Final: Chiefs v Crusaders
-
-
@ACT-Crusader was up a level in intensity that game, more akin to a test that he likely hasnt experienced, let alone for 65 mins, reckon he'd be a good un for the final quarter in black.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
I thought he had a very good game but that last 5-7 minutes before being subbed he looked to be really sucking in the big ones and laboured a little.
Understandable that he flagged in the last few minutes given he played 70 minutes at 144kg and at that pace/intensity.
-
@taniwharugby definitely. A good test for the young fella. I’m quietly excited about what he might bring to the test arena.
-
@pakman said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Trying to be balanced here. By any fair minded measure if Saders awarded the last try in first half the Narawa try from lineout ought to have stood.
Does anyone here seriously want to argue that the Saders would have come back from 15-27 down?
The jesters are welcome to wear their phony crowns, but I celebrate the Chiefs as the best Super Pacific team of 2023.
BTW I’m a Blues fan.
-
@KiwiMurph should have been off for the rest of the game
-
@MajorRage said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Can’t believe I’m going to post this butttt ….
Absolutely butt fucked by the referee.
Gold watch for BOK.
Not just BOK. Where were TMO/touchies when there was massive forward pass in first half?
Scooter’s opening remarks were class and told the story.
-
@Frank said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@pakman said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
The jesters are welcome to wear their phony crowns
The bitterness is strong in this one.
Show me a good loser and I’ll show you a loser.
-
@barky1 said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@KiwiMurph should have been off for the rest of the game
Yeah sorry I meant 20 minute red card. Poihipi would have come on.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@barky1 said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@KiwiMurph should have been off for the rest of the game
Yeah sorry I meant 20 minute red card. Poihipi would have come on.
Not much lost there.
-
@pakman said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Saders stole it, and their name is on the trophy but obvious they know that this was one they didn’t merit.
This sort of line always cracks me up because it doesn’t match the reality of what went on out on the field tonight or what sport is all about - a contest. Tonight was a genuine contest. And even for those that thought the ref “had a shocker”, the contest was there and both teams made errors and both teams made plays to get them scoring opportunities. That doesn’t mean one team deserved it or didn’t, it just means there was a result and that’s sport. Said the same thing the night we lost to the Tahs after a call that the Saffa ref admitted after was wrong. It’s sport.
As an aside I thought BOK was giving the Chiefs a hell of a lot of leeway at the breakdown in the first 15 minutes of the 2nd half.
-
@Tim said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
We will keep deleting the insult posts, but I'd rather read about the situation in Russia.
Can you guys knock it off or take it to a PM?
Don't PM me with insults though please.
I don't care enough to trade insults with someone over a rugby game.
-
There were two "shockers" by the ref tonight. ALB should have gotten a red, which would have had a major impact on the game, and a missed forward pass several phases before a try was scored, which would have had a marginal impact on the match at the time.
All of the rest were pretty normal ruby calls, nothing to call the WAHHHHHHHHAMBULANCE about.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@pakman said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Saders stole it, and their name is on the trophy but obvious they know that this was one they didn’t merit.
This sort of line always cracks me up because it doesn’t match the reality of what went on out on the field tonight or what sport is all about - a contest. Tonight was a genuine contest. And even for those that thought the ref “had a shocker”, the contest was there and both teams made errors and both teams made plays to get them scoring opportunities. That doesn’t mean one team deserved it or didn’t, it just means there was a result and that’s sport. Said the same thing the night we lost to the Tahs after a call that the Saffa ref admitted after was wrong. It’s sport.
As an aside I thought BOK was giving the Chiefs a hell of a lot of leeway at the breakdown in the first 15 minutes of the 2nd half.
So do you think the Saders would have come back from 27-15? They looked almost done to me.
-
@Canerbry said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
There were two "shockers" by the ref tonight. ALB should have gotten a red, which would have had a major impact on the game, and a missed forward pass several phases before a try was scored, which would have had a marginal impact on the match at the time.
All of the rest were pretty normal ruby calls, nothing to call the WAHHHHHHHHAMBULANCE about.
Unless I am mistaken the forward pass was in a different passage of play to the try. The Chiefs had the ball back in between the forward pass and the try.
-
@Damo said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Canerbry said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
There were two "shockers" by the ref tonight. ALB should have gotten a red, which would have had a major impact on the game, and a missed forward pass several phases before a try was scored, which would have had a marginal impact on the match at the time.
All of the rest were pretty normal ruby calls, nothing to call the WAHHHHHHHHAMBULANCE about.
Unless I am mistaken the forward pass was in a different passage of play to the try. The Chiefs had the ball back in between the forward pass and the try.
If Chiefs have scrum on halfway at 36 Saders don’t score try.
Then at 56 it’s 20-8 to Chiefs.
So not much turned on it.
