Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021)
-
That pass was blatantly forward lol, it only wasn't "obvious" because it was a short ball. If it travelled 2m+ it would have looked ridiculous.
-
@SammyC welcome back mate, we thought you got stuck in Mexico somewhere
-
@no-quarter said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@SammyC welcome back mate, we thought you got stuck in Mexico somewhere
Is he still cycling ?
-
@no-quarter said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
That pass was blatantly forward lol, it only wasn't "obvious" because it was a short ball. If it travelled 2m+ it would have looked ridiculous.
I'm disagreeing with you here. It was flat.
Believe me, I'd love for that to be a shocking call I could rail against - but it was fine. Flat, but not clearly forward. Play on, don't be a pedant. I can get arrows and lines out if you like
Now the pedantry shown with the maul a few minutes before, that I can rail against...
-
@winger said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nevorian said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@winger said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
I feel in 2 minds about this result
One that's its good if and only if the Crusaders weren't so far ahead of everyone else. So if there were only 4 teams it would be a great result for the competition
Two an overall disappointment. The Blues aren't really that much better than the other three teams. Slightly better but not much. This means the Crusaders will walk it again. Even easier than last year. And this unevenness of the teams is unlikely to be ever addressed by NZR.I cannot agree that the difference should be addressed by the NZRFU. Blues player list is as impressive as the Crusaders, they need to look within to find out how they perform to Crusader level. They should be evens if not slightly stronger in the forward pack as well.
If NZR don't address it no-one will. As the current financial system benefits teams too much with ABs in them. The best next level down players eventually take off because money
And its not just about the Blues and Crusaders. I want all teams to be fairly exactly strong (or weak) over time. With starting ABs shared out between teams
But I know it would need a lot of thought. But my view is teams with hardly any ABs should have more money to attract the best young talent. (And maybe its not possible to do)
edit Was think about this while walking outside (I've hurt my back so am a bit restricted - and bored - at present)
At present the player contracting is centralised (I hope I'm right). Personally Ive always preferred decentralised set - up. So if I was the rugby chief with unlimited power. I would look at moving to a decentralised set-up. When all the payments to the ABs and super rugby players are added. 10% (or less. Just enough to add a bit as required)say goes to the NZR to top up players salary as required. The rest divided between the 5 teams to contract players as they see fit.
I don't think the NZR could or even should really try and adress any unbalance. See the way I see it if one team is quite abit stronger, the best thing is for the other's to aim for that level. I really believe that is what helps keep us near top of tree in rugby, the mentality of trying to get as good as the best, rather than lowering the level of the best (that is easy way out). I have argued the same on Aussie forum on the calls for NZ players to be in their team etc to even up comp. don't ever weaken the top teams, but build up the ones below. Crusaders seem to have a bloody good set up, and so the others need to get their's up to same level. Blues have seemingly done a lot of good work in this so perhaps we need all boards etc to try.
-
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@no-quarter said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
That pass was blatantly forward lol, it only wasn't "obvious" because it was a short ball. If it travelled 2m+ it would have looked ridiculous.
I'm disagreeing with you here. It was flat.
Believe me, I'd love for that to be a shocking call I could rail against - but it was fine. Flat, but not clearly forward. Play on, don't be a pedant. I can get arrows and lines out if you like
Now the pedantry shown with the maul a few minutes before, that I can rail against...
Bring on the arrows and lines...
-
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@no-quarter said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
That pass was blatantly forward lol, it only wasn't "obvious" because it was a short ball. If it travelled 2m+ it would have looked ridiculous.
I'm disagreeing with you here. It was flat.
Believe me, I'd love for that to be a shocking call I could rail against - but it was fine. Flat, but not clearly forward. Play on, don't be a pedant. I can get arrows and lines out if you like
Now the pedantry shown with the maul a few minutes before, that I can rail against...
Bring on the arrows and lines...
I can't believe you're making me help the chiefs. I feel ill.
so, two snips below. I've put four parallel lines on the page to show the 5 m line, and that the distortion of the image with camera foreshortening hasn't had any significant effect.
The left hand image one has a line through the ball as it is passed. It is at the shoulder of the carrier, around the neck area.
The right hand image shows the ball being caught. Again, line through the shoulder of the ball carrier and through the ball.
That is the very definition of a flat pass. Even if that was marginally forward, there are arguments about the passer's speed dropping as they get tackled. Remember, how it goes over the ground doesn't matter - only the velocity relative to the player throwing the ball.
And now I threw up in my mouth a little. Screw you Chiefs fans, you're lucky as shit, and put up a damn good game against a Blues side that was off the pace. Damnit.
-
-
-
@kiwimurph said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@crucial what onside? there's no offside line created there.
I couldn't tell. There were no arrows!
-
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@no-quarter said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
That pass was blatantly forward lol, it only wasn't "obvious" because it was a short ball. If it travelled 2m+ it would have looked ridiculous.
I'm disagreeing with you here. It was flat.
