Final: Chiefs v Crusaders
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@pakman the more you post the sweeter the victory is.
Forget the NZRU looking into anything, the Chiefs need to have a full on review on whoever made the decision to go for that penalty kick from beyond half way. On a night when the conditions were not going to give the kicker any love it seemed a very poor and low percentage decision.
Was it because they didn’t trust their set piece? (Lineout risk)
Was it because DMac thought I did it last week why not tonight? (Different conditions)That penalty gave Chiefs some needed momentum, but the decision to kick for goal IMO took that momentum away.
Stolen victories are the sweetest aren't they!
Three yellow cards, converted non-try awarded, a pearler of an oppo move scrubbed off because of the one truly competent act of the TMO in the game, some poor decision making by opp in last 15 and Jesters STILL only two points ahead before meaningless last penalty. Clearly a superior team.
I couldn't agree more on the DMac penalty.
-
@Stargazer said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Cyclops Yes, no technology needed for that one. The officials would have been able to see Dmac standing several metres in front of a line on the field with the naked eye. A line he should have been behind.
Remind me what the on field decision was?
-
@Chris-B said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@ACT-Crusader said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
I really want the Chiefs to win because if they don’t the whinging about the ref and blaming others will be unbearable….
I think you won the thread.
If only the mighty Chiefs had been able to cope with a scrum to them on the halfway being converted to a lineout to us on the halfway, the way we coped with ALB taking out our All Black wing and not being red carded...
We would have been thrashed, I tell you - thrashed!!!
LOL, you're actually highlighting that the Jesters weren't good enough to win without all the stuff.
-
@Steven-Harris said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Nepia i really dont think World Rugby does any favours for the officials
Limited powers to the TMO on forward passes is massive one for me , i have no doubt despite the on field officials all missing the forward pass thrown by Jack Goodhue , Brendon Pickerall the TMO along with everyone who was watching the game saw that it was forward , the irony is had the Crusaders scored off that play it would have been bought back for a forward pass .
How crazy is that ..?, for me you your leaving your officials in quite the pickle .D Mac being pulled up for being in the 10 was an interesting one as well , imagine if the ball was dropped in the act of scoring , its probably unlikely the referee and the TMO go back to look at D Macs infraction .
I get the clarity in and around the non awarding of the try , but you do wonder if it had been picked up if there was no try
No wonder many are confusedCompletely agree.
-
@Winger said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Chris-B said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
In this game I thought the better team lost. Whether it was due to poor discipline or biased reffing I just don't know.
The better team on paper or the better team on the night?
See, I thought the Crusaders dominated the majority of the match - largely on the back of the Chiefs' ill-discipline, though we started much better and they looked rattled from the get go.
I thought we dominated the first half and might pay for leaving too many points out there. That looked somewhat likely in the first 25 minutes of the second half, when they got on top. But, the tide got turned again and we clearly had the best of the final 15 minutes.
The stats largely seem to back me up - we clearly won territory, possession and time in the opposition 22. We won the set piece because we smoked their lineout and scrums were largely even. Crucially, their discipline was terrible and given ALB's yellow has been upgraded to a red, they were lucky not to be punished a lot worse. That was the most costly reffing error of the night - far bigger impact than a missed forward pass.
With the massive advantage of being at home and with the Crusaders missing a bunch of frontline players - the Chiefs should be absolutely kicking themselves for blowing that game.
But, I don't think they were hard done by on the night.
-
Chiefs looked the better team despite playing almost half the game with 14 men.
McMillan won this contest, Crusaders had no answers on attack, their defense suffocated them, Chiefs created more opportunities & found more space with the ball. Crusaders scoring from those rolling mauls were inevitable while opposition down a forward, Crusaders looked mostly clueless while it was 15 v 15 (22 of their 25 points came when Chiefs down to 14).
Chiefs IMO were the better side for the majority of the game. This wasn't like the comprehensive dismantling of the Blues (mentality & tactically) at Eden Park last year, this title involved a significant element of luck, the Chiefs deserved this one and I really feel for Clayton and those departing players.
-
Winning is so much sweeter on the back of feral,bitter twisted fans or jealous individuals who can not handle a successful franchise.
You can blame anyone or anything for a loss but that will not make you better it will keep you in an entitled we deserve it mentality.
No way to build a dynasty look within to achieve what you want.
You can’t grow if you don’t understand. -
@Chris said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
You can blame anyone or anything for a loss but that will not make you better it will keep you in an entitled we deserve it mentality.
No way to build a dynasty look within to achieve what you want.
You can’t grow if you don’t understand.Did you literally google "worst internet internal growth memes" to come up with this shit? Are these quotes of some shit pic with a waterfall or the sun coming up or something?
No respect for the fans who are all over instagram being abusive. Sad indictment of the world we live in.
-
Ok yeah sorry entitled babies you are the greatest team in the history of the game,O’Keefe needs to be hung from a tree in Hamilton,
And no body should ever dare to beat the Chiefs in a final again.
That is for all the feral fluffybunnies,to make them feel better. -
@Winger said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Chris-B said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Windows97 On the contrary...
https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/topic/5006/waikato-v-tasman-premiership-final/101?page=6
Here you see a perfect example of gracious losing - the previous page notes discussion of some contentious calls - though not by me.
Much like the Chiefs we died of self-inflicted wounds that night!
Depends on the circumstances. Wellington has been on the wrong side of of lopsided reffing and have been pissed off. Same with the AB
This game with a one sided penalty count and likewise yellow cards. And a badly missed forward pass. And also a close game. Fans from the losing side were always going to be annoyed
But if my team lose and the reffing is fair I just accept the better team won and move on.
