SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues
-
@gt12 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@kiwimurph said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@gt12 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@kiwimurph said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
Perofeta never has his position under threat.
Great.....
The fact they havent played Sullivan shows that the coaching at the Blues is still not quite right
Exactly.
Him or Kneepkens have not seen 1 minute....
God, I forgot they have that guy. Why the fuck havent they given him a chance.
It's maddening.
-
-
@mattasaurus had a conversation with James Parsons earlier in the week , all he could talk about was the amount of breaks the Blues make and that they are creating opportunities.
I said that’s all very well , but good teams nail their opportunities, and the reason they don’t nail those opportunities goes back to poor pass technique and when to pass ..Conversation ended there
-
@machpants said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@gt12 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
Havili again, he’s good at 12, even if he doesn’t like it.
He's awesome, what's his preferred?
Fullback. Apparently he told Dagg that he doesn’t like the physicality at 12. He suits it though.
-
@steven-harris said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@mattasaurus had a conversation with James Parsons earlier in the week , all he could talk about was the amount of breaks the Blues make and that they are creating opportunities.
I said that’s all very well , but good teams nail their opportunities, and the reason they don’t nail those opportunities goes back to poor pass technique and when to pass ..Conversation ended there
Sounds like he is in a bubble and needs some feedback from outside.
-
@crucial said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@machpants said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
A player must not tackle an opponent who is not in possession of the ball.
Sanction: Penalty
The whole dangerous play section says penalty. Once that penalty is decided you decide if it warrants more.
To me that was a prime example of why tackles without the ball are considered dangerous. Plus the player was injured to the point that they couldn’t continue.
Deserved more than a penalty IMO@crucial said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@machpants said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
A player must not tackle an opponent who is not in possession of the ball.
Sanction: Penalty
The whole dangerous play section says penalty. Once that penalty is decided you decide if it warrants more.
To me that was a prime example of why tackles without the ball are considered dangerous. Plus the player was injured to the point that they couldn’t continue.
Deserved more than a penalty IMOThe injury was caused by the way he landed not the contact. Penalty only for me. Unlucky though.
-
Thought Jordie would have had a shot a goal ..awh that’s right , that’s next year ..
-
-
@kiwimurph said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
Right in front of Doleman and he missed it.
We have to worry about those runners advancing after a kick you know.
-
Black with another poor kick ..
-
@steven-harris said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
Thought Jordie would have had a shot a goal ..awh that’s right , that’s next year ..
Rancid troll is rancid
-
-
@broughie said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@gt12 12 is a physical position and if he believes he is not up to it I think that says a lot.
I don’t know the whole story but Dagg mentioned it earlier in the season before one of the games. I dont think its about ‘not being up to it’ as much as not wanting to get completely bashed around (which happens at 12).
-
@gt12 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@broughie said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@gt12 12 is a physical position and if he believes he is not up to it I think that says a lot.
I don’t know the whole story but Dagg mentioned it earlier in the season before one of the games. I dont think its about ‘not being up to it’ as much as not wanting to get completely bashed around (which happens at 12).
Could be fears about concussion:
-
@kev said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crucial said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@machpants said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
A player must not tackle an opponent who is not in possession of the ball.
Sanction: Penalty
The whole dangerous play section says penalty. Once that penalty is decided you decide if it warrants more.
To me that was a prime example of why tackles without the ball are considered dangerous. Plus the player was injured to the point that they couldn’t continue.
Deserved more than a penalty IMO@crucial said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@machpants said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
A player must not tackle an opponent who is not in possession of the ball.
Sanction: Penalty
The whole dangerous play section says penalty. Once that penalty is decided you decide if it warrants more.
To me that was a prime example of why tackles without the ball are considered dangerous. Plus the player was injured to the point that they couldn’t continue.
Deserved more than a penalty IMOThe injury was caused by the way he landed not the contact. Penalty only for me. Unlucky though.
Wouldn’t have landed like that if he was ball carrying and expecting a hit though. That’s why it’s dangerous to tackle off the ball.
-
Sotutu is the best midfielder the blues have out there.
-
Stuff
