How annoyed must the Canes be about having to set a scrum with 2 mins left?
Had the ball and momentum. Injury stoppage meant time ticked along as scrum was set and reset, and then got hit with a penalty. Don’t begrudge stopping as that Force player looked stuffed. A real sliding doors moment for the game and season.
The SANZAAR Foul Play Review Committee has examined a matter relating to Paddy Ryan of the Waratahs for contravening Law 9.13 - A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously, after he was Red Carded during a Super Rugby Pacific Match at the Weekend.
Ryan has been issued with a Warning for his actions. A Warning may be issued by the SANZAAR Foul Play Review Committee for foul play incidents that are very close to, but in their opinion do not meet the Red Card threshold.
The incident occurred in the 76th minute of the match between the Waratahs and Hurricanes played at Leichhardt Oval in Sydney on Saturday 14 May 2022.
The SANZAAR Foul Play Review Committee of Michael Heron QC (Chair), Stefan Terblanche and John Langford assessed the case.
In his finding, Foul Play Review Committee Chair Michael Heron QC ruled the following:
"Having conducted a detailed review of all the available evidence, including all camera angles and additional evidence, including from the player and submissions from his legal representative, Aaron Lloyd, the Foul Play Review Committee found the foul play did not breach the red card threshold."
"With respect to sanction the Foul Play Review Committee deemed the act of foul play merited a Warning as it was close to, but did not breach the red card threshold. The Foul Play Review Committee deemed that the significant mitigating factors, including the ball carrier significantly dropping in height, rotation, and additional players being involved within the tackle, mitigated the sanction to a Warning."
Canes made some pretty poor handling errors... but disappointing to lose to a dour Brumbies team that lack imagination.
It's a clear contrast in styles and speaks to where rugby is at: Brumbies don't "play" rugby; they play for territory and set piece (read lineout) opportunities. Canes are the opposite but don't have the cattle to secure possession; average backrow and poor skills means they give up the ball.
Brumbies carry the ball less than almost any other team in the comp and when they do they hardly offload. It's about minimising errors. Boring to watch but effective.
I'm looking forward to watching them play the Blues because the Blues have a vastly better backrow and are playing a more rounded style of game.
You don't have to play boring safe rugby to win, reckon the best way to win matches is a balance of good forward play & attack with your backs when it's on, you're giving yourself a lot more attacking options, that's the main reason why the Crusaders have won so many Super titles over the years.
Nothing wrong with Canes backrow, they clearly have the skill sets... in general we just didn't play that well overall.
Brumbies use to be really robotic when George Gregan was their halfback... as we know he use to basically execute very short inside passes all day long to either a forward or back running up the middle, use to be utterly boring crap.
Was bloody annoying that the ref pinged us heaps in in the first 15-20 minutes on 50/50 calls, so was hardly surprising the Reds went out to a pretty big lead in that period... at least after that the ref started to ping both sides.
Yeah it was a dodgy first 15 by the refs, I mean how the hell did they miss that crooked throw by the Reds? One of the worst misses I’ve ever seen. What made it worse was that the Reds gained a penalty a few phases later which got them on the front foot.
That's for sure, in the first quarter the ref let the Reds get away with a lot of stuff - gave them a huge advantage starving us of ball... from a penalty they could either have a crack at a 3pointer, or kick the ball out 40-50 metres downfield & then have the throw in to the lineout as well.
Canes desperately needed those 5 points to stay in the mix, other than that we didn't get that much benefit out of the match... MPs lack of depth is really hurting them, they were very poor at the breakdown & awful at defending the rolling maul, at times they were ok at scrummaging.
When Canes get back to playing one match a week we should be looking to field our best team each week, play all our best combinations together, which will give us far better flow in our game, making the Canes much more of a threat.
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
Yes. Going to golden point also has more chance of losing than winning.
There's only two teams competing in golden point...
Yes, but the Crusaders are a far better team, thus giving them a greater than 50% chance of winning in golden point. I don't believe you think the Hurricanes are as good as the Crusaders, or would be as likely to win from that point.
