Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021)
-
Without rewatching that, in the world of competent officials Blues won.
The GCT obstruction is pretty ludicrous. The maul laws are built around legalised obstruction. To not give that makes a mockery of a mockery. Granted, if ref had blown real time, slightly harder to complain.
As for final awarded non-try, on a close watch the ball was plainly marginally forward. It wasn't clear and obvious, and it wasn't much forward, but it WAS forward.
So the ref misses a forward pass because it wasn't clear and obvious, and awards a try. But because the forward pass wasn't clear and obvious (as it wasn't in the first place) the TMO can't overturn it.
Almost a paradox.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The rules need to be amended to state that if there is a mistake, even if not clear and obvious, the decision is overturned.
Having said that, apalling performance by the Blue. The fact they were the legitimate winners is not excuse for the huge dropping of standards.
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
Without rewatching that, in the world of competent officials Blues won.
The GCT obstruction is pretty ludicrous. The maul laws are built around legalised obstruction. To not give that makes a mockery of a mockery. Granted, if ref had blown real time, slightly harder to complain.
As for final awarded non-try, on a close watch the ball was plainly marginally forward. It wasn't clear and obvious, and it wasn't much forward, but it WAS forward.
So the ref misses a forward pass because it wasn't clear and obvious, and awards a try. But because the forward pass wasn't clear and obvious (as it wasn't in the first place) the TMO can't overturn it.
Almost a paradox.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The rules need to be amended to state that if there is a mistake, even if not clear and obvious, the decision is overturned.
Having said that, apalling performance by the Blue. The fact they were the legitimate winners is not excuse for the huge dropping of standards.
Some brilliantly baffling logic in that post.
It wasn’t clear and obvious but it did happen because I saw it
-
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
Without rewatching that, in the world of competent officials Blues won.
The GCT obstruction is pretty ludicrous. The maul laws are built around legalised obstruction. To not give that makes a mockery of a mockery. Granted, if ref had blown real time, slightly harder to complain.
As for final awarded non-try, on a close watch the ball was plainly marginally forward. It wasn't clear and obvious, and it wasn't much forward, but it WAS forward.
So the ref misses a forward pass because it wasn't clear and obvious, and awards a try. But because the forward pass wasn't clear and obvious (as it wasn't in the first place) the TMO can't overturn it.
Almost a paradox.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The rules need to be amended to state that if there is a mistake, even if not clear and obvious, the decision is overturned.
Having said that, apalling performance by the Blue. The fact they were the legitimate winners is not excuse for the huge dropping of standards.
Some brilliantly baffling logic in that post.
It wasn’t clear and obvious but it did happen because I saw it
@crucial said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
Without rewatching that, in the world of competent officials Blues won.
The GCT obstruction is pretty ludicrous. The maul laws are built around legalised obstruction. To not give that makes a mockery of a mockery. Granted, if ref had blown real time, slightly harder to complain.
As for final awarded non-try, on a close watch the ball was plainly marginally forward. It wasn't clear and obvious, and it wasn't much forward, but it WAS forward.
So the ref misses a forward pass because it wasn't clear and obvious, and awards a try. But because the forward pass wasn't clear and obvious (as it wasn't in the first place) the TMO can't overturn it.
Almost a paradox.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The rules need to be amended to state that if there is a mistake, even if not clear and obvious, the decision is overturned.
Having said that, apalling performance by the Blue. The fact they were the legitimate winners is not excuse for the huge dropping of standards.
Some brilliantly baffling logic in that post.
It wasn’t clear and obvious but it did happen because I saw it
When you watch the overhead forensically is it clear the ball went forward. It ISN’T obvious — you have to look very carefully to see it.
Jacobson passes just after he places his right knee on ground. Arm comes up. Possibly goes forward (not clear) but not back. Ball goes forward, probably a foot.
He’s grounded so it’s not momentum.
Just wasn’t a try.
In the old days wouldn’t have been questioned and try would have stood.
