Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF
-
@machpants said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@no-quarter said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Todd brilliant.
Only looking that good cos Ardie of the field and injured.........
It was clever by Jules to place the ball and buy himself time but Todd picked it and grabbed the ball, killing off the first half. Nothing to do with Ardie, the guy is just all class.
-
TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.
Though Codie came up first, the reason he popped up was because the canes players were back pedalling and bailed out, forcing the scrum up rather than backwards.
Looked a reasonable call to me.
-
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.
Though Codie came up first, the reason he popped up was because the canes players were back pedalling and bailed out, forcing the scrum up rather than backwards.
Looked a reasonable call to me.
@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.
Though Codie came up first, the reason he popped up was because the canes players were back pedalling and bailed out, forcing the scrum up rather than backwards.
Looked a reasonable call to me.
So what were they penalised for exactly? From the rules book.
They didn't collapse. They weren't popped. To me it didn't look like their Loose forwards released early...So what?
I'm not arguing it wasn't the right decision but why? What was the exact infringement ruled?
-
Up and down first half from the Good Guys. Some lovely hands and nice ball retention, but letting ourselves down with lack of polish.
Lovely break from Richie. FABGB playing excellent on both sides. Hall’s speed to the ruck and his pass has been very good.
Canes look a little lost in attack. Forwards and backs not linking. I get the kicking because you want to be down the right end against the Sader defence and not in the middle of the park where we cause a lot of turnovers.
-
Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team
@canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team
No one is up to the level of this Crusaders team. This comp is one team and a country mile to the rest.
-
Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team
-
Skudder didn’t read the wind when he ran on at half time?
Nice run from Goodhue
-
Holy shit.
I just saw the Crusaders forward pack and compared it to the Canes.
Only a complete meltdown from the Crusaders and FABCRR (Future AB Coach Razor Robertson) could lose them this game.
Canes complete underdogs.
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Holy shit.
I just saw the Crusaders forward pack and compared it to the Canes.
Only a complete meltdown from the Crusaders and FABCRR (Future AB Coach Razor Robertson) could lose them this game.
Canes complete underdogs.
Todd Blackadder had forward packs like that, including McCaw.
Robertson has taken them from contenders to unbackable favourites in two years.
-
Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team
@canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team
We are probably the second best team in the competition this season. Hard to argue who else is better than us.
-
@canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team
We are probably the second best team in the competition this season. Hard to argue who else is better than us.
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team
We are probably the second best team in the competition this season. Hard to argue who else is better than us.
I didn't think we would get past the Chiefs last week. Just a step too far
-
@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.
Though Codie came up first, the reason he popped up was because the canes players were back pedalling and bailed out, forcing the scrum up rather than backwards.
Looked a reasonable call to me.
So what were they penalised for exactly? From the rules book.
They didn't collapse. They weren't popped. To me it didn't look like their Loose forwards released early...So what?
I'm not arguing it wasn't the right decision but why? What was the exact infringement ruled?
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.
Though Codie came up first, the reason he popped up was because the canes players were back pedalling and bailed out, forcing the scrum up rather than backwards.
Looked a reasonable call to me.
So what were they penalised for exactly? From the rules book.
They didn't collapse. They weren't popped. To me it didn't look like their Loose forwards released early...So what?
I'm not arguing it wasn't the right decision but why? What was the exact infringement ruled?
Not maintaining a bind is the technical offence.
Colloquially it is standing up under pressure, causing the scrum to disintegrate.
-
Feel like this is going to get very ugly.
@no-quarter said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Feel like this is going to get very ugly.
Being on the ginger and Ihaia West, it'll get ugly
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team
We are probably the second best team in the competition this season. Hard to argue who else is better than us.
I didn't think we would get past the Chiefs last week. Just a step too far
@canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team
We are probably the second best team in the competition this season. Hard to argue who else is better than us.
I didn't think we would get past the Chiefs last week. Just a step too far
I thought we would be too much for them at home. We did beat them in the two that mattered, although we were helped by being at home.
-
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.
Though Codie came up first, the reason he popped up was because the canes players were back pedalling and bailed out, forcing the scrum up rather than backwards.
Looked a reasonable call to me.
So what were they penalised for exactly? From the rules book.
They didn't collapse. They weren't popped. To me it didn't look like their Loose forwards released early...So what?
I'm not arguing it wasn't the right decision but why? What was the exact infringement ruled?
Not maintaining a bind is the technical offence.
Colloquially it is standing up under pressure, causing the scrum to disintegrate.
@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.
Though Codie came up first, the reason he popped up was because the canes players were back pedalling and bailed out, forcing the scrum up rather than backwards.
Looked a reasonable call to me.
So what were they penalised for exactly? From the rules book.
They didn't collapse. They weren't popped. To me it didn't look like their Loose forwards released early...So what?
I'm not arguing it wasn't the right decision but why? What was the exact infringement ruled?
Not maintaining a bind is the technical offence.
Colloquially it is standing up under pressure, causing the scrum to disintegrate.
Yeah, so the Crusader who stood up should be penalised. Not the canes.
Going backwards while maintaining a bind is not penalisable.
