Highlanders v Crusaders
-
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
and until then I didn't realise how much bigger Holland was compared to Hannah.
And it was then I realized he will surely be a future AB great...................
Na mate, I thought that a couple of years back, but the size helps.
He isn't dominant at the lineout.
He isn't dominant in carries.
He's workmanlike around the field.
At this stage, I'd class him as a safe white boy with size who might kick on, nothing more.thats just a super weird take.....are you implying he's only got a gig because hes white or something? you haven't described any other physical trait so im assuming thats important in your critique?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
and until then I didn't realise how much bigger Holland was compared to Hannah.
And it was then I realized he will surely be a future AB great...................
Na mate, I thought that a couple of years back, but the size helps.
He isn't dominant at the lineout.
He isn't dominant in carries.
He's workmanlike around the field.
At this stage, I'd class him as a safe white boy with size who might kick on, nothing more.thats just a super weird take.....are you implying he's only got a gig because hes white or something? you haven't described any other physical trait so im assuming thats important in your critique?
The safe white boy term was something referring to former crappy Saders backlines. Old joke.
-
Just saw the final try by the Crusaders. Interesting as was talking about it in the previous game - if refs want to call 'tackle', the ball carrier should not be able to continue forward. Players get released and crib a few metres - or in the case below, score a try.
@Damo you reffed, thoughts on this? Looked very very weird to me; I think a comp-wide interpretation of either calling maul when the attacking player's mate joins, or cracking down hard on cribbing metres would be a good solution. Or do both!
-
I don't see anything controversial about it. He was tackled and he's permitted to play the ball. Not his fault he can fall over the line and score.
IMO the real issue is the length of time it takes for refs to call a maul.
-
@antipodean said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
He was tackled and he's permitted to play the ball.
Tackled yes - it's the instruction on the tacklers to release that enables players to drive forward. In the olden days, the tacklers would have gone to ground with him ... but the ref tells you not to now.
-
@nzzp said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
He was tackled and he's permitted to play the ball.
Tackled yes - it's the instruction on the tacklers to release that enables players to drive forward. In the olden days, the tacklers would have gone to ground with him ... but the ref tells you not to now.
That's because the player is tackled, so you have to release him. They should've made a dominant tackle and drove him backwards.
It would be better if they stopped being pedantic about that law and made the tackle an obvious issue of the player being on the ground.
As I said; it's the laissez faire adjudication of the maul that's the problem. As soon as there's two from the defending team it should be called immediately, then they'd have to do something positive and the defenders could legally defend a metre or two from their try line.
-
@African-Monkey said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Chris-B Heeeey you are still around 😉
Running an experiment to see how Rob would get on without the benefit of my helpful advice.
Not that well as it turns out!
-
@antipodean said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@nzzp said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
He was tackled and he's permitted to play the ball.
Tackled yes - it's the instruction on the tacklers to release that enables players to drive forward. In the olden days, the tacklers would have gone to ground with him ... but the ref tells you not to now.
That's because the player is tackled, so you have to release him. They should've made a dominant tackle and drove him backwards.
A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground, i.e. has one or both knees on the ground, is sitting on the ground or is on top of another player who is on the ground.
Refs have started interpreting this as 'a knee brushed the ground' - which is where the issue is. If you are actually on the ground, you can't drive forward ... but if you're still upright and a knee touches, then it is all on.
I agree with you on the 'maul' situation - but that only tackles (haha) half of the issue. Question: how do you stop someone who is still standing on the goal line and drops a knee to brush the ground. The tacklers have to release, you can't interfere with the ball (no ripping or grabbing) and you can't then stop them placing the ball over the line to score. Doesn't feel or look right to me.
-
Cautionary tale for defending teams to not try to create a maul ruling whilst giving up ground close to their line.
I think the refs should be clearer in their interpretation of what's allowed there (or may need to change what's allowed there), such as "let him go to ground" as opposed to just "release"
It's unsurprising to me that this happened with Angus reffing.
-
Finally getting around to adding some input to this game thread after being down in Dunedin and was fortunate enough to attend the game and I must say I am thrilled I did, what a game.
A few things I took away from the game, I’m sure the majority have already shared this/feel the same way.
-
Cam Millar - Last week against Moana he really put his name on the game and laid a great foundation, I wasn’t too sure if he could build from that but boy he went up a few levels on Saturday. Watching live in the stadium is a lot different to TV, he seemed calm and well in control throughout(obviously a lot of that game manager will come with experience) and he also had an outstanding kicking game. The 10 jersey is definitely his moving forward for the rest of the season without a doubt.
-
The whole forward pack absolutely bought it to the crusaders forwards, almost like a challenge accepted approach. Nothing flash, just hard carries, hit rucks and made tackles. It’s what the highlanders are known for and it’s what they are good at so it’s great to see a performance like that with the likes a Harmon and Renton not on the field. Holland and Dunshea were huge, Haig also very impressive.
-
I won’t shock anyone with this, but Fakatava has his moments of brilliance and then his a moment of something silly. I see the positive side to it all, he’s bringing the energy, giving it 110% and throwing his body around which in turns gives us a couple mistakes here and there. If he can work on minimizing those silly errors that are literally from forcing something he doesn’t need to then he’s a heck of a player. I’m sure he’s also putting that pressure on himself with following in the footsteps of Aaron Smith but he just needs to play his own game and he will be just fine.