In this game I thought the better team lost. Whether it was due to poor discipline or biased reffing I just don't know. But can understand why chiefs fabs are annoyed. It's good to see some strong feelings from the fans but some have gone too far. As NZ fans did with Barnes
Says the poster who has been saying for the last 3-4 years that the Crusaders have “ruined” Super Rugby. Hard to take you serious when you comment on Crusader games or threads.
I think we can kill the idea that the reffing was biased. There’s absolutely no evidence of that. Were things missed, you bet ya. That’s the nature of it and it isn’t going to change as long as we put humans in charge of a game that has laws that are open to interpretation from the guy with the whistle. The maul and breakdown are still subjective as it was back in the pre-professional days.
-
@Chris-B said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Winger said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Chris-B said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
In this game I thought the better team lost. Whether it was due to poor discipline or biased reffing I just don't know.
The better team on paper or the better team on the night?
See, I thought the Crusaders dominated the majority of the match - largely on the back of the Chiefs' ill-discipline, though we started much better and they looked rattled from the get go.
I thought we dominated the first half and might pay for leaving too many points out there. That looked somewhat likely in the first 25 minutes of the second half, when they got on top. But, the tide got turned again and we clearly had the best of the final 15 minutes.
The stats largely seem to back me up - we clearly won territory, possession and time in the opposition 22. We won the set piece because we smoked their lineout and scrums were largely even. Crucially, their discipline was terrible and given ALB's yellow has been upgraded to a red, they were lucky not to be punished a lot worse. That was the most costly reffing error of the night - far bigger impact than a missed forward pass.
With the massive advantage of being at home and with the Crusaders missing a bunch of frontline players - the Chiefs should be absolutely kicking themselves for blowing that game.
But, I don't think they were hard done by on the night.
Nah bro. It’s the vibe, we stole it.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Chiefs looked the better team despite playing almost half the game with 14 men.
McMillan won this contest, Crusaders had no answers on attack, their defense suffocated them, Chiefs created more opportunities & found more space with the ball. Crusaders scoring from those rolling mauls were inevitable while opposition down a forward, Crusaders looked mostly clueless while it was 15 v 15 (22 of their 25 points came when Chiefs down to 14).
Chiefs IMO were the better side for the majority of the game. This wasn't like the comprehensive dismantling of the Blues (mentality & tactically) at Eden Park last year, this title involved a significant element of luck, the Chiefs deserved this one and I really feel for Clayton and those departing players.
But Whitelock and co ruled supreme in the lineouts.
-
@nostrildamus said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@kiwi_expat said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Chiefs looked the better team despite playing almost half the game with 14 men.
McMillan won this contest, Crusaders had no answers on attack, their defense suffocated them, Chiefs created more opportunities & found more space with the ball. Crusaders scoring from those rolling mauls were inevitable while opposition down a forward, Crusaders looked mostly clueless while it was 15 v 15 (22 of their 25 points came when Chiefs down to 14).
Chiefs IMO were the better side for the majority of the game. This wasn't like the comprehensive dismantling of the Blues (mentality & tactically) at Eden Park last y ear, this title involved a significant element of luck, the Chiefs deserved this one and I really feel for Clayton and those departing players.
But Whitelock and co ruled supreme in the lineouts.
Yep, a few individuals saved Razor's skin, but it's safe to say McMillan won this one. Coming from a South Islander here.
The Crusaders got home via questionable officiating and some influential individuals, Whitelock doesn't play and Crusaders don't win.
Clayton and his Chiefs deserved this one, they were honestly the better team on the night, in my opinion, as much as it hurts to admit.
-
Wow, the urban myth of the singular importance of that forward pass being missed several phases prior to a try and to the Chiefs clearing their line and having a lineout restart at halfway prior to the try, just grows. They had a lineout at halfway that they then didn’t defend and then had a 50m try scored against them.
There are so many calls that could be reviewed in any game (Jacobsen stripping the ball) so the rules limiting a review to the try scoring movement seem very practical. I think they work well on balance giving us a flowing game and a heightened focus on reviewing try scoring action. But like anything they can be changed and improved upon if there is agreement.
The case of the review of Damien’s try was always going to happen because it was “in the try scoring movement”.
But in this the media and all their commentators have done their usual shit job by headlining “controversy” and not providing any balance. They really just stir the pot and generally just do a shit job of being analytical and reviewing games. Specifically I refer to all the ex rugby players on the dime who don’t seem to do their homework prior to talking. I wonder if they ever sit together and talk through games prior to being on TV? So they can reflect on what someone else has seen in the game that they missed - a professional approach to the job of providing commentary. Instead they just give emotional reaction stuff that plays to peoples prejudices. Then they sit back and tell the general public off for reacting when they have actively fanned the flames. They are the worst.
-
Oh, that is insightful, I am happy to agree with that. If the best players in the Crusaders team didn't play that night, the Crusaders probably would not have won.
-
@nostrildamus Chiefs performed better given the circumstances, 22 of the Crusaders 25 points were scored against 14 men, 3 yellow cards, roughly 1/2 the match disadvantaged, Crusaders looked clueless whenever the Chiefs had a full compliment.
-
@nostrildamus said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Oh, that is insightful, I am happy to agree with that. If the best players in the Crusaders team didn't play that night, the Crusaders probably would not have won.
It’s a fun game. If DMac doesn’t play, Crusaders win by 20.
-
