Chiefs v Crusaders
-
@sparky said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@sparky said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@ACT-Crusader said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
Boshier is a quality player. Would like to see him get a chance in the Nth / Sth game.
So much strength in the Nth backrow. Some quality players will miss out.
Chances should go to players who make good decisions first and foremost.
In the recent AB podcast, Ted hit the nail on the head when he said that the problem in the 2019 RWC Semi was that the ABs were not mentally as strong as England were in that game.
The real challenge for the AB selectors will be not just picking out the best athletes in the next few years but guys who can possess the sort of steel that McCaw, Kaino and Nonu always had for RWC knockout games.
That steel was forged in the fires of RWC and test match failure. We will see how this next group of players react to adversity.
BTW how did they give that Crusaders try in the 60th minute? That's a bad beat
-
@Chris said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Bones said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Chris said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Bones said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@No-Quarter said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Bones said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@taniwharugby said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Bones when have I steered you wrong?
In this thread!
@No-Quarter yeah I posted up the law. Refs ruling it like forward pass when it's different.
Sorry I missed that. Yup amateur hour.
Crusaders too good in the end, but that kind of decision is similar to what drives people crazy when it happens to their team against the ABs. You just can't afford really basic mistakes like that going against you if you want to have a chance, especially when it directly leads to a try.
Also brings into question the supposed intentional knock on by Stevenson. His hand was facing backwards...
No downwards fair call Yc
Any chance you can explain where to find the law about downwards?
palm facing the ground on contact In front of your
body is a knock down not back wards
If he had attempted to knock it upwards to retain
The ball fair enough but he didnât
So he knocked it downwards so penalty
I suppose it cost the chiefs the game well
no it didnât
So who caresIgnoring that he attempted to catch and not knock it down - I see you unskilfully avoided answering the question. Show me the law where it's a penalty for knocking the ball down.
-
@antipodean said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
The culture at the Crusaders must be superb. Average players content to work on their basic skills and do their core roles.
Chiefs have been very unlucky, but losses are a cancer. They're not well served by All Blacks playing like headless đ. Webber and DMac should be watching the North vs South on tv.
Just not sure they are average. Winners is a better description.
-
@Bones said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Chris said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Bones said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Chris said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Bones said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@No-Quarter said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Bones said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@taniwharugby said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Bones when have I steered you wrong?
In this thread!
@No-Quarter yeah I posted up the law. Refs ruling it like forward pass when it's different.
Sorry I missed that. Yup amateur hour.
Crusaders too good in the end, but that kind of decision is similar to what drives people crazy when it happens to their team against the ABs. You just can't afford really basic mistakes like that going against you if you want to have a chance, especially when it directly leads to a try.
Also brings into question the supposed intentional knock on by Stevenson. His hand was facing backwards...
No downwards fair call Yc
Any chance you can explain where to find the law about downwards?
palm facing the ground on contact In front of your
body is a knock down not back wards
If he had attempted to knock it upwards to retain
The ball fair enough but he didnât
So he knocked it downwards so penalty
I suppose it cost the chiefs the game well
no it didnât
So who caresIgnoring that he attempted to catch and not knock it down - I see you unskilfully avoided answering the question. Show me the law where it's a penalty for knocking the ball down.
Crusaders 32 Chiefs 19
5 tries to 1
Thanks for coming -
-
It's a clear knock on.
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
Surprising how many time Jordan beats a tackler when he doesnât appear to be doing that much to beat him
As I said to Master Pakman, itâs as if he greased his legs the way players slip off him!
-
@Chris said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Bones said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Chris said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Bones said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Chris said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Bones said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@No-Quarter said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Bones said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@taniwharugby said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Bones when have I steered you wrong?
In this thread!
@No-Quarter yeah I posted up the law. Refs ruling it like forward pass when it's different.
Sorry I missed that. Yup amateur hour.
