Lions v Hurricanes (SF)
-
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
Yep - fair enough - apologies, hungover and drunk and didn't think through what you were suggesting.
Definitely - penalty, because... intent is irrelevant. YC - bullshit, and yes - that's where intent, or recklessness-re-player-safety is relevant. -
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
So Barrett deliberately moved his legs and it moved the ball out of the ruck. So yes it was deliberate.
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
So Barrett deliberately moved his legs and it moved the ball out of the ruck. So yes it was deliberate.
Don't be obtuse. He didn't intentionally touch the ball.
-
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
Nonsense. The laws and relevant guidelines permit a simple penalty for a head high tackle.
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@No-Quarter said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@antipodean said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@KiwiMurph said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@antipodean Impeded the Lions attack. Beaudie kicked the ball to the Canes side.
For a YC you'd have to be convinced that it was deliberate.
Yeah, my understanding is that it has to be a professional foul to be a YC - I.E. intentional. Tough call, can see why he thought it was cynical but the replay showed it was accidental. Shit happens, Peyper is generally pretty good.
He just shat the bed by not binning Riccitelli. Bizarrely inconsistent refereeing.
Agreed. That's a clear YC. Riccitelli never on side to play at that ball.
-
Rubbish tactics and coaching. Lost kicking batttle and Boyd waaaaay too late with the subs.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
So Barrett deliberately moved his legs and it moved the ball out of the ruck. So yes it was deliberate.
Don't be obtuse. He didn't intentionally touch the ball.
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
So Barrett deliberately moved his legs and it moved the ball out of the ruck. So yes it was deliberate.
Don't be obtuse. He didn't intentionally touch the ball.
So someone or something else forced him to touch the ball?
Don't be so ignorant.
-
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
Nonsense. The laws and relevant guidelines permit a simple penalty for a head high tackle.
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@No-Quarter said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@antipodean said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@KiwiMurph said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@antipodean Impeded the Lions attack. Beaudie kicked the ball to the Canes side.
For a YC you'd have to be convinced that it was deliberate.
Yeah, my understanding is that it has to be a professional foul to be a YC - I.E. intentional. Tough call, can see why he thought it was cynical but the replay showed it was accidental. Shit happens, Peyper is generally pretty good.
He just shat the bed by not binning Riccitelli. Bizarrely inconsistent refereeing.
Agreed. That's a clear YC. Riccitelli never on side to play at that ball.
@antipodean said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
Nonsense. The laws and relevant guidelines permit a simple penalty for a head high tackle.
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@No-Quarter said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@antipodean said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@KiwiMurph said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@antipodean Impeded the Lions attack. Beaudie kicked the ball to the Canes side.
For a YC you'd have to be convinced that it was deliberate.
Yeah, my understanding is that it has to be a professional foul to be a YC - I.E. intentional. Tough call, can see why he thought it was cynical but the replay showed it was accidental. Shit happens, Peyper is generally pretty good.
He just shat the bed by not binning Riccitelli. Bizarrely inconsistent refereeing.
Agreed. That's a clear YC. Riccitelli never on side to play at that ball.
It makes up for them "not having any other angles"
-
So...when the Lions came up against a nz team they'd be found out
@Billy-Tell said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
So...when the Lions came up against a nz team they'd be found out
They were. Game should have been over after 30 minutes. The reason we lost is because of stupid strategic decisions we made around the half time period. I think if NMS releases the ball after 35 minutes, we win. If BB doesn't do the grubber kick after 42 minutes, we also win.
-
Fuck you TJ.
I'm going to bed.
Well done Lions. I hope the Crusaders pump you.
-
Beaudy should have focused on rugby instead of golf.
-
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
So Barrett deliberately moved his legs and it moved the ball out of the ruck. So yes it was deliberate.
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
So Barrett deliberately moved his legs and it moved the ball out of the ruck. So yes it was deliberate.
LOL You clearly don't understand how this works. The same way people aren't automatically YC/ RC for head high tackles or preventing the ball coming out of a ruck.
-
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
So Barrett deliberately moved his legs and it moved the ball out of the ruck. So yes it was deliberate.
Don't be obtuse. He didn't intentionally touch the ball.
So someone or something else forced him to touch the ball?
Don't be so ignorant.
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
So Barrett deliberately moved his legs and it moved the ball out of the ruck. So yes it was deliberate.
Don't be obtuse. He didn't intentionally touch the ball.
So someone or something else forced him to touch the ball?
Don't be so ignorant.
You do realise that under your definition every single knock on is a deliberate knock on? He deliberately touched the ball and it went forward! Should every knock on be a yellow card? It's the logical conclusion of your argument that every single action on a rugby field is deliberate.
-
After their respective semi final displays, I'd want TKB over TJP. Perenara has shat the bed on this display.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
So...when the Lions came up against a nz team they'd be found out
They were. Game should have been over after 30 minutes. The reason we lost is because of stupid strategic decisions we made around the half time period. I think if NMS releases the ball after 35 minutes, we win. If BB doesn't do the grubber kick after 42 minutes, we also win.
