SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues
-
@booboo said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@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.
Well he ain't going to land that way unless he is hit dangerously off the ball ...
He might land that way if he recklessly runs into a set defender though...
-
@bones said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@booboo said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@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.
Well he ain't going to land that way unless he is hit dangerously off the ball ...
He might land that way if he recklessly runs into a set defender though...
I think a penalty was the right punishment. It was a successful dummy run in that he fooled the defender into making the wrong decision. Yeah he got hit, but that is the risk you take. I don't think there was any deliberate foul play from the defender.
-
@cantab79 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
Does any NZ player divide opinions as much as Akira Ioane? There is something about Akira Ioane, people either love him or hate him. People can watch the same game and see completely different performances. Fwiw I thought he was excellent with ball in hand.
I think it's that sometimes incredibly talented players have attitude problems and some people think the talent outweighs the risks of attitude brain-farts, while other worry it'd cost us points or a game.
A few years back, I wouldn't have wanted Akira anywhere near an AB XV but, all credit to him, he's def. in my 23.
-
@dan54 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@nepia said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@dan54 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@cantab79 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
Does any NZ player divide opinions as much as Akira Ioane? There is something about Akira Ioane, people either love him or hate him. People can watch the same game and see completely different performances. Fwiw I thought he was excellent with ball in hand.
The trouble with Akira is he is usually excellent with ball in hand, but too often not without the ball, when he not on he will make a tackle coming straight at him usually, but as soon as the attack goes 5 meters wide of him he switches off and goes into jog mode. I get impression he was a very good college player who ran over top of people frequently, and was no doubt a star of his team, and maybe got into bad habits with rest of his game. I have seen him play what I consider probly 4 real good games in all the times I have watched him.
It's hard to take you seriously with comments like that.
Ok enlighten me what are all the real good games he has played. He started last year not even getting on bench for Blues ** (remember the fat f* sitting in the stand eating a pie?)**, he had a few good games, one good test, and really hasn't even held his starting spot in Blues this year. Maybe I was being harsh, but you can't say he has in any year played consistently good rugby, why I get so pissed with him, because of his undoubted potential.
You appear to just be doubling down now. He didn't get selected for the ABs on the back of no form last year. As @Kirwan has mentioned multiple times he was being deliberately held back at the start of last season due to the mental health issues (and quite frankly the overworked he'd been in the previous Blues campaigns). Even this year he hasn't been as bad as you're making out. He was topping the Fern MOTM poll for a few weeks there, and there's no higher authority than that.
But, since you appear to want an extra long run then dust off your videotapes from 2018, he was superb all of that season and Evans (who I'm a big fan of as a Magpies boy) made the ABs instead of him despite not playing as well.
But I guess the tone of the bolded bit means that no matter what he does you'll never give him credit.
-
-
@nogusta said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
The injury was caused by the way he landed not the contact. Penalty only for me. Unlucky though.
They red card guys who 'infringe' at contests for the high ball BECAUSE of the way they land not the contact
There will be a citing this week if it's deemed it should have been a cardable offence won't there?
-
@crazy-horse not necessarily...Laumape didnt get cited for what most saw as a RC offence...
ANyone got a clip of the incident, I missed it.
-
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@nogusta said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
The injury was caused by the way he landed not the contact. Penalty only for me. Unlucky though.
They red card guys who 'infringe' at contests for the high ball BECAUSE of the way they land not the contact
There will be a citing this week if it's deemed it should have been a cardable offence won't there?
Only if they deem it meets RC criteria I believe.
-
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@nogusta said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
The injury was caused by the way he landed not the contact. Penalty only for me. Unlucky though.
They red card guys who 'infringe' at contests for the high ball BECAUSE of the way they land not the contact
There will be a citing this week if it's deemed it should have been a cardable offence won't there?
I don’t think it is RC material. Just dangerous foul play that took a player out of the game. IMO the ref team got to caught up in whether they thought it was a shoulder charge forgetting that tackling off the ball (especially with force) is dangerous play itself.
Was lucky to just be a penalty but hen if he was YCd I think we would be debating if that was too harsh.
Very high end of the penalty only spectrum. -
@snowy said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@booboo said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@steven-harris said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
That’s seriously cynical from Taylor ..
