Crusaders v Stormers
-
@taniwharugby said in Crusaders v Stormers:
interesting that a deliberate knock back is seen different to a failed intercept knock forward, in that case was no way he was going to get the ball and was only slapping back to stop the pass.
Why is it interesting? Knocking the ball backwards is perfectly legal.
-
@damo I realize it is legal, just stating how I saw that play, the action was deliberate knock, we see some genuine intercepts penalized yet he was never going to get the ball, just slapped at it, IMO is just as bad as the other way.
-
@taniwharugby said in Crusaders v Stormers:
@damo the action was deliberate knock, we see some genuine intercepts penalized yet he was never going to get the ball, IMO is just as bad as the other way.
Yes but it was a deliberate knock backwards, which is totally fine and within both the laws and spirit of the game. Playing the ball backwards is an integral part of rugby.
Might seem wrong, but it shouldn't.
-
-
@damo said in Crusaders v Stormers:
Saders were a big lucky to get the bonus point. They really let that game slip in the second half.
Scrum was a worry as was their ability to turn the ball over under these new laws.
Not surprised the second half didn't go that well; Ryan Crotty (calf muscle), Jordan Taufua (head/face) and Pete Samu (shoulder) were all subbed during the break due to injury. They had to shift Tamanivalu to centre, Barrett to 6 and introduce Mataele, Bedwell-Curtiss and Romano early.
Because of the Crusaders' depth, it's easy to forget how many first choice players they were already missing, but it's bound to affect their play. Moody, Franks, Todd, Read, in particular, were sorely missed.
I also think it was a great effort to stop the Stormers from scoring at the end of the game; they played the last 5 minutes with 14 players after Mo'unga went off, because they'd ran out of subs. And then in the final minute, Harmon got a yellow.
-
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Stormers:
Because of the Crusaders' depth, it's easy to forget how many first choice players they were already missing, but it's bound to affect their play. Moody, Franks, Todd, Read, in particular, were sorely missed.
We must have been fielding a front row of King, Makalio and Jager towards the end. Stood up better than I expected.
Mid-April and the return of Moody, Franks and Read is a long way off - we'll be drilling into the bottom of the barrell if we lose any more props. Hopefully Tim Perry isn't far away.
Aren't the All Blacks in the squad supposed to be playing capped minutes in the first three rounds? Sam Whitelock must be pushing his quota!
-
@chris-b said in Crusaders v Stormers:
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Stormers:
Aren't the All Blacks in the squad supposed to be playing capped minutes in the first three rounds? Sam Whitelock must be pushing his quota!
I don't think so. As I understand it, they just have to sit out two games and the SR coaches decide when that happens.
-
@chris-b said in Crusaders v Stormers:
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Stormers:
Because of the Crusaders' depth, it's easy to forget how many first choice players they were already missing, but it's bound to affect their play. Moody, Franks, Todd, Read, in particular, were sorely missed.
We must have been fielding a front row of King, Makalio and Jager towards the end. Stood up better than I expected.
Mid-April and the return of Moody, Franks and Read is a long way off - we'll be drilling into the bottom of the barrell if we lose any more props. Hopefully Tim Perry isn't far away.
Aren't the All Blacks in the squad supposed to be playing capped minutes in the first three rounds? Sam Whitelock must be pushing his quota!
Makalia had a great Mitre 10 Cup. He is a powerhouse in the loose. I don't know much about his scrummaging but his LO throwing is one thing to get fixed.
-
-
-
Watching the highlights now, and Mo’unga looks every it the 22 we’ve been looking for. Funnily enough, he might have shown enough that if he can get back in time, he’s probably shown enough.
Goodbye also looks like the 13 we’ve been looking for. I notice that Laumape was awesome for the Canes too...
-
@taniwharugby said in Crusaders v Stormers:
interesting that a deliberate knock back is seen different to a failed intercept knock forward, in that case was no way he was going to get the ball and was only slapping back to stop the pass.
I need to jump in here TR. This is a bugbear of mine.
It IS different as you're allowed to propel the ball backward at any time. It is not only legal it is encouraged.
You're actually allowed to propel ie., knock, the ball DOWN.
You are NOT allowed to propel the ball forward.
If you do so by accident it's a scrum. If you do so deliberately it's a penalty.
There's been a bit of someone saying something so often it becomes truth. Commentators go on about "deliberate knock downs" being penalty offenses. They're not. Deliberate knocks forward are.
-
@damo said in Crusaders v Stormers:
@taniwharugby said in Crusaders v Stormers:
@damo the action was deliberate knock, we see some genuine intercepts penalized yet he was never going to get the ball, IMO is just as bad as the other way.
Yes but it was a deliberate knock backwards, which is totally fine and within both the laws and spirit of the game. Playing the ball backwards is an integral part of rugby.
Might seem wrong, but it shouldn't.
Can I like this twice. Well at least the first paragraph. It seems and is 100% right to me.
-
@taniwharugby @Damo I blame Marshall
