Blues v Chiefs
-
A win but against any other NZ side that would have been a substantial loss. Mistakes across the park and poor decision making continue. I wouldn’t say that result marks a turning point just a confirmation of the major fault lines that run through the Blues.
-
@Tim said in Blues v Chiefs:
@Machpants Is that the first time they've used a short-lineout drive? Might be a good idea to reduce to more of a man-on-man contest, rather than one of organisation.
I don't know, TBH, but it seems the blues stuff up every time things start to go on a bit. Really if they don't score quickly they're more than likely to lose it. So that sort of move good for them!
-
@kev Have to agree. Don't get me wrong it's great to beat another NZ team but this Chiefs side is very weak on paper and we're still making plenty of mistakes on attack. Why the Chiefs opted for the scrum at 18-8 I'll never know as we don't know how to stop a driving maul to save our lives but that's their problem I guess.
The performance was a carbon copy of last week against the Canes I thought.
-
First off, it was nice to watch a Blues game with ten minutes to go and know the win was in the bag.
That scrum to earn the penalty, then play up the field for a maul(?!) bonus point try was very sweet.
The negatives were handling at key times, lack of patience in the 22 and Harry’s goal kicking.
Positives were Clarke is really hitting his straps, Forwards are great at keeping the ball and getting over the advantage line.
Still with all the pressure to get a result, history against them, it was great belief and composure to strangle the Chiefs.
Akira was great this week, constantly got over the advantage line, linked up really well and as normal was huge in defence. One messy scrum for him to improve on.
Ref was surprisingly good, no obvious howlers, and was very consistent. He was in good position for Ofas juggle and was happy with it. The Blues have had to eat so many of those type of decisions, I’ll take one in our favour for a change. Had no impact on the result thankfully.
Pretty poor of the interviewer after the game to ask Weber if he felt hard done by the ref, and even worse for him to reply no comment.
-
-
@Kirwan said in Blues v Chiefs:
Ref was surprisingly good, no obvious howlers, and was very consistent.
Except for awarding controversial tries.
Pretty poor of the interviewer after the game to ask Weber if he felt hard done by the ref, and even worse for him to reply no comment.
Considering the question was asked, that was the best possible answer Weber could give. If he hadn't felt hard done by, he could have said "no", but if he felt hard done by (and who can blame him?), there's no way he could have said so.
-
@Yeetyaah said in Blues v Chiefs:
Dang I don't wanna sound like a sore loser but bloody hell Jackson was awful. Chiefs didn't deserve the win and credit to the Blues, but the Sowakula and Cane try not being awarded were such bad calls.
I think Cane's try was correctly disallowed, but Sowakula's should have had the same result as Tu'ungafasi's.
-
@Stargazer said in Blues v Chiefs:
@Yeetyaah said in Blues v Chiefs:
Dang I don't wanna sound like a sore loser but bloody hell Jackson was awful. Chiefs didn't deserve the win and credit to the Blues, but the Sowakula and Cane try not being awarded were such bad calls.
I think Cane's try was correctly disallowed, but Sowakula's should have had the same result as Tu'ungafasi's.
Sowakula clearly knocked it on, easy no try. Ofa’s try should have been checked upstairs, wasn’t. As Kirwan said after the game, The Blues had one of those against us with Nonu last week.
I’m assuming you aren’t saying that because he made one mistake, that he should make two? Because that would be super dumb.
-
@Stargazer said in Blues v Chiefs:
@Kirwan said in Blues v Chiefs:
Ref was surprisingly good, no obvious howlers, and was very consistent.
Except for awarding controversial tries.
Pretty poor of the interviewer after the game to ask Weber if he felt hard done by the ref, and even worse for him to reply no comment.
Considering the question was asked, that was the best possible answer Weber could give. If he hadn't felt hard done by, he could have said "no", but if he felt hard done by (and who can blame him?), there's no way he could have said so.
Plenty of ways to give a non answer to that sort of question. Instead, he came across as blaming the ref in a game where his team were clearly second best.
-
@Yeetyaah said in Blues v Chiefs:
Dang I don't wanna sound like a sore loser but bloody hell Jackson was awful. Chiefs didn't deserve the win and credit to the Blues, but the Sowakula and Cane try not being awarded were such bad calls.