Crusaders too good in the end, but that kind of decision is similar to what drives people crazy when it happens to their team against the ABs. You just can't afford really basic mistakes like that going against you if you want to have a chance, especially when it directly leads to a try.
Also brings into question the supposed intentional knock on by Stevenson. His hand was facing backwards...
No downwards fair call Yc
Any chance you can explain where to find the law about downwards?
palm facing the ground on contact In front of your
body is a knock down not back wards
If he had attempted to knock it upwards to retain
The ball fair enough but he didnât
So he knocked it downwards so penalty
I suppose it cost the chiefs the game well
no it didnât
So who caresIgnoring that he attempted to catch and not knock it down - I see you unskilfully avoided answering the question. Show me the law where it's a penalty for knocking the ball down.
Crusaders 32 Chiefs 19
5 tries to 1
Thanks for comingHaha I figured you were talking out your arse.
-
@antipodean if only he'd dived in front of it.
-
@No-Quarter said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Bones said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@taniwharugby said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@mariner4life same laws of physics apply
Does it though? What's the law for a knock on...I don't recall it being the same wording as a forward pass.
The law says that if a player knocks it forward he has to catch it again before it hits the ground to avoid a knock on. Kicking it or slapping it back is not a valid way of stopping it being a knock on. And in this case even after he tried to slap it back, the ball still travelled forwards.
The refs absolutely bottled a pretty simple decision.
FFS!!! FFS!!! The law is that if a player loses control of ball and it hits ground forward of point he lost control it's a knock on. END OF. That ball travelled two metres forward after Strange's 'knock back'. There's a handy lineout marking which shows that clearly.
If we have TMOs they need to know the Laws (is that TOO much to ask?) and be prepared to overrule ref on findings of fact -- i.e. that the ball travelled forward.
As for Ben O'Keefe that's two incorrect game changing decisions in three weeks.
NZ Ref Body should show him a yellow, and he ought to sit out the next round.
Saders ought to buy him a watch for his contribution to their SRA crown..
.
-
@pakman I wouldn't go that far and I think the chiefs were lucky to even be in the game, but it's worrying that kiwi refs have had some absolute clangers that don't at all fit with the laws... and even worse typically when on review! It's like they get confused and focus in on one small thing and disregard the bigger picture.
-
@Bones said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@pakman I wouldn't go that far and I think the chiefs were lucky to even be in the game, but it's worrying that kiwi refs have had some absolute clangers that don't at all fit with the laws... and even worse typically when on review! It's like they get confused and focus in on one small thing and disregard the bigger picture.
OK, laying it on a bit thick with watch!
-
@Bones said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@pakman I wouldn't go that far and I think the chiefs were lucky to even be in the game, but it's worrying that kiwi refs have had some absolute clangers that don't at all fit with the laws... and even worse typically when on review! It's like they get confused and focus in on one small thing and disregard the bigger picture.
Agree that Chiefs were on the ropes, but one point game and good clearance from scrum and game on!
Felt Chch had the better of that otherwise, so canât say the result was an injustice.
-
@Bones said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
@pakman said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
good clearance from scrum
You were going so well
Yes, it wasnât the given one might expect at this level. Cruds and Weber seemed to be on different frequencies at times.
-
One point from my perspective.
Mounga and Jordan the most dangerous players on the park, looking like top level players.
While our starting all black wingers just look average.
And for all our talk of midfield depth, the guys most likely to start the first test aren't showing much.
Okay 2 points.
-
@mariner4life said in Chiefs v Crusaders:
Jordan the most dangerous players on the park, looking like top level players.
Such an enigma. Like others have said, he just looks like he's going for a brisk walk with little to no purpose and then beats a kazillion people or emerges from within 8 players having beaten them for a kick. He's the anti Ben Smith who made every jink or break look like he was trying to stop the earth turning.
) that a bullshit try should be awarded to the Sith immediately after the Chiefs escape a red card.
