Crusaders v Chiefs
-
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Upshot is that it shows how hard it can be to break a losing run when subconcious decision making and confirmation bias by refs is added into the general malaise. Blues copped it for ages in a number of losing runs. I remember Ali Williams totally losing his rag against one ref such was the way that they were being judged as if they could do no right. The ref was judging them very differently to the dominant side.
This happens a lot at the moment with momentum periods. Penalties are coming in batches against one side as they get judged more and more on a fine line each one. That penalty against Weber stealing the ball at the back of the scrum was one. He kept ahead of the flanker until the ball came out but the ref's immediate thought was that he was wrong (and he may have been by a toe) rather than that the Saders had had a bad scrum and lost control, leaving the ball open for a steal.I'm not sure I get where you are coming from. The Chiefs' losing run shows that they are a substandard Super Rugby team, just as the Blues were. The Weber penalty at the scrum was marginal (the call came from the AR, BTW). The Chiefs were given marginal penalties too (like Jacobson's turnover when he was on his knees). There is another confirmation bias which is people remember decisions more against the team who lost.
The TMO got one big call wrong last night and that is disappointing. The Chiefs were reemed in the scrum, dreadful defensively and had poor discipline. I'm sure it is theoretically possible but it is hard to see the Chief beating that Crusaders team, if they played them 10 more times. As Stargazer has pointed out, the Chiefs should probably have had another man in the bin at some point. They conceded a lot of penalties (especially if you count the advantages).
Why is it that whenever a supporter of the losing side makes a point about poor reffing someone else shouts it “you would have lost anyway “
That point has been well accepted by every Chiefs fan. It doesn’t negate the shit reffing discussion which is being supported by the sameTMO again today.
I’m pretty sure there have been studies over other sports that indicate how top teams get more “run of the green “ than weak teams. This just adds another few inches to the hole you are trying to dig yourself out of.I just thought we were here to discuss rugby and not refereeing. It is a strange phenomenon that a team gets thrashed and we still spend 90% of the time talking about the referee. There is zero analysis of the actual game. If the refereeing did not affect the result, why bother talking about it so much? Why not spend time talking about the idiotic decision to go from a scrum instead of a 22 when you are getting done in that facet? People absolutely use refereeing as a distraction point even when they acknowledge their team was 2nd best. It is better than talking about the reality of the situation.
Having said that, I am glad you are "pretty sure" there are studies. The Crusaders got more penalties last night because they dominated the scrum, held the ball and made line breaks (put the Chiefs under pressure). It was nothing to do with the Chiefs being shit last year and everything to do with them being shit last night.
-
@nepia said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Upshot is that it shows how hard it can be to break a losing run when subconcious decision making and confirmation bias by refs is added into the general malaise. Blues copped it for ages in a number of losing runs. I remember Ali Williams totally losing his rag against one ref such was the way that they were being judged as if they could do no right. The ref was judging them very differently to the dominant side.
This happens a lot at the moment with momentum periods. Penalties are coming in batches against one side as they get judged more and more on a fine line each one. That penalty against Weber stealing the ball at the back of the scrum was one. He kept ahead of the flanker until the ball came out but the ref's immediate thought was that he was wrong (and he may have been by a toe) rather than that the Saders had had a bad scrum and lost control, leaving the ball open for a steal.I'm not sure I get where you are coming from. The Chiefs' losing run shows that they are a substandard Super Rugby team, just as the Blues were. The Weber penalty at the scrum was marginal (the call came from the AR, BTW). The Chiefs were given marginal penalties too (like Jacobson's turnover when he was on his knees). There is another confirmation bias which is people remember decisions more against the team who lost.
The TMO got one big call wrong last night and that is disappointing. The Chiefs were reemed in the scrum, dreadful defensively and had poor discipline. I'm sure it is theoretically possible but it is hard to see the Chief beating that Crusaders team, if they played them 10 more times. As Stargazer has pointed out, the Chiefs should probably have had another man in the bin at some point. They conceded a lot of penalties (especially if you count the advantages).
