Highlanders vs Canes
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="562792" data-time="1457213618">
<div>
<p>could have been anyones arm</p>
<p> </p>
<p><img src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xtl1/v/t1.0-9/12809653_10153956179772463_665822535099892338_n.jpg?oh=25f68152517f365e8785b802217d2097&oe=57665775&gda=1465736006_8e6b62599b1de8d41ad9321d5ec6a765" alt="12809653_10153956179772463_6658225350998"></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Yeah - it's a clear try. The question is why don't the TMO's do this? Pausing the footage and blowing it up makes it very clear. Most people thought it was a try just based off the replays anyway but this is crystal clear. Instead, we saw a lot of replays from a lot of angles which didn't tell us anything. The TMO seemed t focus on the front on replay.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Dan54" data-cid="562810" data-time="1457221233">
<div>
<p>To be honest whether it a try or not,I don't want to have to wait while the TMO looks at 50 f***ing angles, then pause it and blow up pictures!!!</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Then it isn't really fair for us to post pictures the next day saying how it should have been a try. I don't think it should take too long to do so with modern technology and ideally we wouldn't need 50 angles.</p> -
<p>Didn't the TMO say that it wasn't clear and obvious that the try was planted at the base of the pole/touched the ground?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The question asked by the ref was "try or no try", so this conclusion meant that the try could not be awarded.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If the ref had asked "is there a reason not to award a try", then the try should have been awarded.</p> -
Clear try for me. <br>
On another point, why take sopoanga off? I know parker kicked the winning penalty but sopoanga was playing well and parker is hardly going to spark something like lima can. Leave him on for 80 unless he is having a shocker IMO. <br><br>
Canes are really struggling to pull off the plays that made them so good last year. Holding onto the ball a bit better will see them back looking a lot better. <br><br>
Dont know what the hell woodward was thinking kicking the ball away at the end. Similarly there was a rubbish attempt at a chip kick from osborne i think right near the end where the canes were under pressure from a poor kick. Maybe these guys watch too much league. Attacking kicks are such a low percentage play in rugby. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pukunui" data-cid="562823" data-time="1457228031">
<div>
<p>Clear try for me.<br>
On another point, why take sopoanga off? I know parker kicked the winning penalty but sopoanga was playing well and parker is hardly going to spark something like lima can. Leave him on for 80 unless he is having a shocker IMO.<br><br>
Canes are really struggling to pull off the plays that made them so good last year. Holding onto the ball a bit better will see them back looking a lot better.<br><br><strong>Dont know what the hell woodward was thinking kicking the ball away at the end.</strong> Similarly there was a rubbish attempt at a chip kick from osborne i think right near the end where the canes were under pressure from a poor kick. Maybe these guys watch too much league. Attacking kicks are such a low percentage play in rugby.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I'd imagine the rest of the team had a chat to him about that after the game. It was pretty baffling.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gt12" data-cid="562694" data-time="1457164949">
<div>
<p>Ardie has been good too.<br><br><strong>Anyone know anything about the hooker who just came on for the canes</strong>?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Ricky Riccitelli, NZ U20s and second hooker of the Magpies (Ash Dixon being no. 1)</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="562767" data-time="1457198870">
<p>I've only ever seen him play wing or fullback, not even seen him named in the midfield for upper hutt, but perhaps I don't watch enough! He's big enough.</p>
</blockquote>
<br><p>You need to get out more ;)<br><br><a class="bbc_url" href="http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/67937310/Hurricanes-fullback-Jason-Woodwards-Super-Rugby-season-over-after-breaking-ankle-in-club-match">http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/67937310/Hurricanes-fullback-Jason-Woodwards-Super-Rugby-season-over-after-breaking-ankle-in-club-match</a><br>
</p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">He suffered the injury when he was caught between two defenders while playing at centre for club side Upper Hutt against Oriental Rongotai at the Polo Ground in Miramar.
<p> </p>
</blockquote> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Dan54" data-cid="562810" data-time="1457221233">
<div>
<p>To be honest whether it a try or not,I don't want to have to wait while the TMO looks at 50 f***ing angles, then pause it and blow up pictures!!!</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I just want them to get it right.</p> -
<p>Well, just for discussion, I personally think that the law should change anyway.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Given that we now have massive pads in front of the posts, I'd argue that touching the ball to the pad at ground level is not actually putting the ball on the line. It's short. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, I like having the pads there, but, personally I think the law</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
<p>22.4 (b)</p>
<p>Grounded against a goal post. The goal posts and padding surrounding them are part of the goal line, which is part of in-goal. If an attacking player is first to ground the ball against a goal post or padding, a try is scored</p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>should be changed. The goal post was once set against the line, so this originally made sense.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>However, those pads are now pretty big and they stick out into the filed of play, so I suggest that if you hit the ball into the pad, you are deemed to be held up, and it is a 5 metre scrum.</p> -
<p>Maybe the posts need to be off-set slightly so the upright to the cross bar is behind the line but pads are a uniform depth so it sits on the line.</p>
-
If you are defending on your own line then are you allowed to stand in front of the post? Or do you have to stand next to it? I agree wih above they stick out too far nowdays, should do away with the rule.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="562876" data-time="1457244430">
<div>
<p>Know what you mean GT, i'm waiting for the day some smart arse gets a runaway intercept and dots it down at the base of the pads for a larf</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Tana Umaga. 2000 NPC semi final vs Auckland.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Then tried to high five Steve Walsh after.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Steve Walsh had the last laugh the year after.</p>