All in all a hell of a performance, our best of the season by far. It’s interesting what a player or 2 in the forwards back from injury and dumbing down the game plan can do to a team. Highlanders are showing you just that.
Hopefully we can continue to build into an away game against the blues and put in another hell of a performance, who knows what could happen. Hopefully the injury concern over Tele’a isn’t too bad, he was brilliant while he was on.
Ps saw a weird comment about Holland earlier in the chat… I’d just like to say, put some glasses on. That young man is unreal and I’d go as far as saying I bet razor can’t wait to get him into the All Black environment when he’s available. To be 21 still as well… hell of a future ahead of him.
Apologies for the novel, just covering it all in one hit. Up the landers!
-
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Frank said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Dan54 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
and until then I didn't realise how much bigger Holland was compared to Hannah.
And it was then I realized he will surely be a future AB great...................
Na mate, I thought that a couple of years back, but the size helps.
He isn't dominant at the lineout.
He isn't dominant in carries.
He's workmanlike around the field.
At this stage, I'd class him as a safe white boy with size who might kick on, nothing more.thats just a super weird take.....are you implying he's only got a gig because hes white or something? you haven't described any other physical trait so im assuming thats important in your critique?
Also safe white boy generally applies to backs not locks - most of our best locks are "white boys".
Edit: I'm a bloody day behind this discussion.
-
@Landers92 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
Ps saw a weird comment about Holland earlier in the chat… I’d just like to say, put some glasses on. That young man is unreal and I’d go as far as saying I bet razor can’t wait to get him into the All Black environment when he’s available. To be 21 still as well… hell of a future ahead of him.
Razor has already mentioned that he is not eligible yet, which says he's keeping an eye on him
-
-
@Machpants said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Landers92 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
Ps saw a weird comment about Holland earlier in the chat… I’d just like to say, put some glasses on. That young man is unreal and I’d go as far as saying I bet razor can’t wait to get him into the All Black environment when he’s available. To be 21 still as well… hell of a future ahead of him.
Razor has already mentioned that he is not eligible yet, which says he's keeping an eye on him
Hence why I said I bet razor can’t wait to have him in when he’s eligible?
-
@Landers92 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Machpants said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@Landers92 said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
Ps saw a weird comment about Holland earlier in the chat… I’d just like to say, put some glasses on. That young man is unreal and I’d go as far as saying I bet razor can’t wait to get him into the All Black environment when he’s available. To be 21 still as well… hell of a future ahead of him.
Razor has already mentioned that he is not eligible yet, which says he's keeping an eye on him
Hence why I said I bet razor can’t wait to have him in when he’s eligible?
Yes I was agreeing with you, and providing fact
-
@KiwiMurph said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
Yeah I'm a fan of Holland - we aren't flush with hulking locks in NZ - he moves very well for his frame. Let him keep developing away until he's eligible.
Watching him the other day I couldn't help thinking the way he moved reminded me of somebody, but I couldn’t think who. Today Watching the Nuggets it hit me. He reminded me of Jokic. The way he always looks buggered but keeps on going. The awkwardness of being tall but somehow being efficient in his movements.
-
@nzzp said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
Just saw the final try by the Crusaders. Interesting as was talking about it in the previous game - if refs want to call 'tackle', the ball carrier should not be able to continue forward. Players get released and crib a few metres - or in the case below, score a try.
@Damo you reffed, thoughts on this? Looked very very weird to me; I think a comp-wide interpretation of either calling maul when the attacking player's mate joins, or cracking down hard on cribbing metres would be a good solution. Or do both!
I think it is an unusual situation. I did not think it was a mail, because there was not a player from the ball carriers team attached (from memory - I could be wrong). The tacklers ought to have released earlier, but when they got the call to release they did so. Should the ball carrier be able to use the momentum to then go over the line and score?
Personally I think not but per the laws it was probably correct.
I am of view that if a player is reaching out to score the defenders should not have to release to allow the try. As per the laws as written this is not the current position.
I add I have not reffed for 3 years so I am not up to date with the current interpretations/trends.
-
@Damo said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
@nzzp said in Highlanders v Crusaders:
Just saw the final try by the Crusaders. Interesting as was talking about it in the previous game - if refs want to call 'tackle', the ball carrier should not be able to continue forward. Players get released and crib a few metres - or in the case below, score a try.
@Damo you reffed, thoughts on this? Looked very very weird to me; I think a comp-wide interpretation of either calling maul when the attacking player's mate joins, or cracking down hard on cribbing metres would be a good solution. Or do both!
I think it is an unusual situation. I did not think it was a mail, because there was not a player from the ball carriers team attached (from memory - I could be wrong). The tacklers ought to have released earlier, but when they got the call to release they did so. Should the ball carrier be able to use the momentum to then go over the line and score?
Personally I think not but per the laws it was probably correct.
I am of view that if a player is reaching out to score the defenders should not have to release to allow the try. As per the laws as written this is not the current position.
I add I have not reffed for 3 years so I am not up to date with the current interpretations/trends.
I should have clicked the link..
I think the tackle was completed before the players joined so it couldn't be a maul.
I think it is an unusual situation but I can't fault the referee for the decision.