But now we DO have the technology, and TMO consistently getting decisions wrong.
If ref didn’t see the offload, his opinion oughtn’t to count.
But as a Blues fan I’m almost glad they didn’t get the win, because their drop in standards didn’t deserve one.
-
@crucial said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
Without rewatching that, in the world of competent officials Blues won.
The GCT obstruction is pretty ludicrous. The maul laws are built around legalised obstruction. To not give that makes a mockery of a mockery. Granted, if ref had blown real time, slightly harder to complain.
As for final awarded non-try, on a close watch the ball was plainly marginally forward. It wasn't clear and obvious, and it wasn't much forward, but it WAS forward.
So the ref misses a forward pass because it wasn't clear and obvious, and awards a try. But because the forward pass wasn't clear and obvious (as it wasn't in the first place) the TMO can't overturn it.
Almost a paradox.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The rules need to be amended to state that if there is a mistake, even if not clear and obvious, the decision is overturned.
Having said that, apalling performance by the Blue. The fact they were the legitimate winners is not excuse for the huge dropping of standards.
Some brilliantly baffling logic in that post.
It wasn’t clear and obvious but it did happen because I saw it
When you watch the overhead forensically is it clear the ball went forward. It ISN’T obvious — you have to look very carefully to see it.
Jacobson passes just after he places his right knee on ground. Arm comes up. Possibly goes forward (not clear) but not back. Ball goes forward, probably a foot.
He’s grounded so it’s not momentum.
Just wasn’t a try.
In the old days wouldn’t have been questioned and try would have stood.
But now we DO have the technology, and TMO consistently getting decisions wrong.
If ref didn’t see the offload, his opinion oughtn’t to count.
But as a Blues fan I’m almost glad they didn’t get the win, because their drop in standards didn’t deserve one.
-
@bones said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman I didn't see it go forward.
You need to do play/pause repeatedly to be clear. If you watch other angles to see exactly when ball released and then do pause/play on overhead, marking where ball left hands, you’ll see it.
Ball let go a bit before five yard line and caught almost on it.
All that said and done, it’s in the book now.
-
@bones said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman I didn't see it go forward.
You need to do play/pause repeatedly to be clear. If you watch other angles to see exactly when ball released and then do pause/play on overhead, marking where ball left hands, you’ll see it.
Ball let go a bit before five yard line and caught almost on it.
All that said and done, it’s in the book now.
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@bones said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman I didn't see it go forward.
You need to do play/pause repeatedly to be clear. If you watch other angles to see exactly when ball released and then do pause/play on overhead, marking where ball left hands, you’ll see it.
Ball let go a bit before five yard line and caught almost on it.
All that said and done, it’s in the book now.
We already concluded last week that I should be TMO. Stop challenging for my title.
-
@kiwimurph The more the competition moves forward the more he is being shown up and if the Blues forwards aren’t going forward it is more obvious. Just wondering are all our first fives midgets? Mounga gets away with it because he is quick and can break the line with his elusiveness. The rest appear to be excellent NPC players.
@broughie said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@kiwimurph The more the competition moves forward the more he is being shown up and if the Blues forwards aren’t going forward it is more obvious. Just wondering are all our first fives midgets?
Black might not look it but he is easily the biggest of the 1st 5s. Listed as 1.85 m and 86 kg. Larger than Perofeta, for example.
-
@crucial said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
Without rewatching that, in the world of competent officials Blues won.
The GCT obstruction is pretty ludicrous. The maul laws are built around legalised obstruction. To not give that makes a mockery of a mockery. Granted, if ref had blown real time, slightly harder to complain.
As for final awarded non-try, on a close watch the ball was plainly marginally forward. It wasn't clear and obvious, and it wasn't much forward, but it WAS forward.
So the ref misses a forward pass because it wasn't clear and obvious, and awards a try. But because the forward pass wasn't clear and obvious (as it wasn't in the first place) the TMO can't overturn it.