You can't disregard one big call just because of the likelihood of one team winning. That one big call happened when the game was close and it caused a 14 point advantage (including the try with a player in the bin) to the eventual winners.
But, as has been said, 15 penalties for a game (plus some advantages) would normally get you a yellow card anyway. So if Weber had not gone then, someone would have likely gone at some other time. If Jacobson had been penalised in the first half, things could have been different as well.
Weber is an experienced player. He should know better than to tackle a player from an obviously off-side position. Therefore you can't put the subsequent try when the Chiefs were down a man on the TMO. The TMO's mistake would have only cost 7 if Weber had been smarter in that situation. The subsequent try is on Weber's ill-discipline.
Look, I get the TMO decision hurts worse than other decisions. You make a challenge, you want them to have a proper look and ultimately come to the correct decision. It is the same thing with VAR in football. People copped a bad call better when it was a snap judgement. I am just objecting to people who say it happened to the Chiefs because they were bad last season.
I suppose if the TMO had made the correct call, the Chiefs could have turned it around and won the game. We watch sport because there is always a chance. The reality is that I would have put very long odds on that happening. The Chiefs were just too poor up front and too ill-disciplined.
-
Yeah I would like to talk about the game too.
From a Sader's perspective it was good to see Douglas pull his weight after falling off a cliff last year. I thought he ran on to the ball well and stood up in the lineout.
Havili played played ok at 12 but it didn't feel like the midfield really gelled. Goodhue was quiet, maybe the ball just didn't go his way?
-
@kiwimurph said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@stargazer the second angle was as clear as day for the Weber/Mounga tackle.
Weber hits Mounga's wrist causing the ball to fly forward.
It’s not clear, without arrows or bright yellow circles.
-
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Yeah I would like to talk about the game too.
From a Sader's perspective it was good to see Douglas pull his weight after falling off a cliff last year. I thought he ran on to the ball well and stood up in the lineout.
Havili played played ok at 12 but it didn't feel like the midfield really gelled. Goodhue was quiet, maybe the ball just didn't go his way?
Let’s see how it goes after another game. Even though many have been calling for this since Crotty left, they have only had very limited game time together.
I do wonder if Bridge and Ennor were available what Razor would do with our backline.
-
@act-crusader said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Yeah I would like to talk about the game too.
From a Sader's perspective it was good to see Douglas pull his weight after falling off a cliff last year. I thought he ran on to the ball well and stood up in the lineout.
Havili played played ok at 12 but it didn't feel like the midfield really gelled. Goodhue was quiet, maybe the ball just didn't go his way?
Let’s see how it goes after another game. Even though many have been calling for this since Crotty left, they have only had very limited game time together.
I do wonder if Bridge and Ennor were available what Razor would do with our backline.
I think the combo has some promise, so yeah happy to give it time to develop. I think Havili has been guilty of running sideways while in the midfield, but didn't see much evidence of that last night.
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Upshot is that it shows how hard it can be to break a losing run when subconcious decision making and confirmation bias by refs is added into the general malaise. Blues copped it for ages in a number of losing runs. I remember Ali Williams totally losing his rag against one ref such was the way that they were being judged as if they could do no right. The ref was judging them very differently to the dominant side.
This happens a lot at the moment with momentum periods. Penalties are coming in batches against one side as they get judged more and more on a fine line each one. That penalty against Weber stealing the ball at the back of the scrum was one. He kept ahead of the flanker until the ball came out but the ref's immediate thought was that he was wrong (and he may have been by a toe) rather than that the Saders had had a bad scrum and lost control, leaving the ball open for a steal.I'm not sure I get where you are coming from. The Chiefs' losing run shows that they are a substandard Super Rugby team, just as the Blues were. The Weber penalty at the scrum was marginal (the call came from the AR, BTW). The Chiefs were given marginal penalties too (like Jacobson's turnover when he was on his knees). There is another confirmation bias which is people remember decisions more against the team who lost.
