Crusaders v Chiefs

[gt12]

@african-monkey said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

@gt12 Yes, hence why he struggles there. Super Rugby sides make him look very good at times.

I’m on your side here. I dont know why sides give him that space either.

[Steven Harris]

@bones I think we should balance it by saying , you still need to take your opportunities ..ENS tries to pick a ball instead of kicking it ..possible 7 points , 2 missed penalties ..13 possible points gone astray ..

[Tim]

@gt12 And consistently buy his dummy.

[hydro11]

@steven-harris said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

@bones I think we should balance it by saying , you still need to take your opportunities ..ENS tries to pick a ball instead of kicking it ..possible 7 points , 2 missed penalties ..13 possible points gone astray ..

Problem is Chiefs have allowed Crusaders to gain momentum. Like when it was 10-8 and off the kick off they give away the dumb penalty.

[African Monkey]

And Quinn Tupaea just does exactly what you shouldn't on Mo'unga, proving my point.

[KiwiMurph]

Goodhue blew that.

[gt12]

Are we sending out ENS? That’s funny if so.

Edit: nope that was Tupaea who is looking very ducking ordinary.

[Bones]

We have a maul, red in possession.

Ref says brought down by red. No penalty. So collapsing a maul is ok if you're red?

[hydro11]

@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

We have a maul, red in possession.

Ref says brought down by red. No penalty. So collapsing a maul is ok if you're red?

Yes, you can collapse the maul if you have the ball.

[Steven Harris]

@hydro11 all the above ..it’s easy to focus on the decisions that are not going your way and forget the ones that are in your own hands ..

[Crazy Horse]

@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

We have a maul, red in possession.

Ref says brought down by red. No penalty. So collapsing a maul is ok if you're red?

Nit just a Red problem. Teams in possession have been getting away with collapsing the maul for ages.

[Bones]

@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

We have a maul, red in possession.

Ref says brought down by red. No penalty. So collapsing a maul is ok if you're red?

Yes, you can collapse the maul if you have the ball.

Is that in the laws?

[Bones]

@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

We have a maul, red in possession.

Ref says brought down by red. No penalty. So collapsing a maul is ok if you're red?

Nit just a Red problem. Teams in possession have been getting away with collapsing the maul for ages.

Yeah but you don't usually hear the ref saying that they collapsed it...

[antipodean]

@african-monkey said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

And Quinn Tupaea just does exactly what you shouldn't on Mo'unga, proving my point.

He's been crap. Gave away the penalty that got the Crusaders into the Chief's half straight from the kickoff and changed the momentum of the first half.

[hydro11]

@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:

We have a maul, red in possession.

Ref says brought down by red. No penalty. So collapsing a maul is ok if you're red?

Yes, you can collapse the maul if you have the ball.

Is that in the laws?

I guess you are technically correct but it isn't bias because I have never seen in refereed that way.

[Crazy Horse]

Wow. Surely even Chiefs fans can appreciate that.

[gt12]

Nice try!

[taniwharugby]

what a ball

[KiwiMurph]

@taniwharugby the line was better than the ball.

[Tim]

@bones Is there a difference between the mauling team driving through and growing to ground naturally (or the ball carrier going to ground), and the mauling team's non-ball-carriers pulling the maul down?