Crusaders v Hurricanes
-
@nzbloke said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@higgins said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@nzbloke said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
He did his 5 weeks, people should move on, it only becomes a problem if he repeats it again.
Evil Bstad Brenton Tarrant has not murdered anyone since March 2019. Thankfully he won't get a chance to repeat it again but that does not make it all good.
Ridiculous to compare a mass murderer to a bloke that got banned for a few weeks in a sports team... Aaron Smith was involved in that toilet incident, but doesn't mean people should keep putting the boot into him about it.
I will take the time to point out that referee abuse, either verbal or physical, can (and still is almost always applied) result in a life ban from the sport which is the same penalty in all essence as for murder. Mr. O'Reilly can count his lucky stars over the leniency of his penalty. I know of one supporter with an association with one the clubs I support doing a twenty week all rugby grounds ban for rather impolitely suggesting a touch judge up their game and open both eyes for a change. The club involved fully supported the touchie, as they damn well should have, even though there were a couple of inaccuracies in their report.
Incidentally A. Smith was not married at he time of the consensual toilet liaison and it was certainly not an illegal activity and more than likely was jealously admired by those in the know.@higgins said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@nzbloke said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@higgins said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@nzbloke said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
He did his 5 weeks, people should move on, it only becomes a problem if he repeats it again.
Evil Bstad Brenton Tarrant has not murdered anyone since March 2019. Thankfully he won't get a chance to repeat it again but that does not make it all good.
Ridiculous to compare a mass murderer to a bloke that got banned for a few weeks in a sports team... Aaron Smith was involved in that toilet incident, but doesn't mean people should keep putting the boot into him about it.
I will take the time to point out that referee abuse, either verbal or physical, can (and still is almost always applied) result in a life ban from the sport which is the same penalty in all essence as for murder. Mr. O'Reilly can count his lucky stars over the leniency of his penalty. I know of one supporter with an association with one the clubs I support doing a twenty week all rugby grounds ban for rather impolitely suggesting a touch judge up their game and open both eyes for a change. The club involved fully supported the touchie, as they damn well should have, even though there were a couple of inaccuracies in their report.
The issue with referees is the (IMO) vast distinction between amateurs and professionals. It is unfathomable to me that the current crop of professionals don't seem to be held to a standard. They should be held to public scrutiny a lot more than they are.
That's entirely different to the amateur who gives up their time for the benefit of others. An yes, I'm aware there are those in our midst who are too stupid to discern the difference and would equate professional accountability with the ability to abuse amateurs.
-
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@higgins said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@nzbloke said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@higgins said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@nzbloke said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
He did his 5 weeks, people should move on, it only becomes a problem if he repeats it again.
Evil Bstad Brenton Tarrant has not murdered anyone since March 2019. Thankfully he won't get a chance to repeat it again but that does not make it all good.
Ridiculous to compare a mass murderer to a bloke that got banned for a few weeks in a sports team... Aaron Smith was involved in that toilet incident, but doesn't mean people should keep putting the boot into him about it.
I will take the time to point out that referee abuse, either verbal or physical, can (and still is almost always applied) result in a life ban from the sport which is the same penalty in all essence as for murder. Mr. O'Reilly count his lucky stars over the lienancy of his penalty. I know of one supporter with an association with one the clubs I support doing a twenty week all rugby grounds ban for rather impolitely suggesting a touch judge up their game and open both eyes for a change. T
Incidentally A. Smith was not married at he time of the consensual toilet liaison and was certainly not an illegal activity and more than likely was jealously admired by those in the know.Agree with most of this, but not being married is irrelevant. He was in a relationship (with his current wife).
That's a matter for them.
@antipodean Agree. I wasn't claiming otherwise.
-
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@nzbloke I see he has at least one fan on the Fern. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:
Two. I was the one who wrote Reilly was good against the Crusaders.
-
Going for the corner was absolutely the right call.
Whether it's normal time or golden point, you want to be in the best position to win the game. That was the opportunity.