The TMO got one big call wrong last night and that is disappointing. The Chiefs were reemed in the scrum, dreadful defensively and had poor discipline. I'm sure it is theoretically possible but it is hard to see the Chief beating that Crusaders team, if they played them 10 more times. As Stargazer has pointed out, the Chiefs should probably have had another man in the bin at some point. They conceded a lot of penalties (especially if you count the advantages).
Why is it that whenever a supporter of the losing side makes a point about poor reffing someone else shouts it “you would have lost anyway “
That point has been well accepted by every Chiefs fan. It doesn’t negate the shit reffing discussion which is being supported by the sameTMO again today.
I’m pretty sure there have been studies over other sports that indicate how top teams get more “run of the green “ than weak teams. This just adds another few inches to the hole you are trying to dig yourself out of.I just thought we were here to discuss rugby and not refereeing. It is a strange phenomenon that a team gets thrashed and we still spend 90% of the time talking about the referee. There is zero analysis of the actual game. If the refereeing did not affect the result, why bother talking about it so much? Why not spend time talking about the idiotic decision to go from a scrum instead of a 22 when you are getting done in that facet? People absolutely use refereeing as a distraction point even when they acknowledge their team was 2nd best. It is better than talking about the reality of the situation.
Having said that, I am glad you are "pretty sure" there are studies. The Crusaders got more penalties last night because they dominated the scrum, held the ball and made line breaks (put the Chiefs under pressure). It was nothing to do with the Chiefs being shit last year and everything to do with them being shit last night.
Is refereeing not part of rugby?
And that decision had a definite effect on the game.
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Upshot is that it shows how hard it can be to break a losing run when subconcious decision making and confirmation bias by refs is added into the general malaise. Blues copped it for ages in a number of losing runs. I remember Ali Williams totally losing his rag against one ref such was the way that they were being judged as if they could do no right. The ref was judging them very differently to the dominant side.
This happens a lot at the moment with momentum periods. Penalties are coming in batches against one side as they get judged more and more on a fine line each one. That penalty against Weber stealing the ball at the back of the scrum was one. He kept ahead of the flanker until the ball came out but the ref's immediate thought was that he was wrong (and he may have been by a toe) rather than that the Saders had had a bad scrum and lost control, leaving the ball open for a steal.I'm not sure I get where you are coming from. The Chiefs' losing run shows that they are a substandard Super Rugby team, just as the Blues were. The Weber penalty at the scrum was marginal (the call came from the AR, BTW). The Chiefs were given marginal penalties too (like Jacobson's turnover when he was on his knees). There is another confirmation bias which is people remember decisions more against the team who lost.
The TMO got one big call wrong last night and that is disappointing. The Chiefs were reemed in the scrum, dreadful defensively and had poor discipline. I'm sure it is theoretically possible but it is hard to see the Chief beating that Crusaders team, if they played them 10 more times. As Stargazer has pointed out, the Chiefs should probably have had another man in the bin at some point. They conceded a lot of penalties (especially if you count the advantages).
Why is it that whenever a supporter of the losing side makes a point about poor reffing someone else shouts it “you would have lost anyway “
That point has been well accepted by every Chiefs fan. It doesn’t negate the shit reffing discussion which is being supported by the sameTMO again today.
I’m pretty sure there have been studies over other sports that indicate how top teams get more “run of the green “ than weak teams. This just adds another few inches to the hole you are trying to dig yourself out of.I just thought we were here to discuss rugby and not refereeing. It is a strange phenomenon that a team gets thrashed and we still spend 90% of the time talking about the referee. There is zero analysis of the actual game. If the refereeing did not affect the result, why bother talking about it so much? Why not spend time talking about the idiotic decision to go from a scrum instead of a 22 when you are getting done in that facet? People absolutely use refereeing as a distraction point even when they acknowledge their team was 2nd best. It is better than talking about the reality of the situation.
