Reds v Chiefs
-
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
-
@barbarian said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
I think that the fans were. I want an even contest, yes it got close, but the damage was done with the cards when I switched it off and it was a foregone conclusion.
No argument that 20 mins is better.
-
@barbarian said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
This.
Whether you agree with the card decision or not, they could have stayed in the fight if they had sacked up and tried to survive for the 20 minutes. Instead they played like pea-hearted retards until Messam came on and showed a bit of leadership.
Weber in particular clearly has little standing as a leader and shouldn’t be captain.
-
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@barbarian said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
I think that the fans were. I want an even contest, yes it got close, but the damage was done with the cards when I switched it off and it was a foregone conclusion.
We also have to separate the cards. The first YC was a fair call every day of the week IMO.
So if the Chiefs just had 14, then I think the contest would have been a little different.
That and if the Chiefs hadn't decided to lay down for that 20 minutes, as gt12 points out.
-
@barbarian said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@barbarian said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
I think that the fans were. I want an even contest, yes it got close, but the damage was done with the cards when I switched it off and it was a foregone conclusion.
We also have to separate the cards. The first YC was a fair call every day of the week IMO.
So if the Chiefs just had 14, then I think the contest would have been a little different.
That and if the Chiefs hadn't decided to lay down for that 20 minutes, as gt12 points out.
No doubt they laid down Sally.
The point was is if cards are the best way to regulate play, when people pay to see an uneven contest. It is not specific to this game or those cards. It just happens to have come up in this match. Well again actually.
-
@gt12 said in Reds v Chiefs:
So, I think I might even be looking forward to having Gatland back; at least he wouldn't /shouldn't be as dumb as those retards for rolling out that team against the current SRA champions - who were also coming to the game with something to prove.
That may be going a bit far... I'll take Clayton's Chiefs over Gatland's any day. Last year a loss would have been fortold at the start of the week.
-
@donsteppa said in Reds v Chiefs:
@gt12 said in Reds v Chiefs:
So, I think I might even be looking forward to having Gatland back; at least he wouldn't /shouldn't be as dumb as those retards for rolling out that team against the current SRA champions - who were also coming to the game with something to prove.
That may be going a bit far... I'll take Clayton's Chiefs over Gatland's any day. Last year a loss would have been fortold at the start of the week.
I said ‘I might’
What I am sure if is that McMillan was too smart for his own boots.
The love affair with Tiatia should go in the bin too - that guy off the bench perhaps but as a starting wing was stupidity.
-
@act-crusader said in Reds v Chiefs:
@yeetyaah said in Reds v Chiefs:
Hope he never does that type of shit in the Black Jersey. That would be unforgiveable.
You mean like how SBW did it and still kept the starting jersey?
Another Chiefs player…
Was a Blues player by then
-
This one? Was 2018-19 alt kit.
-
@gt12 said in Reds v Chiefs:
The love affair with Tiatia should go in the bin too - that guy off the bench perhaps but as a starting wing was stupidity.
ENS gone to sevens, and with Lowe and Wainui on the injured list means it wasn't the worst thought out selection in the world either. The depth will really be tested this week if DMac goes badly with the judiciary...
-
@donsteppa said in Reds v Chiefs:
@gt12 said in Reds v Chiefs:
The love affair with Tiatia should go in the bin too - that guy off the bench perhaps but as a starting wing was stupidity.
ENS gone to sevens, and with Lowe and Wainui on the injured list means it wasn't the worst thought out selection in the world either. The depth will really be tested this week if DMac goes badly with the judiciary...
I disagree - him on the bench and Stevenson on the wing with his long kicking game would be much better. They are both rocks/diamonds but one of them is an established wing at this level.
-
@yeetyaah said in Reds v Chiefs:
This one? Was 2018-19 alt kit.
That one was okay. I liked the earlier one in 2015 I think
-
Just a thought on the Chiefs.
Their last five games:
Away Auckland
Away Chch
Away Perth
Home
Away TownsvillePretty rough travel schedule.
No excuse for the poor selections though.
And further, at the risk of ridicule, I still think the red was harsh.
It was understandable in terms of the protocol, but I still have reservations. To my mind he wasn't attempting a tackle, he ran into the line that the halfback was running, and there was resultant contact, made to look worse by slomo.
Fire away.
-
@booboo said in Reds v Chiefs:
Just a thought on the Chiefs.