Cane propelled himself forward, so no try. The other was a knock on. What was controversial there?
-
Some strange weird decisions again in this game by the officials nearly every game has been poorly controlled with inconsistent Refs.
And it is starting to effect SR as a product.
Let’s home the Finals are controlled a whole lot better.
WC could be a Raffle if this Standard carries over to that Tournament. -
@Kirwan said in Blues v Chiefs:
@Stargazer said in Blues v Chiefs:
@Kirwan said in Blues v Chiefs:
Ref was surprisingly good, no obvious howlers, and was very consistent.
Except for awarding controversial tries.
Pretty poor of the interviewer after the game to ask Weber if he felt hard done by the ref, and even worse for him to reply no comment.
Considering the question was asked, that was the best possible answer Weber could give. If he hadn't felt hard done by, he could have said "no", but if he felt hard done by (and who can blame him?), there's no way he could have said so.
Plenty of ways to give a non answer to that sort of question. Instead, he came across as blaming the ref in a game where his team were clearly second best.
No, it didn't come across as blaming the ref for the loss. And although he had plenty of reason to disagree with the ref about those controversial tries, he didn't - and couldn't - say so. And he didn't say anything to deny that the Chiefs were second best (to the contrary).
-
@Stargazer said in Blues v Chiefs:
@Kirwan said in Blues v Chiefs:
@Stargazer said in Blues v Chiefs:
@Kirwan said in Blues v Chiefs:
Ref was surprisingly good, no obvious howlers, and was very consistent.
Except for awarding controversial tries.
Pretty poor of the interviewer after the game to ask Weber if he felt hard done by the ref, and even worse for him to reply no comment.
Considering the question was asked, that was the best possible answer Weber could give. If he hadn't felt hard done by, he could have said "no", but if he felt hard done by (and who can blame him?), there's no way he could have said so.
Plenty of ways to give a non answer to that sort of question. Instead, he came across as blaming the ref in a game where his team were clearly second best.
No, it didn't come across as blaming the ref for the loss. And although he had plenty of reason to disagree with the ref about those controversial tries, he didn't - and couldn't - say so. And he didn't say anything to deny that the Chiefs were second best (to the contrary).
“Did you feel hard done by the ref?”
“Ummm no comment”
They weren’t talking about the trys at that point either, but the game in general.
No comment is a shit answer.
-
@Kirwan Even if they weren't talking about the tries specifically, it could have been something that came to mind when he heard the question. It was a fine and appropriate answer.
But go on, keep seeing the negative in things, as always.
-
@Stargazer said in Blues v Chiefs:
@Kirwan Even if they weren't talking about the tries specifically, it could have been something that came to mind when he heard the question. It was a fine and appropriate answer.
But go on, keep seeing the negative in things, as always.
I think the inference has whooshed you a bit there, so let’s agree to disagree.
-
@Stargazer said in Blues v Chiefs:
@Kirwan Even if they weren't talking about the tries specifically, it could have been something that came to mind when he heard the question. It was a fine and appropriate answer.
Would you agree a better answer is "look, you cant ask questions like that because as players we simply can't comment. The ref is the same for both sides, we have to adjust to the interpretations" ?
-
@antipodean said in Blues v Chiefs:
@Stargazer said in Blues v Chiefs:
@Kirwan Even if they weren't talking about the tries specifically, it could have been something that came to mind when he heard the question. It was a fine and appropriate answer.
Would you agree a better answer is "look, you cant ask questions like that because as players we simply can't comment.
The ref is the same for both sides, we have to adjust to the interpretations"?That's fine. It's basically a "no comment" with an explanation.
-
@antipodean said in Blues v Chiefs:
@Stargazer said in Blues v Chiefs:
@Kirwan Even if they weren't talking about the tries specifically, it could have been something that came to mind when he heard the question. It was a fine and appropriate answer.
Would you agree a better answer is "look, you cant ask questions like that because as players we simply can't comment. The ref is the same for both sides, we have to adjust to the interpretations" ?
Or any of the 100s of other appropriate answers available to him.
It was a poor question from the interviewer, for sure. Weber should have done better than imply he agreed that they were hard done by.