Having said that, I am glad you are "pretty sure" there are studies. The Crusaders got more penalties last night because they dominated the scrum, held the ball and made line breaks (put the Chiefs under pressure). It was nothing to do with the Chiefs being shit last year and everything to do with them being shit last night.
A bit of 'whoosh' again.
I hate to let you in on this but the game doesn't happen without a reffing team and no points are scored without them deciding so. Considering the part they play it is only normal to discuss them.
I think you'll be struggling to find a Chiefs fan that thinks the refs decided the game or one that hasn't already thrown things at the screen over their play and decision making. Plenty of comments were made about their play during the game.
Discussion about about unconscious decision bias is an interesting sporting point that may provide an element toward a losing streak. I never suggested that every (or even most) decisions were affected. It is obviously the line calls or the closer watching and assumptions that can happen.
As for the rest of the game? The Chiefs simply lack forward impact which makes everything more difficult. -
@nepia said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Upshot is that it shows how hard it can be to break a losing run when subconcious decision making and confirmation bias by refs is added into the general malaise. Blues copped it for ages in a number of losing runs. I remember Ali Williams totally losing his rag against one ref such was the way that they were being judged as if they could do no right. The ref was judging them very differently to the dominant side.
This happens a lot at the moment with momentum periods. Penalties are coming in batches against one side as they get judged more and more on a fine line each one. That penalty against Weber stealing the ball at the back of the scrum was one. He kept ahead of the flanker until the ball came out but the ref's immediate thought was that he was wrong (and he may have been by a toe) rather than that the Saders had had a bad scrum and lost control, leaving the ball open for a steal.I'm not sure I get where you are coming from. The Chiefs' losing run shows that they are a substandard Super Rugby team, just as the Blues were. The Weber penalty at the scrum was marginal (the call came from the AR, BTW). The Chiefs were given marginal penalties too (like Jacobson's turnover when he was on his knees). There is another confirmation bias which is people remember decisions more against the team who lost.
The TMO got one big call wrong last night and that is disappointing. The Chiefs were reemed in the scrum, dreadful defensively and had poor discipline. I'm sure it is theoretically possible but it is hard to see the Chief beating that Crusaders team, if they played them 10 more times. As Stargazer has pointed out, the Chiefs should probably have had another man in the bin at some point. They conceded a lot of penalties (especially if you count the advantages).
You can't disregard one big call just because of the likelihood of one team winning. That one big call happened when the game was close and it caused a 14 point advantage (including the try with a player in the bin) to the eventual winners.
Crusaders still would have won they took all their big guns off with 30 minuntes to go and cruised home.
-
@nepia said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
In defence of the officials though, we as fans always complain when the game is interrupted for too long because of the TMO looking at all the angles etc, so we want decisions to be made faster. Now they make a decision fast, and it appears it was made too fast. Whatever TMO protocols you use and whichever way it is applied, there will always be people complaining.
100% this. From the first angle it dead set looked like Weber touched the ball (in the opinionif the TMO). Imagine if the officials then went and looked at multiple angles only to confirm that Weber had touched the ball. People would whinge about the decision taking too long and why did they need to check further? If I recall correctly, earlier in this very game there was whinging about how long TMO decisions were taking.
We cannot have it both ways.
What B/S, the TMO could have spent an extra 1 second looking at the footage and saw what we all saw (aside from some on here who are pretending they didn't see it) and the decision would have been made. Then we don't get a penalty try, yellow card, try when a player is in the bin that shouldn't have happened. The Crusaders still would have won but there wouldn't be as much controversy.
That one second had a huge impact on game. This is a professional TMO, and they need to be dialled in enough time get it right.
-
@gt12 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
During my days playing sport I was an absolute fluffybunny to refs. If they pissed me off they would hear about it. Not something I am proud of, and quite the personality floor if I am honest. It ruined my enjoyment of sport and probably contributed to me giving up playing.