Believe me, I'd love for that to be a shocking call I could rail against - but it was fine. Flat, but not clearly forward. Play on, don't be a pedant. I can get arrows and lines out if you like
Now the pedantry shown with the maul a few minutes before, that I can rail against...
Bring on the arrows and lines...
I can't believe you're making me help the chiefs. I feel ill.
so, two snips below. I've put four parallel lines on the page to show the 5 m line, and that the distortion of the image with camera foreshortening hasn't had any significant effect.
The left hand image one has a line through the ball as it is passed. It is at the shoulder of the carrier, around the neck area.
The right hand image shows the ball being caught. Again, line through the shoulder of the ball carrier and through the ball.
That is the very definition of a flat pass. Even if that was marginally forward, there are arguments about the passer's speed dropping as they get tackled. Remember, how it goes over the ground doesn't matter - only the velocity relative to the player throwing the ball.
And now I threw up in my mouth a little. Screw you Chiefs fans, you're lucky as shit, and put up a damn good game against a Blues side that was off the pace. Damnit.
Don't want to question the expertise and hard work put in there, but shouldn't there be some perspectival effect? Lines look parallel to me but camera is at an angle..
-
@nostrildamus said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
Don't want to question the expertise and hard work put in there, but shouldn't there be some perspectival effect? Lines look parallel to me but camera is at an angle..
The overhead shots are via the drone that was hovering above. Just as well eh.
-
@nostrildamus said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@no-quarter said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
That pass was blatantly forward lol, it only wasn't "obvious" because it was a short ball. If it travelled 2m+ it would have looked ridiculous.
I'm disagreeing with you here. It was flat.
Believe me, I'd love for that to be a shocking call I could rail against - but it was fine. Flat, but not clearly forward. Play on, don't be a pedant. I can get arrows and lines out if you like
Now the pedantry shown with the maul a few minutes before, that I can rail against...
Bring on the arrows and lines...
I can't believe you're making me help the chiefs. I feel ill.
so, two snips below. I've put four parallel lines on the page to show the 5 m line, and that the distortion of the image with camera foreshortening hasn't had any significant effect.
The left hand image one has a line through the ball as it is passed. It is at the shoulder of the carrier, around the neck area.
The right hand image shows the ball being caught. Again, line through the shoulder of the ball carrier and through the ball.
That is the very definition of a flat pass. Even if that was marginally forward, there are arguments about the passer's speed dropping as they get tackled. Remember, how it goes over the ground doesn't matter - only the velocity relative to the player throwing the ball.
And now I threw up in my mouth a little. Screw you Chiefs fans, you're lucky as shit, and put up a damn good game against a Blues side that was off the pace. Damnit.
Don't want to question the expertise and hard work put in there, but shouldn't there be some perspectival effect? Lines look parallel to me but camera is at an angle..
it's not going to make a big difference I don't think. Certainly not enough to show a forward/not forward pass. All four lines are parallel with each other, and the line overlaid on the 5 m line is there to show there isn't a big change in camera angle.
That ball was flat, the right callw as made (and quickly), and I have to suck it up and get on with it.
-
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nostrildamus said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@nzzp said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@no-quarter said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
That pass was blatantly forward lol, it only wasn't "obvious" because it was a short ball. If it travelled 2m+ it would have looked ridiculous.
I'm disagreeing with you here. It was flat.
Believe me, I'd love for that to be a shocking call I could rail against - but it was fine. Flat, but not clearly forward. Play on, don't be a pedant. I can get arrows and lines out if you like
Now the pedantry shown with the maul a few minutes before, that I can rail against...
Bring on the arrows and lines...
I can't believe you're making me help the chiefs. I feel ill.
so, two snips below. I've put four parallel lines on the page to show the 5 m line, and that the distortion of the image with camera foreshortening hasn't had any significant effect.
The left hand image one has a line through the ball as it is passed. It is at the shoulder of the carrier, around the neck area.
The right hand image shows the ball being caught. Again, line through the shoulder of the ball carrier and through the ball.
That is the very definition of a flat pass. Even if that was marginally forward, there are arguments about the passer's speed dropping as they get tackled. Remember, how it goes over the ground doesn't matter - only the velocity relative to the player throwing the ball.
And now I threw up in my mouth a little. Screw you Chiefs fans, you're lucky as shit, and put up a damn good game against a Blues side that was off the pace. Damnit.
Don't want to question the expertise and hard work put in there, but shouldn't there be some perspectival effect? Lines look parallel to me but camera is at an angle..
it's not going to make a big difference I don't think. Certainly not enough to show a forward/not forward pass. All four lines are parallel with each other, and the line overlaid on the 5 m line is there to show there isn't a big change in camera angle.
That ball was flat, the right callw as made (and quickly), and I have to suck it up and get on with it.
Ok.
-
@nostrildamus also, expertise and hard work was 2 minutes online. I'd love to pretend it was complicated, but it's really not
-
the line on the right image looks closer to the tryline, making it look ok, selective linesmanship!! I think Robinson helps show the momentum aspect too...but seriously, if we have to go down this route to prove a pass is forward, then I am happy with the decision made on the night
