Brumbies v Chiefs
-
Wow, fucking top notch chiefs. Favourite stuff from this game was watching the chiefs adjust to the ref's breakdown interpretations - no need to roll away and you can lean all over players to disrupt or steal the ball. Oh and that rolling maul just cos was bloody lovely too. <br><br>
Thought Seu looked excellent, hope he keeps that form up. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="bbarcs" data-cid="569459" data-time="1459595050"><p>Chiefs looking Blues-2002 type dominant. But less Carlos and more all over the park.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Let's hope it's 2002 all over again..... :)<br><br>
I think 2003 Bbarcs, Blues were awesome that season. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="569463" data-time="1459595493"><p>Let's hope it's 2002 all over again..... :)<br>
I think 2003 Bbarcs, Blues were awesome that season.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Gaaaaaah 2003 I meant. not sure where 2002 came from -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="569460" data-time="1459595292">
<div>
<p>I'm aware of that, but it's still a concern whether he can return to goal kicking with little prep/experience or form going into the test season. It's fine now because the Chiefs have DMac who is a very capable kicker.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Ben Smith can do the kicking, with the gushing he gets on here I assume he can goal kick as well as walk on water. ;)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'd rather have the best 10 playing than the best goal kicker - considering all our goalkickers have cabbage days on occasion.</p> -
<p>That was fun to watch , ball skills by the chiefs were as good as you could hope to see,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Cruden looking his old self ,and with the selectors having a tendency to stick with incumbents , i now think he is in the box seat </p> -
It's way too soon to call the Chiefs favourites. Too long to go in the season. As a Crusaders fan I was surprised at our attack vs the Lions. <br><br>
I think the title will fall (as usual) to a NZ side, Chiefs or Highlanders (if their key men stay fit) or Crusaders (If the backs can kick on). <br><br>
From watching super rugby I think NZ might cream Wales. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Tell" data-cid="569481" data-time="1459625428"><p>It's way too soon to call the Chiefs favourites. Too long to go in the season. As a Crusaders fan I was surprised at our attack vs the Lions. <br><br>
I think the title will fall (as usual) to a NZ side, Chiefs or Highlanders (if their key men stay fit) or Crusaders (If the backs can kick on). <br><br>
From watching super rugby I think NZ might cream Wales.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Way to early to call anything. Crusaders are very good. Chiefs are very good. Highlanders are good and have worked out how to continue winning. Hurricanes are good and a run will have them well in the game. Blues still haven't found what they're looking for. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ploughboy" data-cid="569483" data-time="1459627515"><p>pocock citied for choking letich in maul</p></blockquote>
<br><a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/78495090/Brumbies-flanker-David-Pocock-cited-for-neck-grab-during-big-loss-to-Chiefs">http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/78495090/Brumbies-flanker-David-Pocock-cited-for-neck-grab-during-big-loss-to-Chiefs</a><br><br>
About time this was clamped down on. Very dangerous play. <br><br>
In the clip you can see he must have had Leitch pretty tight around the neck as he is whacking at him to let go. Then when the maul twists and collapses it is bloody lucky that there wasn't a bad injury. <br><br>
This is about the only reason that collapsing a maul is dangerous. Because there are some horrible binds. -
<p>just the look on pococks face showed he was putting everything into it and he's clearly not weak!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>fantastic win by the chiefs, great side to watch. </p> -
<p>Pity that the Pocock incident wasn't picked up during the game. The ref knew something had happened but then the replay he was shown wasn't even of the players concerned.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If it was in SA I would make the cynical accusation the the TV producer was being deliberately incompetent
, but it was in Oz and the whole game looked like it was being done last minute by a team pissed off that they weren't at a Raiders game. Close up when there was need for wide shots and vice-versa.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="569491" data-time="1459633557">
<div>
<p>Pity that the Pocock incident wasn't picked up during the game. The ref knew something had happened but then the replay he was shown wasn't even of the players concerned.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If it was in SA I would make the cynical accusation the the TV producer was being deliberately incompetent , but it was in Oz and the whole game looked like it was being done last minute by a team pissed off that they weren't at a Raiders game. Close up when there was need for wide shots and vice-versa.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Did the ref ask for the replay? They were asking for a lot of stuff during the game and looked at least one other possible choking incident by the Brumbies - are they the Storm of rugby now?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="bbarcs" data-cid="569492" data-time="1459633568"><p>
Reckless is all. Pocock ain't malicious. I prefer seeing people banned for intent.<br><br></p></blockquote>
<br>
Intent is pretty hard to prove without admissions. Pocock is getting a bit of history for 'reckless' acts... -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="569496" data-time="1459633940">
<div>
<p>Did the ref ask for the replay? They were asking for a lot of stuff during the game and looked at least one other possible choking incident by the Brumbies - are they the Storm of rugby now?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>They looked at one potential 'neck roll' as that is the foul play of focus at present. It wasn't worth pursuing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you can watch the clip in the link I posted, this was the incident when the ref asked the TMO to show the maul as Leitch had obviously been grabbed around the neck. They only showed on very brief shot which wasn't of Pocock or Leitch and decided there was nothing they could see. I think they will get marked down for missing it when all the clues were in front of them.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="bbarcs" data-cid="569492" data-time="1459633568">
<div>
<p>Reckless is all. Pocock ain't malicious. I prefer seeing people banned for intent.<br><br>
Mann-Rea only got 1 week for punching Oli Kebble square in the face repeatedly.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Intent doesn't come into dangerous play at all for good reason. Judge the act then take intent into account in setting the punishment.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="569499" data-time="1459634191">
<div>
<p>They looked at one potential 'neck roll' as that is the foul play of focus at present. It wasn't worth pursuing.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you can watch the clip in the link I posted, this was the incident when the ref asked the TMO to show the maul as Leitch had obviously been grabbed around the neck. They only showed on very brief shot which wasn't of Pocock or Leitch and decided there was nothing they could see. I think they will get marked down for missing it when all the clues were in front of them.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>If they got a bad clip from the producers as you say, should they really get marked down for it? They must get some credit for noticing it? As much as he let the rucks become a free for all, and we were laying into him last night, I actually think he got better as the game went on - and he shouldn't get a black mark for something a bit out of his control, he can get his black marks for ignoring most of the laws of rucks. </p>
