Crusaders v Chiefs
-
@winger said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
The decline of the Chiefs. Shame. I like close games. Ive said this before but NZ need a financial structure to make it financially mpossible for one team to stack a team with all the best players
Pretty sure you have raised this point before. It is still a stupid point. The Crusaders aren’t stacked with all the best players. The Blues for example are just as stacked on paper.
However a competent coach and well run organisation make a huge difference.
The Canes coaches and organisation seem to have no idea, the chiefs appear to be similar and the Highlanders have been paying Hammer for rugby coaching so have to have issues somewhere.
The long term solution is to sack Foster and promote Robertson to the ABs job and clean out the canes and chiefs organisations and coaches. Definitely don’t extend their contracts....... -
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@kiwimurph said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@gunner essentially what seemed to happen was the TMO made a quick call from one viewing/angle when in fact the second angle clearly showed what happened.
And yet we have a chorus of people saying speed the decisions up. Even during this thread. Fuck being an official, they can't bloody win.
How many times do you need to watch the same angle before going to another?
As many times as it takes. It's easy for us as fans to make a call because there are no repercussions if we get it wrong, but the officials have to get it right. I don't care if they take their time.
As many times as it takes to form an incorrect opinion clearly corrected by a different camera angle?
Had a feeling you would say that, but that is nitbwhat I am getting at. No argument they made an error in the in the knock on call. I am referring to the call to speed up their decision making while at the same time insisting they get everything right. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand.
Whatever trade-off there was in the egregious instance was clearly not the balance we're after. As an example I go to the Faianga'anuku (sp?) feat of athleticism. How many times does Williams need to see the same camera angle showing two thing:
- Looks like he's touched the grass but inconclusive and certainly not clear evidence to overturn the initial call.
- There's another camera in the shot.
So watch once, twice in slow motion and then switch to the potato coverage and go back to the ref.
-
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@pukunui said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
What’s the fucking point of a fucking captains challenge if the fucking TMO is a fucking blind fuck!
Small sample size so far but I have got the impression that the TMOs are approaching the captains review as if the captain is wrong. There have been a couple (can’t remember exact ones) where they only had a very quick look and brushed it off. Nothing like the 10 replays of a clear grounding they often watch for a normal referral.
Stupid. But is anyone really surprised this isn’t working?
TMOs have been fucking up clear calls for years.Why do you think that is? Serious question.
Based only on how many looks they have had at captains reviews and saying to myself “wtf, they hardly looked at it”
As i said, small sample size so could just be coincidence.
But today was an example of being much quicker on the call than usual and they fucked it up.
Im sure it’s not a conscious bias but the concept of a captains “challenge” could lead to unconscious bias especially as it’s a new concept in rugby. -
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@kiwimurph said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@gunner essentially what seemed to happen was the TMO made a quick call from one viewing/angle when in fact the second angle clearly showed what happened.
And yet we have a chorus of people saying speed the decisions up. Even during this thread. Fuck being an official, they can't bloody win.
How many times do you need to watch the same angle before going to another?
As many times as it takes. It's easy for us as fans to make a call because there are no repercussions if we get it wrong, but the officials have to get it right. I don't care if they take their time.
As many times as it takes to form an incorrect opinion clearly corrected by a different camera angle?
Had a feeling you would say that, but that is nitbwhat I am getting at. No argument they made an error in the in the knock on call. I am referring to the call to speed up their decision making while at the same time insisting they get everything right. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand.
Whatever trade-off there was in the egregious instance was clearly not the balance we're after. As an example I go to the Faianga'anuku (sp?) feat of athleticism. How many times does Williams need to see the same camera angle showing two thing:
- Looks like he's touched the grass but inconclusive and certainly not clear evidence to overturn the initial call.
- There's another camera in the shot.
So watch once, twice in slow motion and then switch to the potato coverage and go back to the ref.
So you would be an advocate for limiting how many reviews the TMO get to look at before making a decision a decision? I have no problem with that as long as we as fans, and the media/commentators don't get to whinge if they make a mistake.
I get where are coming from, but the way things are are at the moment we have people whinging when aare mistake is made, and others when they take too long to make a decision. Sometimes they are the same person.
Then to complicate things, decisions are often opinion based. Like I have said, fuck being an official.
-
@kiwimurph don't think the Weber decision was so bad, but it was the end result of very poor calls prior, that should have seen him not carded.
-
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@kiwimurph said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@gunner essentially what seemed to happen was the TMO made a quick call from one viewing/angle when in fact the second angle clearly showed what happened.
And yet we have a chorus of people saying speed the decisions up. Even during this thread. Fuck being an official, they can't bloody win.
Oh come on, that was hardly speeding it up, it was lazy incompetence. He didn't even wait to watch a second angle.
-
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
So, did anybody else see the jersey pull or did I imagine it?
Hah I think you imagined it fella! On who?
-
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
So, did anybody else see the jersey pull or did I imagine it?
Hah I think you imagined it fella! On who?
Dunno, haven't watched the replay. Whomever (whoever?) was outside Mo'unga at the time. Might take a look tomorrow. I'll be sure to let you know, even if I am mistaken 😀
-
@crazy-horse why bother pulling the jersey of a player outside Mounga if Mounga is just gonna run him out if room anyway? 😁
-
@taniwharugby said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@kiwimurph don't think the Weber decision was so bad, but it was the end result of very poor calls prior, that should have seen him not carded.
I'm talking about the tackle on Mounga not the card.
-
@bones being the spastic, I couldn't sleep until I had proven some random polish chick wrong on the internet, so I looked at the replay. It looks like it is Stevenson pulling the jumper of the Crusaders 6 as Mo'unga makes the break. Slows the 6 down a bit. I don't think Mo'unga was ever going to pass him the ball but who knows. Not a biggie, but I have seen plenty of penalties come from similar plays before. Glad I didnt imagine it after all!
-
@crazy-horse forward pass makes it irrelevant though right? 😬
-
-
@nta said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Just saw that Crusaders "try" to the winger.
Wow.
Sure, the Crusaders were probably too good (haven't seen the game), but fuck you understand where the reputation of being favoured comes from.
Is that the first one where Faiunga'anuku might have dragged his foot on the grass? Was ok with that ss it wasn't "clear and obvious,".
-
@booboo said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@nta said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Just saw that Crusaders "try" to the winger.
Wow.
Sure, the Crusaders were probably too good (haven't seen the game), but fuck you understand where the reputation of being favoured comes from.
Is that the first one where Faiunga'anuku might have dragged his foot on the grass? Was ok with that ss it wasn't "clear and obvious,".
On my screen it clearly looked like his foot hit the ground and bounced back. On both angles.
-
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
That's a clear foot on the ground.
Marshall and TJ pulling on about woderful try which wasn't.
For me 95% certain toe touched ground. No clear evidience of being out, surely doen't mean 100%? So 99% is not clear.
BULLSHIT.
Wht do NZ refs get tipsy when reffing Chch???
-
@pakman said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
That's a clear foot on the ground.
Marshall and TJ pulling on about woderful try which wasn't.
For me 95% certain toe touched ground. No clear evidience of being out, surely doen't mean 100%? So 99% is not clear.
BULLSHIT.
Wht do NZ refs get tipsy when reffing Chch???
Then another try that wasn't and Weber wrongly in the bin for ten, during which Chch get soft try.
After 50 we ought to have had a contest to watch.
Relentless this, relentless that, the only relentless thing was the commentary circle jerk.