How they try and score is a another story, quick ball and up the midfield would be a better idea due to our known weakness trying to score tight forward tries.
Put Jordie in the pocket for a droppie or keep phasing.
@foobanz said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
Going for the corner was absolutely the right call.
Whether it's normal time or golden point, you want to be in the best position to win the game. That was the opportunity.
How they try and score is a another story, quick ball and up the midfield would be a better idea due to our known weakness trying to score tight forward tries.
Put Jordie in the pocket for a droppie or keep phasing.
Why would you go for the corner, then set Jordie up for a droppie?
If you go for the corner, you definitely don't want to try and maul, when your maul hasn't been great.
-
@foobanz said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
Going for the corner was absolutely the right call.
Whether it's normal time or golden point, you want to be in the best position to win the game. That was the opportunity.
How they try and score is a another story, quick ball and up the midfield would be a better idea due to our known weakness trying to score tight forward tries.
Put Jordie in the pocket for a droppie or keep phasing.
Why would you go for the corner, then set Jordie up for a droppie?
If you go for the corner, you definitely don't want to try and maul, when your maul hasn't been great.
@taniwharugby I'm not saying corner then droppie, I'm saying go for the corner, then try and score.
Maybe you try and maul it, but not exactly a Canes strength.
I'd probably just keep it simple, ball at the front, crash up the midfield, then jump in the pocket after a few phases if you've got a clear shot in front.
But my main point was that going for the corner was the right idea as opposed to trying to go to golden point.
-
@taniwharugby I'm not saying corner then droppie, I'm saying go for the corner, then try and score.
Maybe you try and maul it, but not exactly a Canes strength.
I'd probably just keep it simple, ball at the front, crash up the midfield, then jump in the pocket after a few phases if you've got a clear shot in front.
But my main point was that going for the corner was the right idea as opposed to trying to go to golden point.
@foobanz said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
But my main point was that going for the corner was the right idea as opposed to trying to go to golden point.
It's the correct decision if the Canes thought they were fading and the Crusaders were fresher for some reason (lots of disruption in the lead up, maybe some covid recovery etc)
-
Isn't there a stat that the Crusaders have never conceded a rolling maul lineout drive try under Razor/Jase Ryan?
@kiwimurph Yup and teams still try and take them on there.......
-
Isn't there a stat that the Crusaders have never conceded a rolling maul lineout drive try under Razor/Jase Ryan?
@kiwimurph said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
Isn't there a stat that the Crusaders have never conceded a rolling maul lineout drive try under Razor/Jase Ryan?
Wow that def puts the decision in a different light - not going for the line but going for the maul try. Some clever move to get Ardie powering in there would have been better
-
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
-
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Yeah. If we have only a 20% chance of scoring from 5 metres out, then we have a low chance of winning in golden point.
-
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
-
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
-
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
-
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
-
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
-
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@bones said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
@cgrant said in Crusaders v Hurricanes:
It was a very kickable penalty. How many chances to get the 3 points : more than 70% IMO. How many chances to score a try via the lineout ? 20% maybe ?
I'm struggling to understand this concept that it's impossible for the canes to win in normal time, yet so much more acceptable they'd win in extra time. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Trying to score from something they're bad at (lineout - maul) against a team excellent at defending a maul. Extra time provides unstructured opportunities which is something the Canes are reasonable at.
It's not just a maul though. Even if you don't score from the maul, you should be able to recycle and get an unstructured opportunity 5 metres out.
Did they..?
Going for the lineout has less than a 50% chance of success, so can't use the fact it failed to prove your point. It has to be based on the likeliness at the time.
Let me get this logic right: A Canes lineout has more chance of losing possession that winning it, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
No. The lineout has less than 50% chance of leading to a try. Obviously, we have more than 50% chance of winning the ball back.
Ok. A Canes lineout has more chance of not leading to a try than scoring one, so it's better to attempt that to its inevitable conclusion (as we saw), than to force other opportunities?