Almost a paradox.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The rules need to be amended to state that if there is a mistake, even if not clear and obvious, the decision is overturned.
Having said that, apalling performance by the Blue. The fact they were the legitimate winners is not excuse for the huge dropping of standards.
Some brilliantly baffling logic in that post.
It wasn’t clear and obvious but it did happen because I saw it
When you watch the overhead forensically is it clear the ball went forward. It ISN’T obvious — you have to look very carefully to see it.
Jacobson passes just after he places his right knee on ground. Arm comes up. Possibly goes forward (not clear) but not back. Ball goes forward, probably a foot.
He’s grounded so it’s not momentum.
Just wasn’t a try.
In the old days wouldn’t have been questioned and try would have stood.
But now we DO have the technology, and TMO consistently getting decisions wrong.
If ref didn’t see the offload, his opinion oughtn’t to count.
But as a Blues fan I’m almost glad they didn’t get the win, because their drop in standards didn’t deserve one.
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@crucial said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
Without rewatching that, in the world of competent officials Blues won.
The GCT obstruction is pretty ludicrous. The maul laws are built around legalised obstruction. To not give that makes a mockery of a mockery. Granted, if ref had blown real time, slightly harder to complain.
As for final awarded non-try, on a close watch the ball was plainly marginally forward. It wasn't clear and obvious, and it wasn't much forward, but it WAS forward.
So the ref misses a forward pass because it wasn't clear and obvious, and awards a try. But because the forward pass wasn't clear and obvious (as it wasn't in the first place) the TMO can't overturn it.
Almost a paradox.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The rules need to be amended to state that if there is a mistake, even if not clear and obvious, the decision is overturned.
Having said that, apalling performance by the Blue. The fact they were the legitimate winners is not excuse for the huge dropping of standards.
Some brilliantly baffling logic in that post.
It wasn’t clear and obvious but it did happen because I saw it
When you watch the overhead forensically is it clear the ball went forward. It ISN’T obvious — you have to look very carefully to see it.
Jacobson passes just after he places his right knee on ground. Arm comes up. Possibly goes forward (not clear) but not back. Ball goes forward, probably a foot.
He’s grounded so it’s not momentum.
Just wasn’t a try.
In the old days wouldn’t have been questioned and try would have stood.
But now we DO have the technology, and TMO consistently getting decisions wrong.
If ref didn’t see the offload, his opinion oughtn’t to count.
But as a Blues fan I’m almost glad they didn’t get the win, because their drop in standards didn’t deserve one.
Hate to tell you but momentum is still on the ball when a player stops.
'Clear and Obvious' was a term they started using to draw a line in the sand on decision making.
Unlike fans that will make a ruling on 'likely' or 'probable' the idea is that unless you can clearly see an obvious happening then you don't overturn a decision.
Even after viewing in over and over and frame by frame as you suggest it still isn't clear and obvious so it beggars belief that you can say that it happened. On what evidence?
It was a line ball that was easy to declare a challenge on even in real time. That still doesn't mean it happened.I suggest you apply the same rigour to the maul non-try and you will see Dalton receive the ball then unbind (or unbind just before or as he received it) the join back onto a player in front. Pretty clear and pretty obvious. He didn't keep one arm bound to the original maul and the guy in front had also unbound
-
I think some of Black's less than ideal performance last night sits with Mcdonald, he is fucking around with the 9, not allowing a combo to be built.
Week 1 - Nock
Week 2- good Ruru
Week 3 - shit Ruru
Week 4 - ChristieI think Dalton is playing like Cane circa 2014/2015, and also better than the AB captain.
-
@broughie said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@kiwimurph The more the competition moves forward the more he is being shown up and if the Blues forwards aren’t going forward it is more obvious. Just wondering are all our first fives midgets?
Black might not look it but he is easily the biggest of the 1st 5s. Listed as 1.85 m and 86 kg. Larger than Perofeta, for example.
-
@bones said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman I didn't see it go forward.
