Canes vs Chiefs

Mokey

Whew! A helter skelter game, that the Chiefs were lucky to win. Really good defence at the end there, especially considering they were playing with 14.
 
Beauden, mate, I suggest you find some new kicking boots. And TJP should not be anywhere near an AB jersey.

Wreck Diver

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="574408" data-time="1461406080">Bones, on 23 Apr 2016 - 11:08 AM, said:
<div>
Didn't look like it was his decision!
</div>
</blockquote>
it was his decision he came to the side line and conferred with the 4th ref.

Winger

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Dice" data-cid="574387" data-time="1461403688">
<div>
Another good game.
 
Just like at the end of the Highlanders game, Woodward shows that he's not clutch.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
It wasn't the easiest pass to catch though. Canes lost a game that should have been an easy win
 
Barrett is quality but needs to have the kicking taken off him. His touch finding and goal kicking is not good enough but otherwise he's high quality

ACT Crusader

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="KiwiMurph" data-cid="574386" data-time="1461403579">Entertaining but weird game. Barrett was excellent goal kicking aside. Thought Cruden was bloody quiet and Julian Savea doesnt look like an AB.</blockquote>
 
Agree. Cruden looked sluggish even before the head knock. 
J. Savea did nothing other than kill any momentum in attack. Very poor defensive effort also. 
Not a huge fan of the Canes attack on phase play.

hydro11

Probably should have got the win but didn't. Chiefs kicked their points and we didn't. It was a good game a couple of players really stood up - Fatialofa a clear example. I'm not too angry about it overall because these things happen. Going to be a big slog to win the conference now.

Billy Tell

Dunno why people give J Savea such a hard time. We all know he will wear 11 for NZ and do what he does: score tries.

hydro11

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Billy Tell" data-cid="574416" data-time="1461408511">
<div>
Dunno why people give J Savea such a hard time. We all know he will wear 11 for NZ and do what he does: score tries.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Savea, at least lately, needs the ball in space. If he doesn't get that then he isn't that dangerous. He didn't get the ball in space tonight - if he does then there is no one better to score tries (except maybe Nadolo).

Siam

Cane and his tackling. It's great to have a 7 who runs all over the show and does lots of things. Ardie is a really good player and NZ and AB rugby is richer for having him, so long may he feature
 
however, it's easy to forget the worth and value of a 7 that puts people down hard every movement. Richie was doing that latterly in his career and Sam Cane has a similar value add which is gold dust in Internationals. All in all it's good to have both of them but Ardie will keep Cane honest and Ardie will have the double figures on his jersey when the time comes (after Todd ) - all good
 
Would love to know from anyone there if the Barrett dead in goal touch finder actually was. Sometimes touches get a bit hyped up in those situations and the canes player near the sideline seemed to be gesticulating ferociously. Just a bit of trivia
 
Barrett kicks for goal too front on. Noddy Lynagh noticed it and it's something that's bugged me for a while now. It ain't the way forward
 
I always feel so sorry for the woodwardisms. Poor blokes, it's like dropping a catch in cricket - no one feels worse about it than the dropper and the last thing he needs is abuse or being reminded that he should have caught it. 
 
TJP's hotheaded silly play all stems from putting your fucking hand on your heart during anthem time - sort your "look at me" emotions out son! You're good enough, just play the game and stop taking yourself so seriously - watch Cruden for examples
 
oh and the world's gone mad when Tamanivalu type tries are awarded, (the one where he dropped it over the line). Yes i know it's the rule with TV but it's fucking wrong - always has been always will be

Rancid Schnitzel

TJP should have a lock on the no. 2 sh position. He's much bigger than Webber and has more talent in his pinky finger than TKB has in his entire body. But unfortunately he lacks a brain, which is rather important for a SH to have. I thought he turned a corner last year but was sadly mistaken. 
I think we'll see B. Smith move back to wing this year. DMacs form has been ridiculous. 
I really rate Woodward but he farked up royally there.

canefan

Woodward blew his chance to be the hero but Barrett left enough missed kicking points on the table to win the game. Quality match though

Unco

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="574419" data-time="1461410684">
<div>
TJP should have a lock on the no. 2 sh position. He's much bigger than Webber and has more talent in his pinky finger than TKB has in his entire body. But unfortunately he lacks a brain, which is rather important for a SH to have. I thought he turned a corner last year but was sadly mistaken. 
I think we'll see B. Smith move back to wing this year. DMacs form has been ridiculous. 
I really rate Woodward but he farked up royally there.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yeah, nah. He still does the same shit that got him dropped down to 3 in the first place. Passes to heads/knees, shitty kicking and a huge pile of dumb decisions. Still think TJP is fighting it out for no. 3 with Weber.
 