After multiple cynical and not too subtle (even though he tried to be) spoils by Taylor was thinking how much he was pissing me off, and how much I'd love him for it when he does it for the ABs.
The three penalties (and possible card for repetitive offensives) don't put you off?
The fact he didn't get mentioned for a card way way before he did speaks volumes for his cloak of invisibility.
To me he seemed to get away with shit without even a penalty that should have earned a card.
And got away with just a penalty that should also have earned a card.
If he gets away with that shit for the ABs I'm loving him.
In the meantime, for the Sith, fluffybunny should be RC'ed
-
@taniwharugby said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse not necessarily...Laumape didnt get cited for what most saw as a RC offence...
ANyone got a clip of the incident, I missed it.
Doesn't matter what "most" think. It's what the citing commissioner thinks.
And I don't believe this met an RC threshold, so no citing. But I did think it was worth yellow.
-
To be honest, if Sione Havili Talitui was suspended for the final it would probably be doing the Crusdaers a favour. He's a waste of space in the team, notwithstanding that fact that his performance against the Blues was his best in a Crusaders jersey. Tom Sanders to play at 7 please!
-
@cantab79 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
To be honest, if Sione Havili Talitui was suspended for the final it would probably be doing the Crusdaers a favour. He's a waste of space in the team, notwithstanding that fact that his performance against the Blues was his best in a Crusaders jersey. Tom Sanders to play at 7 please!
He's what, third choice at 7? Harsh call
-
@booboo said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@cantab79 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
To be honest, if Sione Havili Talitui was suspended for the final it would probably be doing the Crusdaers a favour. He's a waste of space in the team, notwithstanding that fact that his performance against the Blues was his best in a Crusaders jersey. Tom Sanders to play at 7 please!
He's what, third choice at 7? Harsh call
2nd choice after Christie.
-
I think the interesting issue around the off the ball tackle is that the doctor wouldn't allow Talea to carry on even without looking at him. I don't recall that happening before.
To me, if a player stays down that long, the doctor has good case to assume there may be more serious injuries in play. I assume he didn't qualify for an HIA because there was no head knock.
My personal take -the Blues fucked up. They milked the injury a little too long and it backfired.
-
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
I think the interesting issue around the off the ball tackle is that the doctor wouldn't allow Talea to carry on even without looking at him. I don't recall that happening before.
To me, if a player stays down that long, the doctor has good case to assume there may be more serious injuries in play. I assume he didn't qualify for an HIA because there was no head knock.
My personal take -the Blues fucked up. They milked the injury a little too long and it backfired.
This is one of the sillier things I've read on this forum.
If a player is winded, they sit up when they sit up, they get their wind back when they get their wind back.
If the ref thinks a player is milking it, that's a penalty offence and can be dealt with appropriately.
If a doctor is randomly taking guys of the park but not HIA-ing them, that's a problem.
-
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
To me, if a player stays down that long, the doctor has good case to assume there may be more serious injuries in play. I assume he didn't qualify for an HIA because there was no head knock.
That's the thing though eh, doc is there for HIA. Not for players being winded. The "A" stands for....."Nope not even gonna look".
-
@gt12 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
I think the interesting issue around the off the ball tackle is that the doctor wouldn't allow Talea to carry on even without looking at him. I don't recall that happening before.
To me, if a player stays down that long, the doctor has good case to assume there may be more serious injuries in play. I assume he didn't qualify for an HIA because there was no head knock.
My personal take -the Blues fucked up. They milked the injury a little too long and it backfired.
This is one of the sillier things I've read on this forum.
Welcome to the Fern. Stick around, you will read lots more silly things.
-
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@gt12 said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
@crazy-horse said in SRA Round 9: Crusaders v Blues:
I think the interesting issue around the off the ball tackle is that the doctor wouldn't allow Talea to carry on even without looking at him. I don't recall that happening before.
To me, if a player stays down that long, the doctor has good case to assume there may be more serious injuries in play. I assume he didn't qualify for an HIA because there was no head knock.
My personal take -the Blues fucked up. They milked the injury a little too long and it backfired.
This is one of the sillier things I've read on this forum.
Welcome to the Fern. Stick around, you will read lots more silly things.
You're welcome.