You need to do play/pause repeatedly to be clear. If you watch other angles to see exactly when ball released and then do pause/play on overhead, marking where ball left hands, you’ll see it.
Ball let go a bit before five yard line and caught almost on it.
All that said and done, it’s in the book now.
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@bones said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman I didn't see it go forward.
You need to do play/pause repeatedly to be clear. If you watch other angles to see exactly when ball released and then do pause/play on overhead, marking where ball left hands, you’ll see it.
Ball let go a bit before five yard line and caught almost on it.
All that said and done, it’s in the book now.
Yep pakman, but if you do that and still struggling to work out if ball came out forwards or backwards the right decision was made, it has to be clearly forward to over rule the try. I think if the ref had called it no try because of forward pass it wouldn't have been over ruled either. So as a neutral I pretty content with decision.
-
I think some of Black's less than ideal performance last night sits with Mcdonald, he is fucking around with the 9, not allowing a combo to be built.
Week 1 - Nock
Week 2- good Ruru
Week 3 - shit Ruru
Week 4 - ChristieI think Dalton is playing like Cane circa 2014/2015, and also better than the AB captain.
@taniwharugby said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
I think some of Black's less than ideal performance last night sits with Mcdonald, he is fucking around with the 9, not allowing a combo to be built.
I think the reality is Otere is not a top 10, he was pretty ordinary last year until he had BB helping him from 15 and he has had only a couple of good games this year when Blue's pack was absolutely on top.
-
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@crucial said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
Without rewatching that, in the world of competent officials Blues won.
The GCT obstruction is pretty ludicrous. The maul laws are built around legalised obstruction. To not give that makes a mockery of a mockery. Granted, if ref had blown real time, slightly harder to complain.
As for final awarded non-try, on a close watch the ball was plainly marginally forward. It wasn't clear and obvious, and it wasn't much forward, but it WAS forward.
So the ref misses a forward pass because it wasn't clear and obvious, and awards a try. But because the forward pass wasn't clear and obvious (as it wasn't in the first place) the TMO can't overturn it.
Almost a paradox.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The rules need to be amended to state that if there is a mistake, even if not clear and obvious, the decision is overturned.
Having said that, apalling performance by the Blue. The fact they were the legitimate winners is not excuse for the huge dropping of standards.
Some brilliantly baffling logic in that post.
It wasn’t clear and obvious but it did happen because I saw it
When you watch the overhead forensically is it clear the ball went forward. It ISN’T obvious — you have to look very carefully to see it.
Jacobson passes just after he places his right knee on ground. Arm comes up. Possibly goes forward (not clear) but not back. Ball goes forward, probably a foot.
He’s grounded so it’s not momentum.
Just wasn’t a try.
In the old days wouldn’t have been questioned and try would have stood.
But now we DO have the technology, and TMO consistently getting decisions wrong.
If ref didn’t see the offload, his opinion oughtn’t to count.
But as a Blues fan I’m almost glad they didn’t get the win, because their drop in standards didn’t deserve one.
Hate to tell you but momentum is still on the ball when a player stops.
'Clear and Obvious' was a term they started using to draw a line in the sand on decision making.
Unlike fans that will make a ruling on 'likely' or 'probable' the idea is that unless you can clearly see an obvious happening then you don't overturn a decision.
Even after viewing in over and over and frame by frame as you suggest it still isn't clear and obvious so it beggars belief that you can say that it happened. On what evidence?
It was a line ball that was easy to declare a challenge on even in real time. That still doesn't mean it happened.I suggest you apply the same rigour to the maul non-try and you will see Dalton receive the ball then unbind (or unbind just before or as he received it) the join back onto a player in front. Pretty clear and pretty obvious. He didn't keep one arm bound to the original maul and the guy in front had also unbound
@crucial said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@crucial said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
Without rewatching that, in the world of competent officials Blues won.
