Chiefs v Hurricanes
-
-
@Tim said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
Quick reminder that Rueben O'Neill gave away the penalty at the end. He was one of the 50 players that Steve Hansen (a shit coach) selected ahead of Akira Ioane.
Not sure what to make of your post ...
- Wasn't it Sowakula?
- O'Neill is a prop so not exactly keeping Akira out
- Hansen is gooorne so why the dig?
Am assuming a comedic troll which has gone whizzing over my head
-
Wasn't it Sowakula?
@booboo From Stuff this morning -There was some confusion around who the clutch final penalty was actually against, as Chiefs No 8 Pita Gus Sowakula had also made a late shot on Hurricanes prop Alex Fidow and that was the one replayed on the TV coverage, however it was actually Chiefs prop Reuben O'Neill who was the man pinged by referee Jaco Peyper, for a grass cutter tackle on Hurricanes flanker Vaea Fifita.
-
@Daffy-Jaffy you'd have to think that either would have been pinged...double dumb dumb
-
@Kirwan more like a brain fade by the Chiefs number 8. In my eyes they showed great patience and waited for a dumb mistake, and that’s exactly what they got. Who cares if they weren’t making metres, recycling the ball was all they had to do and they did that superbly.
They showed minutes earlier that if they wanted to they could get over the advantage line with ease but in that moment of the game it would have been too much of a risk to throw those riskier passes.
A great comeback by the Canes after they lost the plot last week and handed an unlikely victory to the Blues. Bring on the Crusaders next week which will be another tough NZ derby.
-
-
-
@Nepia said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@sparky said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
Really pleased for Jordie Barrett to silence all those cow bells and the critics
This comment suggests you don't really listen to the actual criticism of Jordie.
No, it suggests I think he's a match winner. 😉
-
@sparky said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@Nepia said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@sparky said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
Really pleased for Jordie Barrett to silence all those cow bells and the critics
This comment suggests you don't really listen to the actual criticism of Jordie.
No, it suggests I think he's a match winner. 😉
Fair enough, I'll let you have your told you so moment ... and I'll bookmark this in preparation for the next clanger.
-
@sparky said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@Nepia said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@sparky said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
Really pleased for Jordie Barrett to silence all those cow bells and the critics
This comment suggests you don't really listen to the actual criticism of Jordie.
No, it suggests I think he's a match winner. 😉
He did help the Blues win the match last week.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
Weren't the Chiefs supposed to be wearing a special jersey? Or is it the return fixture?
That pink jersey is for the Bulls home game on April 4.
-
I haven't read any comments but that was a frustrating game for a Chiefs supporter. The Chiefs' game management was really poor in the last 20 mins, highlighted by the inaccurate kicking of Weber, Cruden and DMac. Trying to run the ball from within your 22 was stupid when territory was going to be more important in the last 10 mins. Play at the right end of the field, even if you don't have possession.
I said to my friends at HT, that I hoped not coming away with any points in added time wouldn't come back to haunt the Chiefs. I can understand Cane wanting to go for the jugular but I would have taken the 3 pts when they had a penalty right out in front of the posts.
-
@Bovidae Yep, that was frustrating on so many levels. I wish they'd gone for the 3 when they got the final penalty although I think going for the try initially was fine.
Agree on the game management being poor in the last 20.
Also, the JB catch the ball from out, even though (or especially because) it's in the laws is annoying the fuck out of me on a level that is irrational and far outweighs the importance of this match.
How can the laws allow a player to play the ball when starting out if the field of play. It's stupid . -
@Nepia said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
Also, the JB catch the ball from out, even though (or especially because) it's in the laws is annoying the fuck out of me on a level that is irrational and far outweighs the importance of this match.
How can the laws allow a player to play the ball when starting out if the field of play. It's stupid .Yes. I thought they have changed the law so you can't come from outside the field of play?
I wish they would just go back to if the ball crosses the plane of touch it is out. Simple.
-
@Nepia said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@Bovidae Yep, that was frustrating on so many levels. I wish they'd gone for the 3 when they got the final penalty although I think going for the try initially was fine.
Agree on the game management being poor in the last 20.
Also, the JB catch the ball from out, even though (or especially because) it's in the laws is annoying the fuck out of me on a level that is irrational and far outweighs the importance of this match.
How can the laws allow a player to play the ball when starting out if the field of play. It's stupid .The same way you can ground a ball for a try if you're outside the field of play.
The simple way to remember it is it's in touch or touch-in-goal when:
- the ball or ball-carrier touches the touchline, touch-in-goal line or anything beyond.
- a player, who is already touching the touchline, touch-in-goal line or anything beyond, catches or holds the ball.
Given the above, if the ball is still in the field of play (i.e. hasn't crossed the plane of touch), you are deemed to have taken it out. If it's not in the field of play (has crossed), then you didn't.
You can catch, knock or kick the ball as long as you're in the playing area regardless of whether it crosses the plane of touch. Hence why you can jump from outside, catch or knock the ball and land within the playing area, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch. You can jump from in the playing area, knock the ball back into the playing area, before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch.
To be in touch you have to be on the ground. If you catch the ball in touch, the ball is now in touch.
The only strange one is that you can be in touch, kick or knock the ball provided it has not reached the plane of touch. But that's because you didn't catch it.
-
@antipodean any idea on the logic for the change?
only thing I can think of is to encourage teams kicking for touch to make sure it stays in touch, thus not carving off as much distance, which is a lame change for minimal gain for the game.
-
@taniwharugby No idea. Guess someone made a compelling case that it made more sense this way.
-
-
@Duluth why the hell do we need a full article about the ref?
-
@mariner4life Because "clicks".