Their last five games:
Away Auckland
Away Chch
Away Perth
Home
Away TownsvillePretty rough travel schedule.
No excuse for the poor selections though.
And further, at the risk of ridicule, I still think the red was harsh.
It was understandable in terms of the protocol, but I still have reservations. To my mind he wasn't attempting a tackle, he ran into the line that the halfback was running, and there was resultant contact, made to look worse by slomo.
Fire away.
Not just the travel, they’ve played a good number of consecutive games too, so I think in any event they were going to (rightly or wrongly) rotate a few players.
-
@booboo said in Reds v Chiefs:
And further, at the risk of ridicule, I still think the red was harsh.
It was understandable in terms of the protocol, but I still have reservations. To my mind he wasn't attempting a tackle, he ran into the line that the halfback was running, and there was resultant contact, made to look worse by slomo.
Fire away.
Okay, I'll bite. The red was fully deserved and very similar to that of Alex Hodgman, who got a 3-week suspension. If it was just an unfortunate collision while running into the same line as the Reds' halfback, he wouldn't have jumped and directed his left shoulder towards the halfback's upper body (I assume he intended to hit him in the chest or shoulder). If he was just running, he would have kept both his feet on the ground and ran straight. He would probably have braced for impact with his right arm; instead, he used his left shoulder.
I haven't read the entire thread, but I just would like to add that Weber deserves a Razzie for the worst actor. Faking to be shocked by the decision.
-
@gt12 said in Reds v Chiefs:
@act-crusader said in Reds v Chiefs:
@yeetyaah said in Reds v Chiefs:
Hope he never does that type of shit in the Black Jersey. That would be unforgiveable.
You mean like how SBW did it and still kept the starting jersey?
Another Chiefs player…
Learned everything about rugby from that Crusaders culture.
Chiefs players don't learn anything about rugby from being in the Chiefs? Ok, noted.
-
@nostrildamus said in Reds v Chiefs:
@gt12 said in Reds v Chiefs:
@act-crusader said in Reds v Chiefs:
@yeetyaah said in Reds v Chiefs:
Hope he never does that type of shit in the Black Jersey. That would be unforgiveable.
You mean like how SBW did it and still kept the starting jersey?
Another Chiefs player…
Learned everything about rugby from that Crusaders culture.
Chiefs players don't learn anything about rugby from being in the Chiefs? Ok, noted.
You clearly missed the game last night if you need to ask that question.
-
@booboo said in Reds v Chiefs:
@mikethesnow said in Reds v Chiefs:
@gunner said in Reds v Chiefs:
@nzzp said in Reds v Chiefs:
@gunner said in Reds v Chiefs:
I hate those penalties/yellow cards.
Was hardly a ‘deliberate knock on’, it was more a I’ll have a crack at that, coz it could come off…
It's annoying, but it's the way it's been refereed for ages. The players should know better
Yep I know… doesn’t mean I have to agree 😉
Happens anywhere else on the field except the 22 it’s a knock on.
Just annoys me, there’s a deliberate knock on, then there’s taking a chance. Big difference IMO.Deliberate attempt at stopping a certain try
Yellow and Penalty Try every day of the week
Not in itself yellow cardable or penalusable . It was doing so illegally that made it.
That’s my point
He purposefully tried to intercept the pass.
Unfortunately he was unsuccessful, and his error in judgement and execution in an area of the field where officials are looking to ‘doubly’ penalise the transgressor to ‘reward’ the attacking team, left the officials no choice but to card him and award the penalty try.
He knew what he was going.
It was a hero / zero decision.
Sometimes they come off, and I would suspect statistically most times they don’t.
-
Further to this, the attempted intercept in this area of the field is a coaching decision and part of team culture in my opinion.
Defender plays the man, but ball carrier gets the pass away and receiver scores it’s 5 points to the attacking team with a difficult touch line conversion to make it 7.
Defending team still have 15 players on the field.
The alternative.
Coaches blessing to go for the intercept.
An unsuccessful attempt results in penalty try and guaranteed 7 points, along with the defender being yellow carded and team down a man.
Most good teams will score between 7-10 points against a team with a man in the bin whilst conceding 0-3 points.
To me the risk / reward ratio does not warrant the attempted intercept in this type of scenario.
If the Chiefs had a culture of ‘let them have it, we’ll get that back with 15 on the park’ the outcome of this match could have been very different.