Even if you think golden point is a 50/50, Jordie still has to kick the goal to take us there. Unless you give him a 100% chance of doing so, there was a sub 50% the Hurricanes won from that position.
I understand now. You weren't going to win so why delay the inevitable, get it over in normal time!
That’s exactly what I’m reading too.
We’ll only get one chance as we aren’t good enough. Fair enough.
What I find hilarious is that the Canes were 6/10 against the Saders for line outs won.
But the kick is the risky option.
Our lineout is much better than that normally though.
Ahhh that poor display must have contributed to J. Blackwell's dropping from the side that fronted against Moana Pasifika.
Just watched first half. Canes right on top. Crazy score at 16-12. Chch didn't do much right, one try ought to have been ruled out for forward pass, lucky only to have one in bin. Canes should have had at least 6 more on board. Canes 16 - Chch 5 would have been fairer reflection. Amazing!
So we came from 16-5 down to win? Makes the win that little bit more sweeter. Onwards and upwards. Get on the bandwagon, Tony Johnson certainly has 😉
Second half 26-20 to Chch. Hard to argue with too much with it. That said, had Ardie's try stood (thought the decision of no try was correct) doubt Canes would have leaked those quick tries.
Had Canes taken their chances they would have won, but that's rugby.
@siam I saw that live too but it wasn’t that bad after seeing it on the replay.
Yeah I don't think any of it was bad either but they seem to apply the letter of the law very arbitrarily. This time "beyond horizontal" made way for "retaliation".
I've given up making sense of what they're trying to officiate
@cgrant Higgins had more knock-ons, missed tackles and other handling errors, but in the highlights alone he misses the tackle that leads to the second Chiefs' try, butchers a try scoring opportunity by dotting down too early (short) and is offside for the failed intercept attempt (giving away 3 points). He didn't have a great first half (even the commentators mention it several times), but his second half was better. His second try was the result of some good quick thinking; his first was created by Godfrey and he basically only had to dot it down. No doubt he has talent and definitely a good work rate, but the second half highlights are flattering him and he definitely wasn't the best back on the field. That was Godfrey by a country mile, but unfortunately, you can't see that in the highlights.
@mikey07 You may be rights about that 5-year-contract haha.
@mikey07 I have learned something new today, Jensen is a recognised Maori name! Looks like he might be eligible for one of the Scandinavian teams as well.
I'm sure @nepia will agree that the names Gemmell, Wakefield and Blake over our way are also recognised Maori names too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DMac needs to be given more time at 10, and maybe given another try at 10 for the ABs.
Fuck right off.
He did well at 10 against France in his first start there. One of the best games I've seen from an AB 10 over the last 4 or 5 years
Is that a joke? The France game where they had one foot on the plane already?
Jesus christ one good half against a shit Canes team and people are calling for him to be five-eighth for the All Blacks.
It's not like every player looked amazing against that French team. He stood out more than most.
And I've been calling for it for awhile (perhaps s not on this forum). Based on much more than one game.
I'll change my position when he continuously displays a calm demeanour on the field instead of his usual headless chicken act. Yes he played well today in the second half. It was against the Canes. A little perspective.
Mo'unga handily contributed to us losing against the Poms with his pathetic defense leading to the first try. Beauden has had a million chances but struggles in tight games where he just shovels it sideways. Both are good in space though.
McKenzie may be no better, but it's not like either Mo'unga or Barrett are brilliant options. Both have their limitations.
Oh, and McKenzie is a better goalkicker than both of them.
Not sure McKenzies has any better front on defence at First Five he was average a few times in the Canes match so not sure what you are gaining there nothing I reckon.
The chiefs coaches must have thought the same they shuffled him to the wing a fair bit in defence so the big boys couldn't run at him down that channel.
I think DMac is probably more willing to throw himself in front of the big boys and he usually slows them down, but that's just an impression I get.
I thought Mounga was strong defensively against the Blues he pulled off some crucial tackles against the Blues big boys as well.
@duluth How is there an argument on this? The ref under that post is surely the only one who can see if has gome between the uprights! FFS I a Canes man but can't believe anyone seeing it on tv or somewhere in ground thinks they got better angle. There are getting to be some serious whingers in our our game!