Crusaders v Highlanders
-
@bones said in Crusaders v Highlanders:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Highlanders:
No one told Conrad Smith it wasn’t his job to organize defence.
Not sure anyone told him it was either...
Initiative? Either way he was pretty good at it.
-
I'm really keen to know what the constant bass pumping at the ground does for the atmosphere? It's annoying on TV, so imagine it wouldn't be great live.
Also, did anyone notice Reece exaggerating getting cleaned out so that he landed on his head/neck? He's a good player, but he makes it hard to like him
-
@crucial said in Crusaders v Highlanders:
@chris said in Crusaders v Highlanders:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Highlanders:
Part of the 13s job is to organise the defence. Especially the midfield defence.
12s job I played 12 always 12s job as he can defend inside or out.
13 is too far out to defend the inside Channels.Different styles I guess.
10 And 12 connected. 13/15 and wing connected. 12 and 13 work together.Gee. No one told Conrad Smith it wasn’t his job to organize defence.
I don’t know the Crusaders system but something isn’t working right in that area when the same thing happens two weeks in a row.
Depends how they set their defensive patterns now .
First fives don’t defend in the inside channels much these days,
LF comes into first five to defend the big munters running the inside channels close to their line.Mounga normal goes to the blindside wing same as the Blues do with BB a lot. -
@crucial said in Crusaders v Highlanders:
@bones said in Crusaders v Highlanders:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Highlanders:
No one told Conrad Smith it wasn’t his job to organize defence.
Not sure anyone told him it was either...
Initiative? Either way he was pretty good at it.
Pretty good at organising the outside and spotting when he needed to stick - fella inside him was also pretty good at it eh
-
Only got to watch the last 20 minutes... in that time the Highlanders had most of the possession/territory, but lacked the execution & patience to win the match.
From the first video replay it was clearly obvious it was a red card... for the officials to check the replay 3 or 4 times to finally work out it was a red was a joke.
-
@nzbloke sure it should have been obvious, but I'd much rather they took thier time and got it right (as they did)
Hopefully with more rugby and disruptions minimal things can start getting.back to normal, I expect this will help the quality of rugby and reffing.
-
@nzbloke said in Crusaders v Highlanders:
Only got to watch the last 20 minutes... in that time the Highlanders had most of the possession/territory, but lacked the execution & patience to win the match.
From the first video replay it was clearly obvious it was a red card... for the officials to check the replay 3 or 4 times to finally work out it was a red was a joke.
On one hand we don't like Red Cards but on the other we want them dished out at a glance?
Besides, there is a process to check through for the sanction and you want a guy standing in the middle of the field looking at a big screen to see everything at once?
Needs to look at the arm, check the point of impact, look for dipping/change of direction.
Yes, last night's one did seem one replay too many but he did say he needed the clear shot of point of impact.
-
-
@nepia would you prefer they ruled a red straight away, then slo-mos during the week on here with arrows 'n shit or social showing no actual contact to the head?
For a change I agree with @Crucial in that they have a process to follow, sure on the surface it is clear cut and the end result proves it was as well, but I'd rather a few extra viewings to make sure it was a correct red card than not, and then we have a week or more of bitching about red cards ruining games, or if they dont follow due process, an incident that should be a red card, wasnt, then people bitch about that.
as @nzzp says, its consistency, but such are the rules of the game that consistency of interpretation is an issue.
-
@taniwharugby said in Crusaders v Highlanders:
@nepia would you prefer they ruled a red straight away, then slo-mos during the week on here with arrows 'n shit or social showing no actual contact to the head?
For a change I agree with @Crucial in that they have a process to follow, sure on the surface it is clear cut and the end result proves it was as well, but I'd rather a few extra viewings to make sure it was a correct red card than not, and then we have a week or more of bitching about red cards ruining games, or if they dont follow due process, an incident that should be a red card, wasnt, then people bitch about that.
as @nzzp says, its consistency, but such are the rules of the game that consistency of interpretation is an issue.
It was at least 4 or 5 looks at that stage and everyone could see the contact to the head. Obviously, I'd rather they get it right but that was a clusterfuck from the moment the ref said play on to the only ruling it was a shot to the head in that final slo-mo.
