SF Crusaders v Chiefs
-
@Duluth said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
@chimoaus said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
Why is Cane on the bench?
in a short turnaround week where Monday was low key and Wednesday was his only real option to fully test the knee out. That schedule was partially what led to him being named on the bench, along with the form of the starting loose trio from the past two weeks – Samipeni Finau, Luke Jacobson and Pita Gus Sowakula. Chiefs coach Clayton McMillan has refused to rush Sam Cane back into the starting lineup. “Clayton had a good discussion and explained his thinking and the logic,” Cane said. “It wouldn’t have been right from a team’s point of view if I was named to start and then have to pull out and cause a reshuffle. “So it gave everyone the best chance to prepare and play well. It just made sense. And I’m excited about coming off the pine and hopefully adding something.”This bit is weird..
“Directly in the side and sort of targeting lower limbs – we’ve seen in league anything round those areas have been ruled out.
“The refs told me there’s nothing they can rule on, it’s not classed as foul play so the TMO can’t interfere."
But in the WR Global Law trials....
Welfare-focused breakdown law amendments approved for global trial
Sanctioning the lower limb clear-out: Penalising players who target/drop their weight onto the lower limbs of a jackler – the sanction will be a penalty kick.
Has this one been removed or something? It sits alongside the pre-latching/pre-bound pods of three or more which is still in effect.
EDIT: It was actually added to the Laws effective 1 July 2022 but I don't know if the trial has finished and it is currently in play
Also, it seems that it has been added as a penalisable breakdown law rather than foul play (which I guess it what they are saying above)
Doesn't mean that it couldn't have been looked at as a penalty offence in the lead up to a try though.
Very odd that player welfare based laws aren't put into the foul play category though. Means that two phases later and a career ending piece of illegal play can't be looked at. -
@Crucial said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
@Duluth said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
@chimoaus said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
Why is Cane on the bench?
in a short turnaround week where Monday was low key and Wednesday was his only real option to fully test the knee out. That schedule was partially what led to him being named on the bench, along with the form of the starting loose trio from the past two weeks – Samipeni Finau, Luke Jacobson and Pita Gus Sowakula. Chiefs coach Clayton McMillan has refused to rush Sam Cane back into the starting lineup. “Clayton had a good discussion and explained his thinking and the logic,” Cane said. “It wouldn’t have been right from a team’s point of view if I was named to start and then have to pull out and cause a reshuffle. “So it gave everyone the best chance to prepare and play well. It just made sense. And I’m excited about coming off the pine and hopefully adding something.”This bit is weird..
“Directly in the side and sort of targeting lower limbs – we’ve seen in league anything round those areas have been ruled out.
“The refs told me there’s nothing they can rule on, it’s not classed as foul play so the TMO can’t interfere."
But in the WR Global Law trials....
Welfare-focused breakdown law amendments approved for global trial
Sanctioning the lower limb clear-out: Penalising players who target/drop their weight onto the lower limbs of a jackler – the sanction will be a penalty kick.
Has this one been removed or something? It sits alongside the pre-latching/pre-bound pods of three or more which is still in effect.
No the ref was wrong. It was foul play, those trials are now law, and should have been a penalty. But it is not a card so nothing they can do after the match.
-
@Machpants said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
@Crucial said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
@Duluth said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
@chimoaus said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
Why is Cane on the bench?
in a short turnaround week where Monday was low key and Wednesday was his only real option to fully test the knee out. That schedule was partially what led to him being named on the bench, along with the form of the starting loose trio from the past two weeks – Samipeni Finau, Luke Jacobson and Pita Gus Sowakula. Chiefs coach Clayton McMillan has refused to rush Sam Cane back into the starting lineup. “Clayton had a good discussion and explained his thinking and the logic,” Cane said. “It wouldn’t have been right from a team’s point of view if I was named to start and then have to pull out and cause a reshuffle. “So it gave everyone the best chance to prepare and play well. It just made sense. And I’m excited about coming off the pine and hopefully adding something.”This bit is weird..
“Directly in the side and sort of targeting lower limbs – we’ve seen in league anything round those areas have been ruled out.
“The refs told me there’s nothing they can rule on, it’s not classed as foul play so the TMO can’t interfere."
But in the WR Global Law trials....
Welfare-focused breakdown law amendments approved for global trial
Sanctioning the lower limb clear-out: Penalising players who target/drop their weight onto the lower limbs of a jackler – the sanction will be a penalty kick.
Has this one been removed or something? It sits alongside the pre-latching/pre-bound pods of three or more which is still in effect.
No the ref was wrong. It was foul play, those trials are now law, and should have been a penalty. But it is not a card so nothing they can do after the match.
See edit above. I don't think it has been classed as foul play
EDIT again: I was wrong based on the trial introduction.
It has been added as 9.20 D which is in the foul play section.So why are the refs telling him otherwise? Is that because it is currently still the trial law being applied (which isn't 'foul play')?
I just think they didn't see it at the time and like you say, if it isn't at a RC level there's nothing that can be done.
-
-
@Machpants said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
@Crucial I guess the refs are just wrong, they make mistakes, and forgot this law
The quote implies that they knew the law but as it was more than two phases back and isn't classed as foul play (until 1 July) they couldn't go back.
Obviously all fixed on 1 July but until then it is a 'breakdown infringement only'
-
This semi should be a ripper to watch.
-
@Bovidae said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
If Barrett is whinging all game I will be happy.
