Canterbury v Auckland
-
I like Kane as a commentator. Knowledgeable esp. about the dark arts (which is rare) and not biased IMO.
In all the thread, has there been any mention of how well Garniner went? The lad looks to have a future! -
@Stargazer holding on solidly for that long and in that position away from the ball and in front of the referee just looked like a blatant attempt to get a retaliation, which is what I call overly cynical. Just like Hollywood dives. Watch the players taken out in the 20 minutes after that. It became a bit of an attempt to see how far the officials would go in ignoring it. Not sure if tmo can hear the commentary but it sure as hell would have left him feeling comfortable with all the flack directed at Gibson and Christie seemingly the victim.
-
-
@nzzp said in Canterbury v Auckland:
I'm disappointed but not surprised.
Auckland has been hard watching this year, adn Canterbury seem to have found some good players and decent coaching. Surely the Auckland coaching team gets a refresh at the end of this season.
We look to have good players, as evidenced by the patches of good play. But Alama is definitely struggling with selection at least.
-
@nzzp said in Canterbury v Auckland:
Surely the Auckland coaching team gets a refresh at the end of this season.
Purely speculation but I wonder how much friction there is around Alama
2 seasons ago a bunch of players wanted him gone and some high profile players left the team. Last year it sounded like he was gone and people like Bates & McGrath were taking over.. then Ieremia was retained (last year of his contract I think)
-
-
@Kirwan said in Canterbury v Auckland:
@Bovidae said in Canterbury v Auckland:
Waenga had plenty of opportunity to say something to Christie, or blow his whistle earlier, but did neither. That contributed to what happened.
Yep, if players can't take the law into their own hands then the refs actually need to apply the laws.
I wasn't swayed by Kane's ridiculous commentary, Gibson fell over because Christie was holding his leg and no knee got even close to head contact. It was a silly yellow card.
Was maddening when the producer was clearly trying to correct Kane's dumb comments by showing clear space between the knee and the head, but he kept repeating it. And at any time Christie could have let go, but continued to cheat.
There was one shot that made me wonder if there was knee to head contact. Christie did instinctively touch the side of his face so I was looking for the contact on that side. Def wasn't clear but in one angle you can see a sudden movement of Christies head as the same time of contact.
That said, I agree with all the comments about the ref being in a position to stop the whole thing happening and it being rich that Christie didn't even get penalised for causing the events.
I don't buy that it was a trip or pull down but would call it a deliberate fall as opposed to a deliberate knee drop. -
@Stargazer said in Canterbury v Auckland:
Christie would have been penalised if Gibson hadn't responded by attempting to knee Christie in the head.
I call bs on that.
Christie was holding on to him for an age - Gibson was imploring with the ref who saw what was happening and for whatever reason wasn't going to penalise him.
As I said then Gibson was stupid to get himself penalised and carded.
Bad rugby all around.
-
I wouldn't be too down if I was an Auckland supporter. Having finally watched the replay I thought Auckland were looking the better team right up to when the half back was binned. Even after that Auckland were not far off. On any other day Auckland might have won that.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Canterbury v Auckland:
I wouldn't be too down if I was an Auckland supporter. Having finally watched the replay I thought Auckland were looking the better team right up to when the half back was binned. Even after that Auckland were not far off. On any other day Auckland might have won that.
Maybe,But Canterbury have started slowly this season every game and have played their best rugby in the second half.