-
-
@nzzp said in Crusaders v Highlanders:
@nepia sorry, I didn't express myself well.
I don't want as many cards, but if the thresholds are set,I want consistent application.
I can't comment on the red last night, haven't seen it yet as enjoying a weekend at the beach
I didn't have an issue with your comment - I think the quoting may have got muddled. Enjoy the beach, winter has come to Sydney so no beach for me.
-
Find it to depressing to go on about the things we got wrong so will try and point out some positives
I thought withy played well, starting in a struggling team v the crusaders, nice to see a local kid come through
And Denny looked real lively, can see him being a real option for the rest of the season, could do some damage against some of the Aussie teams if we get to play them
-
@kiwiwomble Dawai had his best game so far too. Showing improvement with every game.
-
@nepia said in Crusaders v Highlanders:
@taniwharugby said in Crusaders v Highlanders:
@nepia would you prefer they ruled a red straight away, then slo-mos during the week on here with arrows 'n shit or social showing no actual contact to the head?
For a change I agree with @Crucial in that they have a process to follow, sure on the surface it is clear cut and the end result proves it was as well, but I'd rather a few extra viewings to make sure it was a correct red card than not, and then we have a week or more of bitching about red cards ruining games, or if they dont follow due process, an incident that should be a red card, wasnt, then people bitch about that.
as @nzzp says, its consistency, but such are the rules of the game that consistency of interpretation is an issue.
It was at least 4 or 5 looks at that stage and everyone could see the contact to the head. Obviously, I'd rather they get it right but that was a clusterfuck from the moment the ref said play on to the only ruling it was a shot to the head in that final slo-mo.
Trouble is that the refs say-so isn't the final one.
All Reds go to the judiciary and as we saw last week with Banks, what looked like direct connection to the head was ruled (after presumably a QC found someone's high speed, high definition enhanced alternate angle that he touched a shoulder on the way to impact a millisecond later.
The refs must feel pressure to get it right not just for during the game but after. -
@taniwharugby said in Crusaders v Highlanders:
@nzbloke sure it should have been obvious, but I'd much rather they took thier time and got it right (as they did)
It all depends on the situation & clear views or not how many times a replay needs to be checked... last night though only one replay was needed to be shown to see it was a red card.
-
@nzbloke said in Crusaders v Highlanders:
@taniwharugby said in Crusaders v Highlanders:
@nzbloke sure it should have been obvious, but I'd much rather they took thier time and got it right (as they did)
It all depends on the situation how many times a replay needs to be checked... last night though only one replay needed to be shown to see it was a red card.
So you can assess the whole head contact decision framework from one showing? Well done you.
Point of contact. Check.
Wrapping? Check
Change of line? Check.
Change of height tackler? Check
Change of height ball carrier? Check.
Head/Neck first point of contact? Check.Buggered if I would be able to cross all that off from one look at a two second clip while standing 60 metres away from a screen.
-
Some random thoughts from a Crusader point of view after finally watching this game
Zach Gallagher is a mean looking kid. Maybe it's his thick neck, he looks like a fighter to me.
Loose forward has become a strength after being a weakness the last few years. Grace, Blackadder and Christie are pretty bloody handy at this level.
I was disappointed to see Ennor go straight to centre and LF move to the wing. I think there is more potential the other way around.
It will be interesting to see how the backline looks once Goodhue is back and hopefully firing. I think (hope) Bridge will be left out.
-
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Highlanders:
Some random thoughts from a Crusader point of view after finally watching this game
Zach Gallagher is a mean looking kid. Maybe it's his thick neck, he looks like a fighter to me.
Loose forward has become a strength after being a weakness the last few years. Grace, Blackadder and Christie are pretty bloody handy at this level.
I was disappointed to see Ennor go straight to centre and LF move to the wing. I think there is more potential the other way around.
It will be interesting to see how the backline looks once Goodhue is back and hopefully firing. I think (hope) Bridge will be left out.
I rate Gallagher highly tough young bugger only 20.
Very physical player good size at 117kg and 197 c/m
He can also play 6.