You do know he has still whinged when we’ve been up by 20…
-
@Machpants said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
@Crucial said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
@Duluth said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
@chimoaus said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
Why is Cane on the bench?
in a short turnaround week where Monday was low key and Wednesday was his only real option to fully test the knee out. That schedule was partially what led to him being named on the bench, along with the form of the starting loose trio from the past two weeks – Samipeni Finau, Luke Jacobson and Pita Gus Sowakula. Chiefs coach Clayton McMillan has refused to rush Sam Cane back into the starting lineup. “Clayton had a good discussion and explained his thinking and the logic,” Cane said. “It wouldn’t have been right from a team’s point of view if I was named to start and then have to pull out and cause a reshuffle. “So it gave everyone the best chance to prepare and play well. It just made sense. And I’m excited about coming off the pine and hopefully adding something.”This bit is weird..
“Directly in the side and sort of targeting lower limbs – we’ve seen in league anything round those areas have been ruled out.
“The refs told me there’s nothing they can rule on, it’s not classed as foul play so the TMO can’t interfere."
But in the WR Global Law trials....
Welfare-focused breakdown law amendments approved for global trial
Sanctioning the lower limb clear-out: Penalising players who target/drop their weight onto the lower limbs of a jackler – the sanction will be a penalty kick.
Has this one been removed or something? It sits alongside the pre-latching/pre-bound pods of three or more which is still in effect.
No the ref was wrong. It was foul play, those trials are now law, and should have been a penalty. But it is not a card so nothing they can do after the match.
Actually I believe the lower limb cleanout etc don't become law until Juy 1st. Though I still think the player came in from side anyway and it was a cheap shit shot! And that's when it becomes a trial.
-
I see Richard Knowler is writing to his usual standard
Early in the week he wrote about sledging built around some responses S Barrett gave to leading questions
Today it's sycophantic crap about the nasty Chiefs and how the Crusaders must turn the other cheek
"Jack Goodhue refuses to hold grudges against opponents who resort to underhand tactics in an attempt to nudge his angry needle into the red zone."
"The Crusaders centre also says he isn't interested in retaliating. That's not the way he rolls on the rugby field."
"Which, all in all, is probably not a bad thing given the Crusaders will host the Chiefs"
"the Crusaders know the Chiefs aren't likely to deviate from the abrasive style they usually bring to Orangetheory Stadium"
"The key for the Crusaders players will be to resist the urge to dish out any jungle justice" (not sure how the term 'jungle justice" got past the editor in our sensitive times haha)
"Knowing how to deal with the off-the-ball stuff is a valuable skill, given the Chiefs have prided themselves on aggression on both sides of the ball for the past decade."
Ten years ago I think the Chiefs were right on the edge. Now? There's very little difference between the off the ball shit in both sides.. if you have both eyes open
-
@Duluth said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
I see Richard Knowler is writing to his usual standard
Early in the week he wrote about sledging built around some responses S Barrett gave to leading questions
Today it's sycophantic crap about the nasty Chiefs and how the Crusaders must turn the other cheek
"Jack Goodhue refuses to hold grudges against opponents who resort to underhand tactics in an attempt to nudge his angry needle into the red zone."
"The Crusaders centre also says he isn't interested in retaliating. That's not the way he rolls on the rugby field."
"Which, all in all, is probably not a bad thing given the Crusaders will host the Chiefs"
"the Crusaders know the Chiefs aren't likely to deviate from the abrasive style they usually bring to Orangetheory Stadium"
"The key for the Crusaders players will be to resist the urge to dish out any jungle justice" (not sure how the term 'jungle justice" got past the editor in our sensitive times haha)
"Knowing how to deal with the off-the-ball stuff is a valuable skill, given the Chiefs have prided themselves on aggression on both sides of the ball for the past decade."
Ten years ago I think the Chiefs were right on the edge. Now? There's very little difference between the off the ball shit in both sides.. if you have both eyes open
Interviews card magnet Barrett, complains a few days later about the Chiefs being dirty. Sounds about right.
-
-
Chiefs are a dirty, niggly team. Everyone knows that.
-
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
Chiefs are a dirty, niggly team. Everyone knows that.
Niggly? Yes.
Dirty? No.BBBR and Finau will be looking to smash anyone close enough to the breakdown to deserve attention. They will want players thinking 'what the fuck was that for?'
That's just high intensity test level play. It's why at that next level you are looking for guys that don't let niggle affect their game.
They will also put some hard open play hits in with follow ups of a push down or similar. The old 'think twice about coming down my channel'.Doesn't always work but it's all part of the game at this level (or should be) and is why selectors place emphasis on these high intensity matches.
-
@Crucial Pfff... semantics.
-
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
@Crucial Pfff... semantics.
Dirty isn't a term to though around without support IMO.
-
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
@Crucial Pfff... semantics.
Dirty is the type of shit Scott Barrett does when he gets carded.
Niggly is the type of shit BBBR does when he holds on to a player a bit too long at a ruck.
-
Rennie's Chiefs loved off the ball hits. I remember a shocker from Bird on Perenara. This was the same era in which the Crusaders loved them too. Moody used to get away with smacking people behind play all the time. He gave Parsons a concussion with a stiff arm to the head at a ruck, well after the ball was cleared and kicked up field.
Moody's act wasn't reviewed because it was more than one phase prior, and he wasn't even cited.
-
@Tim said in SF Crusaders v Chiefs:
Rennie's Chiefs loved off the ball hits. I remember a shocker from Bird on Perenara. This was the same era in which the Crusaders loved them too. Moody used to get away with smacking people behind play all the time. He gave Parsons a concussion with a stiff arm to the head at a ruck, well after the ball was cleared and kicked up field.
And now the angelic Blues have joined the thread. 😉
