@antipodean said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
He was ineffective at rucks
That's the main thing I was keeping an eye on. To his credit he made it to a lot of rucks, he was just sloppy when he got there.
I can see the benefit of him being a bench option and then the coach can decide late in the game if its a 5/3 or 6/2
Normally a 6/2 would be putting more emphasis on the pack but this would be a decision for when the game gets loose IMO. Basically finishing up with 7.5 forwards and 7.5 backs.
This didn't lead to anything, but that pass by Teddy Wilson to his winger just before full time was insane.
I'm definitely in the 'good on him for giving it a crack' boat, and also good on the crusaders for trying something. Lots of people on here have been having a whinge about us not innovating, other teams catching up and overtaking us - then when someone tries something out of the box we're gonna have a whinge about that too?
Miserable old fluffybunnies.
None of which is to say that it was an astounding success, but it is a very interesting option with a lot of potential benefit for bench/injury/cards cover - and even just improving a back's breakdown skills rapidly. I want to see more of it.
@antipodean said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
@Chris said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
For what he bought last night it suited the Crusaders really well.
No doubt - but let's be honest he played like a winger who went looking for work. If he was wearing 11 on his back he'd have heaps of praise for his attacking involvement. He was ineffective at rucks, absent off the side of the scrum and as helpful in mauls as any other back.
If the measure of his game is he plays like Ardie, then I don't consider that high praise. It may have worked for the Crusaders, in the same way playing Bill Young as a prop worked for the Wallabies - it does until it doesn't.
This bit, a hit on Kellaway running of first phase from a scrum LF hit him and he lost the ball forward I think that is something he will get better at.
I think this will be a bench option and 20 minutes at the end of a game thing,I don't think LF will make a career out of 7,and is even looking at that option.
Wanna give Hotham big ups too, was a big part of our early pressure. Havili not a great effort though.
@Canerbry said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
Wanna give Hotham big ups too, was a big part of our early pressure. Havili not a great effort though.
Were you there last night? The stadium looked pretty as a picture and the crowd was up for it. Nice to see high intensity flowing rugby on a cold Christchurch winter's night
@MiketheSnow said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
Just watched the highlights and hard to see from it but can someone please explain the lead up to the first Tahs YC please?
Looked like the bringing down of the maul was legal because it was a tackle
Then the ref blows for a penalty ????
And as the penalised player is talking with the ref the Crusaders player takes a quick tap, runs into a defender and the defender gets a YC
Can someone make sense of it all please?
I watched that 3 times this morning and the ref absolutely stitches the Tahs up there. Should have been their penalty
@antipodean said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
@MiketheSnow said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
Just watched the highlights and hard to see from it but can someone please explain the lead up to the first Tahs YC please?
Looked like the bringing down of the maul was legal because it was a tackle
Then the ref blows for a penalty ????
And as the penalised player is talking with the ref the Crusaders player takes a quick tap, runs into a defender and the defender gets a YC
Can someone make sense of it all please?
The first player is entirely permitted to be where he is because the ball hasn't been transferred, so it's open play. Once the original tackler goes in and the ball doesn't go to ground it's a maul. In which case the second Tahs player joins offside. That's a clear penalty.
Hotham tries to take a quick tap and the Tahs lock grabs him within the 10m. Deliberate and YC worthy.
I reckon they transfer the ball too early and therefore it should have been obstruction.
@mariner4life said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
@antipodean said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
@MiketheSnow said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
Just watched the highlights and hard to see from it but can someone please explain the lead up to the first Tahs YC please?
Looked like the bringing down of the maul was legal because it was a tackle
Then the ref blows for a penalty ????
And as the penalised player is talking with the ref the Crusaders player takes a quick tap, runs into a defender and the defender gets a YC
Can someone make sense of it all please?
The first player is entirely permitted to be where he is because the ball hasn't been transferred, so it's open play. Once the original tackler goes in and the ball doesn't go to ground it's a maul. In which case the second Tahs player joins offside. That's a clear penalty.
Hotham tries to take a quick tap and the Tahs lock grabs him within the 10m. Deliberate and YC worthy.
I reckon they transfer the ball too early and therefore it should have been obstruction.
Certainly would've been had the ref not called it when he did, which is what the first Tahs player was waiting on.
there were toilets on the top tier a few mates were in 32 to 40 there were about 12 - 14. Had to look for signage it's there on a large round pole.
@Mr-Fish said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
I might as well be the one to say it, even Jerome Kaino took a long time to find his feet.
Has been said before on this forum. Heck, I think even I have said it.
@nostrildamus that's what I was alluding to haha. We all have to step up at some point.
@canefan
No, unfortunately, last night was just too expensive to justify as I'm disorganised. I'm eying up some resales for tomorrow's day pass though, seats way up in the diagonal nosebleeds, but close to a Sheffield Pie stand. Took the kids to an evening open night week before last, it's a truly awesome facility. The city's pumping at the moment.
The weather's been pretty good too, today was warmer outside the pavlova than inside.
Pavlova? With that glowing top it's almost more night light than pav. Based on the attire of the fans and the comms, it's much warmer than the old days at Lancaster Park and the last stadium
@Mr-Fish said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
You can certainly make a case whether there should've been a penalty or not in the first place, but the yellow card was spot on. Miles Amatosero tackles the Crusaders player who takes the quick tap without retreating back 10 metres - pretty blatant.
Amatosero gets bumped in the back by Brewis which makes the contact look worse than it may have been.
@MiketheSnow tackler takes him to ground, second player dives on the now ruck from the side?
(A guess, dunno)
@MiketheSnow said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
Not just me confused then
There's nothing confusing about it.
In this snapshot (forgive the instagram play button) you can clearly see the transfer has taken place, the Tahs player is attempting a tackle but everyone's on their feet so it's a maul. Meaning 4 & 5 from the Tahs are now offside. 4 retreats but five joins the maul from an offside position,
Rugbypass and rugbymavericks are clearly run by bait merchants or retards. Possibly both.
I thought you couldn't start a maul with players in front of the ball?
Or did we change that interpretation too, too make mauls even more OP
@mariner4life nothing in the law says that starting a maul players have to be in certain positions. Just once a maul is formed.
If your lifters get in front of your receiver its a penalty.
There are pre-binding laws in play.
I still can't see how this is legal given the Crusaders transferred the ball before anyone touched them.
If the receiver kept the ball the could have walked all the way to.the try line
@mariner4life said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
If your lifters get in front of your receiver its a penalty
Is that maybe only if they actually obstruct the opposition? If the opposition don't engage then play on?
@mariner4life said in Crusaders Vs Waratahs:
If your lifters get in front of your receiver its a penalty.
There are pre-binding laws in play.
I'd be happy to see it ruled as a flying wedge - to reduce the ridiculous overpower of the maul. So that mauls actually happened organically. In much the same way I want to see every ruck penalised where players go off their feet. But that will never happen.
I still can't see how this is legal given the Crusaders transferred the ball before anyone touched them.
Because the Tahs tackler targeted the person who was transferred the ball. Had he tried to come from the front after the transfer that would be obstruction.
I have been waiting for players in other teams to do that instead of just standing there, especially if their team doesn't get an opportunity to do one.