In the middle of my playing days and being a fluffybunny, a curious thing happened. Someone I cared about started being a ref. I would watch them ref and hear and see spectators and players being their own version of a fluffybunny towards them. I hated those people. That someone that I cared about was trying to do their best and they did not deserve the vitriol that was coming their way. But it didn't stop me being a fluffybunny the next time I played.
I guess what I am getting at is the refs fucked up last night, but they are humans trying to do their job to the best of their ability and we should remember that. At least until a call goes against the Crusaders or the ABs. That's when the gloves can come off.
I agree with this point, but right now the technology has started impacting the game so much that assistant refs don't even look at whether a player's foot may have touched the ground in the act of scoring a diving try, and they are willing to let play go on even if it doesn't pass the pub test, because they know that the TMO will end up making the decision anyway. The incentive here appears to push them away from making a decision, and it's leading them to become worse.
Then the TMOS are incompetent, and we end up with a worse product that takes longer, with a bunch of strange rulings.
Personally speaking, if we are going to have a Captain's challenge, I'd prefer it if they just cut the TMO back to grounding and foul play (or even nothing unless they are called on by the captain), so that when the TMO does get involved it is because the player's have got them involved. In that case, I hope that the TMO would also be 'less' on the referee side, and perhaps a bit more likely to judge the situation more objectively. In reality though, I think it would be still be a lottery, so why bother having them at all?
Didn’t check, but isn’t touchy there to adjudicate in touch?
On Lester try, did they give a view? It looked out to naked eye and TMO process did nothing to alter that for me.
But on field try decision was dominant factor, and I don’t recall ref saying anything about touch. Did he see? If not, how could he decide?
-
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Upshot is that it shows how hard it can be to break a losing run when subconcious decision making and confirmation bias by refs is added into the general malaise. Blues copped it for ages in a number of losing runs. I remember Ali Williams totally losing his rag against one ref such was the way that they were being judged as if they could do no right. The ref was judging them very differently to the dominant side.
This happens a lot at the moment with momentum periods. Penalties are coming in batches against one side as they get judged more and more on a fine line each one. That penalty against Weber stealing the ball at the back of the scrum was one. He kept ahead of the flanker until the ball came out but the ref's immediate thought was that he was wrong (and he may have been by a toe) rather than that the Saders had had a bad scrum and lost control, leaving the ball open for a steal.I'm not sure I get where you are coming from. The Chiefs' losing run shows that they are a substandard Super Rugby team, just as the Blues were. The Weber penalty at the scrum was marginal (the call came from the AR, BTW). The Chiefs were given marginal penalties too (like Jacobson's turnover when he was on his knees). There is another confirmation bias which is people remember decisions more against the team who lost.
The TMO got one big call wrong last night and that is disappointing. The Chiefs were reemed in the scrum, dreadful defensively and had poor discipline. I'm sure it is theoretically possible but it is hard to see the Chief beating that Crusaders team, if they played them 10 more times. As Stargazer has pointed out, the Chiefs should probably have had another man in the bin at some point. They conceded a lot of penalties (especially if you count the advantages).
Why is it that whenever a supporter of the losing side makes a point about poor reffing someone else shouts it “you would have lost anyway “
That point has been well accepted by every Chiefs fan. It doesn’t negate the shit reffing discussion which is being supported by the sameTMO again today.
I’m pretty sure there have been studies over other sports that indicate how top teams get more “run of the green “ than weak teams. This just adds another few inches to the hole you are trying to dig yourself out of.I just thought we were here to discuss rugby and not refereeing. It is a strange phenomenon that a team gets thrashed and we still spend 90% of the time talking about the referee. There is zero analysis of the actual game. If the refereeing did not affect the result, why bother talking about it so much? Why not spend time talking about the idiotic decision to go from a scrum instead of a 22 when you are getting done in that facet? People absolutely use refereeing as a distraction point even when they acknowledge their team was 2nd best. It is better than talking about the reality of the situation.