The GCT obstruction is pretty ludicrous. The maul laws are built around legalised obstruction. To not give that makes a mockery of a mockery. Granted, if ref had blown real time, slightly harder to complain.
As for final awarded non-try, on a close watch the ball was plainly marginally forward. It wasn't clear and obvious, and it wasn't much forward, but it WAS forward.
So the ref misses a forward pass because it wasn't clear and obvious, and awards a try. But because the forward pass wasn't clear and obvious (as it wasn't in the first place) the TMO can't overturn it.
Almost a paradox.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The rules need to be amended to state that if there is a mistake, even if not clear and obvious, the decision is overturned.
Having said that, apalling performance by the Blue. The fact they were the legitimate winners is not excuse for the huge dropping of standards.
Some brilliantly baffling logic in that post.
It wasn’t clear and obvious but it did happen because I saw it
When you watch the overhead forensically is it clear the ball went forward. It ISN’T obvious — you have to look very carefully to see it.
Jacobson passes just after he places his right knee on ground. Arm comes up. Possibly goes forward (not clear) but not back. Ball goes forward, probably a foot.
He’s grounded so it’s not momentum.
Just wasn’t a try.
In the old days wouldn’t have been questioned and try would have stood.
But now we DO have the technology, and TMO consistently getting decisions wrong.
If ref didn’t see the offload, his opinion oughtn’t to count.
But as a Blues fan I’m almost glad they didn’t get the win, because their drop in standards didn’t deserve one.
Hate to tell you but momentum is still on the ball when a player stops.
'Clear and Obvious' was a term they started using to draw a line in the sand on decision making.
Unlike fans that will make a ruling on 'likely' or 'probable' the idea is that unless you can clearly see an obvious happening then you don't overturn a decision.
Even after viewing in over and over and frame by frame as you suggest it still isn't clear and obvious so it beggars belief that you can say that it happened. On what evidence?
It was a line ball that was easy to declare a challenge on even in real time. That still doesn't mean it happened.I suggest you apply the same rigour to the maul non-try and you will see Dalton receive the ball then unbind (or unbind just before or as he received it) the join back onto a player in front. Pretty clear and pretty obvious. He didn't keep one arm bound to the original maul and the guy in front had also unbound
I am not unacquainted with physics. In this case the only relevant momentum was of Jacobson's arm.
With TMO technology it was clear but not obvious.
And not line ball but a foot forward.
Just boils down to whether we want to use technology to ensure correct decisions -- or not.
-
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@bones said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman I didn't see it go forward.
You need to do play/pause repeatedly to be clear. If you watch other angles to see exactly when ball released and then do pause/play on overhead, marking where ball left hands, you’ll see it.
Ball let go a bit before five yard line and caught almost on it.
All that said and done, it’s in the book now.
Yep pakman, but if you do that and still struggling to work out if ball came out forwards or backwards the right decision was made, it has to be clearly forward to over rule the try. I think if the ref had called it no try because of forward pass it wouldn't have been over ruled either. So as a neutral I pretty content with decision.
@dan54 said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@bones said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman I didn't see it go forward.
You need to do play/pause repeatedly to be clear. If you watch other angles to see exactly when ball released and then do pause/play on overhead, marking where ball left hands, you’ll see it.
Ball let go a bit before five yard line and caught almost on it.
All that said and done, it’s in the book now.
Yep pakman, but if you do that and still struggling to work out if ball came out forwards or backwards the right decision was made, it has to be clearly forward to over rule the try. I think if the ref had called it no try because of forward pass it wouldn't have been over ruled either. So as a neutral I pretty content with decision.
The ball came out forwards.
If you watch closely it is clear.
But certainly not obvious -- although that said the Blues players seemed to notice.
-
@crucial said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@crucial said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
Without rewatching that, in the world of competent officials Blues won.
The GCT obstruction is pretty ludicrous. The maul laws are built around legalised obstruction. To not give that makes a mockery of a mockery. Granted, if ref had blown real time, slightly harder to complain.
