeanA 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • antipodeanA Online
    antipodeanA Online
    antipodean
    replied to hydro11 on last edited by
    #103

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @Siam said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    Man I hate that yellow card. Player doing nothing wrong trying to get back into a defensive line and a halfback cynically exploiting it (and getting rewarded for it).

    Why is it always assumed that the halfback's pass wasn't going to find the supporting player?

    This one, the "catcher" was in position with his hands ready. Similarly with Aaron Smith in a test last year, the ball was going straight to Scott Barrett.

    He could have but he also had other options. I'm okay with that one being a penalty, I just don't think it should be a yellow.

    In that area of the field with the opportunity his lazy running ruined, it should be a YC.

    Do you agree it should be a yellow card even if the ball doesn't get thrown into him?

    Then it wouldn't hit him would it?

    Obviously. So no yellow for you?

    Are you being deliberately dense or feebly constructing a point?

    H 1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • H Offline
    H Offline
    hydro11
    replied to antipodean on last edited by
    #104

    @antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @Siam said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    Man I hate that yellow card. Player doing nothing wrong trying to get back into a defensive line and a halfback cynically exploiting it (and getting rewarded for it).

    Why is it always assumed that the halfback's pass wasn't going to find the supporting player?

    This one, the "catcher" was in position with his hands ready. Similarly with Aaron Smith in a test last year, the ball was going straight to Scott Barrett.

    He could have but he also had other options. I'm okay with that one being a penalty, I just don't think it should be a yellow.

    In that area of the field with the opportunity his lazy running ruined, it should be a YC.

    Do you agree it should be a yellow card even if the ball doesn't get thrown into him?

    Then it wouldn't hit him would it?

    Obviously. So no yellow for you?

    Are you being deliberately dense or feebly constructing a point?

    I'm asking you if that should have been a yellow card if the ball did not hit the player. You have not answered the question. So I have asked it three times. If you don't want to answer it, don't.

    antipodeanA 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • antipodeanA Online
    antipodeanA Online
    antipodean
    replied to hydro11 on last edited by
    #105

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @Siam said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    Man I hate that yellow card. Player doing nothing wrong trying to get back into a defensive line and a halfback cynically exploiting it (and getting rewarded for it).

    Why is it always assumed that the halfback's pass wasn't going to find the supporting player?

    This one, the "catcher" was in position with his hands ready. Similarly with Aaron Smith in a test last year, the ball was going straight to Scott Barrett.

    He could have but he also had other options. I'm okay with that one being a penalty, I just don't think it should be a yellow.

    In that area of the field with the opportunity his lazy running ruined, it should be a YC.

    Do you agree it should be a yellow card even if the ball doesn't get thrown into him?

    Then it wouldn't hit him would it?

    Obviously. So no yellow for you?

    Are you being deliberately dense or feebly constructing a point?

    I'm asking you if that should have been a yellow card if the ball did not hit the player. You have not answered the question. So I have asked it three times. If you don't want to answer it, don't.

    If the ball didn't hit him he wouldn't have interfered with play would he? Do you think before you type?

    H 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • StargazerS Offline
    StargazerS Offline
    Stargazer
    wrote on last edited by
    #106

    From the WR Lawbook:

    d491b88c-c33a-4d25-9fb7-5369bd98cf83-image.png

    It seems to me, that Mo'unga should have been allowed to stay on the field.

    Magpie_in_ausM 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • Magpie_in_ausM Offline
    Magpie_in_ausM Offline
    Magpie_in_aus
    replied to Stargazer on last edited by
    #107

    @Stargazer said in Reds v Crusaders:

    From the WR Lawbook:

    d491b88c-c33a-4d25-9fb7-5369bd98cf83-image.png

    It seems to me, that Mo'unga should have been allowed to stay on the field.

    My friend was the one running the subs bench. The doctor ruled the player as category one meaning no HIA required either injured or confirmed concussion/knocked out.

    He said the crusaders management were just interested in knowing what the go was so they could avoid the same mistake again they weren't arguing it. Was just the ref didn't understand and came off for further clarification which is why the cameras came On them. Call was correct from their post match review of stuff.

    StargazerS Dan54D 2 Replies Last reply
    3
  • H Offline
    H Offline
    hydro11
    replied to antipodean on last edited by
    #108

    @antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @antipodean said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @Siam said in Reds v Crusaders:

    @hydro11 said in Reds v Crusaders:

    Man I hate that yellow card. Player doing nothing wrong trying to get back into a defensive line and a halfback cynically exploiting it (and getting rewarded for it).

    Why is it always assumed that the halfback's pass wasn't going to find the supporting player?

    This one, the "catcher" was in position with his hands ready. Similarly with Aaron Smith in a test last year, the ball was going straight to Scott Barrett.

    He could have but he also had other options. I'm okay with that one being a penalty, I just don't think it should be a yellow.

    In that area of the field with the opportunity his lazy running ruined, it should be a YC.

    Do you agree it should be a yellow card even if the ball doesn't get thrown into him?

    Then it wouldn't hit him would it?

    Obviously. So no yellow for you?

    Are you being deliberately dense or feebly constructing a point?

    I'm asking you if that should have been a yellow card if the ball did not hit the player. You have not answered the question. So I have asked it three times. If you don't want to answer it, don't.

    If the ball didn't hit him he wouldn't have interfered with play would he? Do you think before you type?

    Don't be simplistic. Brynn Hall could have seen the player there, realised there were defenders there and chosen to go to the backline. The player still would have interfered with play and should still be carded the same. The action would be the same, just a different result. Under your proposal you are discouraging half backs from playing positively and encouraging them to fire the ball into retreating players.

    If lazy running is a yellow card, it should be a yellow whether the player touches the ball or not.

    Hardly a ridiculous point and worthy of discussion, even if you do not think so.

    SiamS antipodeanA 2 Replies Last reply
    0

Reds v Crusaders
Rugby Matches
crusadersreds
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.