Also, Weber is around the same size as Aaron Smith.

Higgins

This is the definition of the word possession from the Laws of the Game of Rugby Union
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=2'>http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=2</a>
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://laws.worldrugby.org/?search=Possession'>Possession:</a><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://laws.worldrugby.org/?search=Possession'> </a>This happens when a player is carrying the ball or a team has the ball in its control; for example, the ball in one half of a scrum or ruck is in that teamâ€™s possession.
 
Sadly I canâ€™t copy and paste the same for the rule of what is a knock on but this is a reproduction of the relevant part:
 
Knock-on: Law 12 - Knock-on or Throw-forward
â€œA knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with his hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it."
 
Did Tamanivalu have the ball in his control when pressing it with what looked to not much more than his little finger?
 
If not then does he "catch itâ€ before the ball hits the ground? There appears to be very little to debate over this part, he simply does not â€œcatch itâ€ thus he does not regain "possession" ie control
 
The other part of the equation to consider is whether the ball travels forward. If a player loses possession ie control when diving in for a try then the likelihood is the ball traveling forward and the only way possession can be regained, thus preventing a knock-on, is to catch it.
 
Does this particular incident meet the requirements needed to rule it a knock-on rather than the try that was?

canefan

It looked like a knock on to me but we've all seen them given before and we still had more than enough opportunity to win the game

Bones

Actually Higgins you've convinced me now that it was a try. He didn't lose contact. Didn't have control but reading that doesn't make me think he needs it until the ball has left his hand.

mimic

yeh it was a try.. u dont need control.. all u need is just a part of your hand touching the ball, while the ball is in contact with the ground..
there was no clear and obvious reason as to why he could not award the try.. 
 
BB is a brilliant player.. He's like King Carlos.. Makes the plays.. just dont let him do the goal kicking..

sparky

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="KiwiMurph" data-cid="574386" data-time="1461403579">
<div>
Entertaining but weird game. Barrett was excellent goal kicking aside. Thought Cruden was bloody quiet and Julian Savea doesnt look like an AB.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
Julian Savea's not on top form at the moment, but stupid to write off his AB chances just yet. He has quite some try scoring record at international level.
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='

'>

</a>
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='

'>

</a>

Crash

Damn, these Chiefs make rugby exciting!

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Higgins" data-cid="574427" data-time="1461416851">
This is the definition of the word possession from the Laws of the Game of Rugby Union 
 <a class="bbc_url" href="http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=2">http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=2</a> <a class="bbc_url" href="http://laws.worldrugby.org/?search=Possession">Possession:</a><a class="bbc_url" href="http://laws.worldrugby.org/?search=Possession"> </a>This happens when a player is carrying the ball or a team has the ball in its control; for example, the ball in one half of a scrum or ruck is in that teamâ€™s possession. 
 Sadly I canâ€™t copy and paste the same for the rule of what is a knock on but this is a reproduction of the relevant part: 
 Knock-on: Law 12 - Knock-on or Throw-forward â€œA knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with his hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it." 
 Did Tamanivalu have the ball in his control when pressing it with what looked to not much more than his little finger? 
 If not then does he "catch itâ€ before the ball hits the ground? There appears to be very little to debate over this part, he simply does not â€œcatch itâ€ thus he does not regain "possession" ie control 
 The other part of the equation to consider is whether the ball travels forward. If a player loses possession ie control when diving in for a try then the likelihood is the ball traveling forward and the only way possession can be regained, thus preventing a knock-on, is to catch it. 
 Does this particular incident meet the requirements needed to rule it a knock-on rather than the try that was?
</blockquote>
 He caught the pass well prior to the scoring action, so that is not a factor to consider in deciding if he scores, the only part of this action to condier is if he loses control; he maintains contact with the ball at all times while it is in the air and when it makes contact with the ground 
Way less controversial than Saveas try when he rolled it forward along the ground a few weeks ago IMO.
 
Amusingly, Marshall not happy about that call last night, thought the Savea one was ok....

hydro11

The Chiefs definitely lost the ball forward in the lead up to the Taminvalu try which was missed. The try itself was good though.

Dice

It'd be nice if an article came out this coming week saying Fatialofa has signed a 2/3 year contract with the Blues, but we'll probably just get an article saying how the Blues missed another one instead. With Bekhuis going to France, we do have a spot open.

The Silver Fern

Canes vs Chiefs