Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team
We are probably the second best team in the competition this season. Hard to argue who else is better than us.
I didn't think we would get past the Chiefs last week. Just a step too far
-
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.
Though Codie came up first, the reason he popped up was because the canes players were back pedalling and bailed out, forcing the scrum up rather than backwards.
Looked a reasonable call to me.
So what were they penalised for exactly? From the rules book.
They didn't collapse. They weren't popped. To me it didn't look like their Loose forwards released early...So what?
I'm not arguing it wasn't the right decision but why? What was the exact infringement ruled?
Not maintaining a bind is the technical offence.
Colloquially it is standing up under pressure, causing the scrum to disintegrate.
-
@no-quarter said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Feel like this is going to get very ugly.
Being on the ginger and Ihaia West, it'll get ugly
-
@canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team
We are probably the second best team in the competition this season. Hard to argue who else is better than us.
I didn't think we would get past the Chiefs last week. Just a step too far
I thought we would be too much for them at home. We did beat them in the two that mattered, although we were helped by being at home.
-
@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.
Though Codie came up first, the reason he popped up was because the canes players were back pedalling and bailed out, forcing the scrum up rather than backwards.
Looked a reasonable call to me.
So what were they penalised for exactly? From the rules book.
They didn't collapse. They weren't popped. To me it didn't look like their Loose forwards released early...So what?
I'm not arguing it wasn't the right decision but why? What was the exact infringement ruled?
Not maintaining a bind is the technical offence.
Colloquially it is standing up under pressure, causing the scrum to disintegrate.
Yeah, so the Crusader who stood up should be penalised. Not the canes.
Going backwards while maintaining a bind is not penalisable.
-
Taufua hasn’t been the same since the International break.
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team
We are probably the second best team in the competition this season. Hard to argue who else is better than us.
I didn't think we would get past the Chiefs last week. Just a step too far
I thought we would be too much for them at home. We did beat them in the two that mattered, although we were helped by being at home.
We were so poor over the last month of the regular season, the bar was pretty low
-
@act-crusader said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@dingo I look forward to the still shots and arrows pointing to who stands up first.
No need. As far as I can tell no one has argued it wasn't Codie. The only argument appears to be that because the Crusaders was scrum was dominant (again unargued) therefore because of the zen of the thing, the penalty against the canes was/wasn't due to an obvious rule infringement.
-
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@act-crusader said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@dingo I look forward to the still shots and arrows pointing to who stands up first.
No need. As far as I can tell no one has argued it wasn't Codie. The only argument appears to be that because the Crusaders was scrum was dominant (again unargued) therefore because of the zen of the thing, the penalty against the canes was/wasn't due to an obvious rule infringement.
I don't agree with that analysis. Looked to me like Taylor popped up because the canes hooker or TH stood up rather than going backwards. It doesn't matter that codie was the first to pop up if the reason he popped was due to the canes not maintaining a bind.
-
@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@act-crusader said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@dingo I look forward to the still shots and arrows pointing to who stands up first.
No need. As far as I can tell no one has argued it wasn't Codie. The only argument appears to be that because the Crusaders was scrum was dominant (again unargued) therefore because of the zen of the thing, the penalty against the canes was/wasn't due to an obvious rule infringement.
I don't agree with that analysis. Looked to me like Taylor popped up because the canes hooker or TH stood up rather than going backwards. It doesn't matter that codie was the first to pop up if the reason he popped was due to the canes not maintaining a bind.
I think we are in agree to disagree territory. You see what you see. I see otherwise. To be fair, you have a Ref who agreed with you at the time.
-
Canes monstered.
Average match though. Watched it on 6x catch up and it still wasn't up to much.
-