As for final awarded non-try, on a close watch the ball was plainly marginally forward. It wasn't clear and obvious, and it wasn't much forward, but it WAS forward.
So the ref misses a forward pass because it wasn't clear and obvious, and awards a try. But because the forward pass wasn't clear and obvious (as it wasn't in the first place) the TMO can't overturn it.
Almost a paradox.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
The rules need to be amended to state that if there is a mistake, even if not clear and obvious, the decision is overturned.
Having said that, apalling performance by the Blue. The fact they were the legitimate winners is not excuse for the huge dropping of standards.
Some brilliantly baffling logic in that post.
It wasn’t clear and obvious but it did happen because I saw it
When you watch the overhead forensically is it clear the ball went forward. It ISN’T obvious — you have to look very carefully to see it.
Jacobson passes just after he places his right knee on ground. Arm comes up. Possibly goes forward (not clear) but not back. Ball goes forward, probably a foot.
He’s grounded so it’s not momentum.
Just wasn’t a try.
In the old days wouldn’t have been questioned and try would have stood.
But now we DO have the technology, and TMO consistently getting decisions wrong.
If ref didn’t see the offload, his opinion oughtn’t to count.
But as a Blues fan I’m almost glad they didn’t get the win, because their drop in standards didn’t deserve one.
Hate to tell you but momentum is still on the ball when a player stops.
'Clear and Obvious' was a term they started using to draw a line in the sand on decision making.
Unlike fans that will make a ruling on 'likely' or 'probable' the idea is that unless you can clearly see an obvious happening then you don't overturn a decision.
Even after viewing in over and over and frame by frame as you suggest it still isn't clear and obvious so it beggars belief that you can say that it happened. On what evidence?
It was a line ball that was easy to declare a challenge on even in real time. That still doesn't mean it happened.I suggest you apply the same rigour to the maul non-try and you will see Dalton receive the ball then unbind (or unbind just before or as he received it) the join back onto a player in front. Pretty clear and pretty obvious. He didn't keep one arm bound to the original maul and the guy in front had also unbound
I am not unacquainted with physics. In this case the only relevant momentum was of Jacobson's arm.
With TMO technology it was clear but not obvious.
And not line ball but a foot forward.
Just boils down to whether we want to use technology to ensure correct decisions -- or not.
@pakman said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
Just boils down to whether we want to use techology to ensure correct decisions -- or not.
The Chiefs would have liked said technology at Eden Park last year when Goodhue was clearly off his feet when he got the turnover on the goal line.
-
The match winning try. Damien McKenzie is a good player, no doubt about it. A really good player would have passed it.
Good win Chiefs though, now if someone can beat the red team we might have a half interesting comp.
@siam said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
The match winning try. Damien McKenzie is a good player, no doubt about it. A really good player would have passed it.
Good win Chiefs though, now if someone can beat the red team we might have a half interesting comp.
Yes I keep thinking Damien is not the guy to close out a game for the ABs
-
@sparky said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
The Blues are too ordinary at 9 and 10 to be serious title contenders.
Actually they are fine at 9 they just need to select the right players. At 10 they are average but not bad. What they do need is players to make better team decisions on attack on defence. Reiko for all is brilliance is a prime example.
-
@siam said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
The match winning try. Damien McKenzie is a good player, no doubt about it. A really good player would have passed it.
Good win Chiefs though, now if someone can beat the red team we might have a half interesting comp.
Yes I keep thinking Damien is not the guy to close out a game for the ABs
@kev said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
@siam said in Chiefs v Blues (27 March 2021):
The match winning try. Damien McKenzie is a good player, no doubt about it. A really good player would have passed it.
Good win Chiefs though, now if someone can beat the red team we might have a half interesting comp.
Yes I keep thinking Damien is not the guy to close out a game for the ABs
i looked at that a few times hard to tell definitively. there was an overlap but defence was splinted on him and next receiver was shut down with Stevenson not even in shot