Having said that, I am glad you are "pretty sure" there are studies. The Crusaders got more penalties last night because they dominated the scrum, held the ball and made line breaks (put the Chiefs under pressure). It was nothing to do with the Chiefs being shit last year and everything to do with them being shit last night.
A bit of 'whoosh' again.
I hate to let you in on this but the game doesn't happen without a reffing team and no points are scored without them deciding so. Considering the part they play it is only normal to discuss them.
I think you'll be struggling to find a Chiefs fan that thinks the refs decided the game or one that hasn't already thrown things at the screen over their play and decision making. Plenty of comments were made about their play during the game.
Discussion about about unconscious decision bias is an interesting sporting point that may provide an element toward a losing streak. I never suggested that every (or even most) decisions were affected. It is obviously the line calls or the closer watching and assumptions that can happen.
As for the rest of the game? The Chiefs simply lack forward impact which makes everything more difficult.A couple of quite reasonable, but opposite, TMO decisions and Chiefs are leading after 55.
The TMO decisions were game changers in a very fundamental way.
As a neutral, IMO the ones which were made destroyed the game.
-
@chris said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@nepia said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Upshot is that it shows how hard it can be to break a losing run when subconcious decision making and confirmation bias by refs is added into the general malaise. Blues copped it for ages in a number of losing runs. I remember Ali Williams totally losing his rag against one ref such was the way that they were being judged as if they could do no right. The ref was judging them very differently to the dominant side.
This happens a lot at the moment with momentum periods. Penalties are coming in batches against one side as they get judged more and more on a fine line each one. That penalty against Weber stealing the ball at the back of the scrum was one. He kept ahead of the flanker until the ball came out but the ref's immediate thought was that he was wrong (and he may have been by a toe) rather than that the Saders had had a bad scrum and lost control, leaving the ball open for a steal.I'm not sure I get where you are coming from. The Chiefs' losing run shows that they are a substandard Super Rugby team, just as the Blues were. The Weber penalty at the scrum was marginal (the call came from the AR, BTW). The Chiefs were given marginal penalties too (like Jacobson's turnover when he was on his knees). There is another confirmation bias which is people remember decisions more against the team who lost.
The TMO got one big call wrong last night and that is disappointing. The Chiefs were reemed in the scrum, dreadful defensively and had poor discipline. I'm sure it is theoretically possible but it is hard to see the Chief beating that Crusaders team, if they played them 10 more times. As Stargazer has pointed out, the Chiefs should probably have had another man in the bin at some point. They conceded a lot of penalties (especially if you count the advantages).
You can't disregard one big call just because of the likelihood of one team winning. That one big call happened when the game was close and it caused a 14 point advantage (including the try with a player in the bin) to the eventual winners.
Crusaders still would have won they took all their big guns off with 30 minuntes to go and cruised home.
Because the refs had won it for them by then.
-
@pakman said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@chris said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@nepia said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Upshot is that it shows how hard it can be to break a losing run when subconcious decision making and confirmation bias by refs is added into the general malaise. Blues copped it for ages in a number of losing runs. I remember Ali Williams totally losing his rag against one ref such was the way that they were being judged as if they could do no right. The ref was judging them very differently to the dominant side.
This happens a lot at the moment with momentum periods. Penalties are coming in batches against one side as they get judged more and more on a fine line each one. That penalty against Weber stealing the ball at the back of the scrum was one. He kept ahead of the flanker until the ball came out but the ref's immediate thought was that he was wrong (and he may have been by a toe) rather than that the Saders had had a bad scrum and lost control, leaving the ball open for a steal.I'm not sure I get where you are coming from. The Chiefs' losing run shows that they are a substandard Super Rugby team, just as the Blues were. The Weber penalty at the scrum was marginal (the call came from the AR, BTW). The Chiefs were given marginal penalties too (like Jacobson's turnover when he was on his knees). There is another confirmation bias which is people remember decisions more against the team who lost.