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Billy-Tell said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
So...when the Lions came up against a nz team they'd be found out
They were. Game should have been over after 30 minutes. The reason we lost is because of stupid strategic decisions we made around the half time period. I think if NMS releases the ball after 35 minutes, we win. If BB doesn't do the grubber kick after 42 minutes, we also win.
The Lions were always going to finish stronger given the altitude & lack of travel. We were ruthless in the first 20 and then as you say played some stupid chsmpagne style rugby between 20 - 30 when we should have been putting our foot on their throat and ending the game by half time.
Credit to the Lions, they've kept their self belief and played much better footy in the 2nd 40, but the Canes had plenty of chances to put the game beyond reach which they will be frustrated by on reflection.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
So...when the Lions came up against a nz team they'd be found out
They were. Game should have been over after 30 minutes. The reason we lost is because of stupid strategic decisions we made around the half time period. I think if NMS releases the ball after 35 minutes, we win. If BB doesn't do the grubber kick after 42 minutes, we also win.
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Billy-Tell said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
So...when the Lions came up against a nz team they'd be found out
They were. Game should have been over after 30 minutes. The reason we lost is because of stupid strategic decisions we made around the half time period. I think if NMS releases the ball after 35 minutes, we win. If BB doesn't do the grubber kick after 42 minutes, we also win.
Should have been over but wasn't. It's no good talking in theories the reality is the Lions cruising to victory. I'm as surprised as everyone else but fact is Lions are decent enough.
-
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Billy-Tell said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
So...when the Lions came up against a nz team they'd be found out
They were. Game should have been over after 30 minutes. The reason we lost is because of stupid strategic decisions we made around the half time period. I think if NMS releases the ball after 35 minutes, we win. If BB doesn't do the grubber kick after 42 minutes, we also win.
The Lions were always going to finish stronger given the altitude & lack of travel. We were ruthless in the first 20 and then as you say played some stupid chsmpagne style rugby between 20 - 30 when we should have been putting our foot on their throat and ending the game by half time.
Credit to the Lions, they've kept their self belief and played much better footy in the 2nd 40, but the Canes had plenty of chances to put the game beyond reach which they will be frustrated by on reflection.
@No-Quarter said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Billy-Tell said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
So...when the Lions came up against a nz team they'd be found out
They were. Game should have been over after 30 minutes. The reason we lost is because of stupid strategic decisions we made around the half time period. I think if NMS releases the ball after 35 minutes, we win. If BB doesn't do the grubber kick after 42 minutes, we also win.
The Lions were always going to finish stronger given the altitude & lack of travel. We were ruthless in the first 20 and then as you say played some stupid chsmpagne style rugby between 20 - 30 when we should have been putting our foot on their throat and ending the game by half time.
Credit to the Lions, they've kept their self belief and played much better footy in the 2nd 40, but the Canes had plenty of chances to put the game beyond reach which they will be frustrated by on reflection.
I think teams these days are a lot better at adapting to altitude. I seem to remember us beating the Lions in the last minute in Jo'burg. I would have backed us to finish strong, under different circumstances.
-
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
So Barrett deliberately moved his legs and it moved the ball out of the ruck. So yes it was deliberate.
Don't be obtuse. He didn't intentionally touch the ball.
So someone or something else forced him to touch the ball?
Don't be so ignorant.
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
That what's the point of a YC! They exist to discourage deliberate and illegal infringements.
So Barrett deliberately moved his legs and it moved the ball out of the ruck. So yes it was deliberate.
Don't be obtuse. He didn't intentionally touch the ball.
So someone or something else forced him to touch the ball?
Don't be so ignorant.
Yes - the ball happened to be in the area as he moved.
I understand the ignorance isn't by choice, so I won't give you advice about stopping it. -
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Billy-Tell said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
So...when the Lions came up against a nz team they'd be found out
They were. Game should have been over after 30 minutes. The reason we lost is because of stupid strategic decisions we made around the half time period. I think if NMS releases the ball after 35 minutes, we win. If BB doesn't do the grubber kick after 42 minutes, we also win.
Should have been over but wasn't. It's no good talking in theories the reality is the Lions cruising to victory. I'm as surprised as everyone else but fact is Lions are decent enough.
@Billy-Tell said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Billy-Tell said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
So...when the Lions came up against a nz team they'd be found out
They were. Game should have been over after 30 minutes. The reason we lost is because of stupid strategic decisions we made around the half time period. I think if NMS releases the ball after 35 minutes, we win. If BB doesn't do the grubber kick after 42 minutes, we also win.
Should have been over but wasn't. It's no good talking in theories the reality is the Lions cruising to victory. I'm as surprised as everyone else but fact is Lions are decent enough.
Definitely. The Lions aren't a bad team.
-
I wonder if the Lions can score another try? Just to come back from 22-3 down and score close to 50 points. But then these are the Boks beating the shit out of the Canes.
-
I wonder if the Lions can score another try? Just to come back from 22-3 down and score close to 50 points. But then these are the Boks beating the shit out of the Canes.
@JustAnotherFan said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
I wonder if the Lions can score another try? Just to come back from 22-3 down and score close to 50 points. But then these are the Boks beating the shit out of the Canes.
Will they make up the bulk of the Boks? That's pretty concerning they were down 22-3 to the Canes then...