The TMO got one big call wrong last night and that is disappointing. The Chiefs were reemed in the scrum, dreadful defensively and had poor discipline. I'm sure it is theoretically possible but it is hard to see the Chief beating that Crusaders team, if they played them 10 more times. As Stargazer has pointed out, the Chiefs should probably have had another man in the bin at some point. They conceded a lot of penalties (especially if you count the advantages).
You can't disregard one big call just because of the likelihood of one team winning. That one big call happened when the game was close and it caused a 14 point advantage (including the try with a player in the bin) to the eventual winners.
Crusaders still would have won they took all their big guns off with 30 minuntes to go and cruised home.
Because the refs had won it for them by then.
Yeah of course as always get better stop whinging about losing fix it.Soft as
-
@chris said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@pakman said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@chris said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@nepia said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Upshot is that it shows how hard it can be to break a losing run when subconcious decision making and confirmation bias by refs is added into the general malaise. Blues copped it for ages in a number of losing runs. I remember Ali Williams totally losing his rag against one ref such was the way that they were being judged as if they could do no right. The ref was judging them very differently to the dominant side.
This happens a lot at the moment with momentum periods. Penalties are coming in batches against one side as they get judged more and more on a fine line each one. That penalty against Weber stealing the ball at the back of the scrum was one. He kept ahead of the flanker until the ball came out but the ref's immediate thought was that he was wrong (and he may have been by a toe) rather than that the Saders had had a bad scrum and lost control, leaving the ball open for a steal.I'm not sure I get where you are coming from. The Chiefs' losing run shows that they are a substandard Super Rugby team, just as the Blues were. The Weber penalty at the scrum was marginal (the call came from the AR, BTW). The Chiefs were given marginal penalties too (like Jacobson's turnover when he was on his knees). There is another confirmation bias which is people remember decisions more against the team who lost.
The TMO got one big call wrong last night and that is disappointing. The Chiefs were reemed in the scrum, dreadful defensively and had poor discipline. I'm sure it is theoretically possible but it is hard to see the Chief beating that Crusaders team, if they played them 10 more times. As Stargazer has pointed out, the Chiefs should probably have had another man in the bin at some point. They conceded a lot of penalties (especially if you count the advantages).
You can't disregard one big call just because of the likelihood of one team winning. That one big call happened when the game was close and it caused a 14 point advantage (including the try with a player in the bin) to the eventual winners.
Crusaders still would have won they took all their big guns off with 30 minuntes to go and cruised home.
Because the refs had won it for them by then.
Yeah of course as always get better stop whinging about losing fix it.Soft as
Yeah that response doesn't work when you're talking to neutrals eh. Weak as
-
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Yeah I would like to talk about the game too.
From a Sader's perspective it was good to see Douglas pull his weight after falling off a cliff last year. I thought he ran on to the ball well and stood up in the lineout.
Havili played played ok at 12 but it didn't feel like the midfield really gelled. Goodhue was quiet, maybe the ball just didn't go his way?
Yeah definitely Douglas' best game for a couple of years. Had the added baggage of being the "big bopper" in the loosies too, even though he's not exactly a monster, so hopefully he's turned a corner cos he was pretty handy in his first season.
I thought Havili also played one of his best games at 12 at this level, so definitely worth persisting with as he's not exactly accustomed to 12. Goodhue was ordinary and just seems to be struggling to keep up almost, but again I guess he's trying to get used to centre.
-
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Goodhue was ordinary and just seems to be struggling to keep up almost, but again I guess he's trying to get used to centre.
He and ALB have been very slow to get going this year, but they're both much better players than that.
-
@tim said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Goodhue was ordinary and just seems to be struggling to keep up almost, but again I guess he's trying to get used to centre.
He and ALB have been very slow to get going this year, but they're both much better players than that.
Yeah hopefully they get consistent time in one position. Although if Tupaea is at 12 and continues like yesterday I wouldn't hold out much hope for ALB.
-
