Crusaders v Rebels
-
@shark said in Crusaders v Rebels:
You're 100% correct. A re-match with the Rebels would be a terrible prospect and the turn-out would no doubt be poor. But under the same circumstances in any comparable competition in the world, this would be the case.
appreciate that, but point was if you had the bigger better stadium, would that see more people come along to watch another flogging?
@taniwharugby said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@shark said in Crusaders v Rebels:
You're 100% correct. A re-match with the Rebels would be a terrible prospect and the turn-out would no doubt be poor. But under the same circumstances in any comparable competition in the world, this would be the case.
appreciate that, but point was if you had the bigger better stadium, would that see more people come along to watch another flogging?
In general, yes. You're ony talking about one hypothetical game.
-
Also the brand new roofed Forsyth Barr stadium never guaranteed sell out crowds, possibly for the first 12 months and World Cup but not now so probably similar with a new stadium in ChCh likely to be the case
@Nevorian said in Crusaders v Rebels:
Also the brand new roofed Forsyth Barr stadium never guaranteed sell out crowds, possibly for the first 12 months and World Cup but not now so probably similar with a new stadium in ChCh likely to be the case
We have 3-4 times the population of Dunedin. And a fifth of their population is students.
The novelty of a new stadium would all but guarantee big crowds even to crap games for a start. The crowds at FBS for Otago games in the 2011 NPC were substantial and they suck.
-
@taniwharugby said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@shark said in Crusaders v Rebels:
You're 100% correct. A re-match with the Rebels would be a terrible prospect and the turn-out would no doubt be poor. But under the same circumstances in any comparable competition in the world, this would be the case.
appreciate that, but point was if you had the bigger better stadium, would that see more people come along to watch another flogging?
In general, yes. You're ony talking about one hypothetical game.
@shark yet you are talking about the existing stadium holding you back from having these hypothetical huge crowds more often.
I expect most games in round 1 of the finals series will attract poor crowds with the probability of the Crusaders playing the following week and the one after being high, people holding out for the higher quality opposition if they choose 1 or 2 games rather than attending all 3
-
@shark yet you are talking about the existing stadium holding you back from having these hypothetical huge crowds more often.
I expect most games in round 1 of the finals series will attract poor crowds with the probability of the Crusaders playing the following week and the one after being high, people holding out for the higher quality opposition if they choose 1 or 2 games rather than attending all 3
@taniwharugby Isn't it generally the expectation that a new stadium will attract a bigger crowd because of the better facilities and - possibly - a roof? That's assuming that people are now staying away because of the crappy stadium and may turn up if the new stadium is considerably better? So regardless of which game is being played?
-
@taniwharugby Isn't it generally the expectation that a new stadium will attract a bigger crowd because of the better facilities and - possibly - a roof? That's assuming that people are now staying away because of the crappy stadium and may turn up if the new stadium is considerably better? So regardless of which game is being played?
@Stargazer of course, but i thought shark was talking generally the existing stadium was holding them back, not just the period after a new stadium was opened.
-
Lol they haven’t served Tui at the stadium for several years. True supporters would know that from actually attending games.
@SammyC said in Crusaders v Rebels:
Lol they haven’t served Tui at the stadium for several years. True supporters would know that from actually attending games.
Really? I don't know what beer they sell at McLean Park for Magpies games so does that mean I'm not a true supporter? I do however know what beer they serve at Brookvale so I must be a true Manly/Tahs supporter then? :face_with_stuck-out_tongue_winking_eye:
-
@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:
That is an example when advantage should be over in my book. Rebels might have gone 80m if that pass had stuck. They had a clear advantage.
Instead we go back for a scrum 10 metres back from where the lineout would have been. Especially since it was only a scrum advantage. PK advantage would be different.
And again. Scrum advantage should be over once a team gets clean ball and are free to use it as they wish.
Except that's not what the rules say.
And I prefer referees who play to the actual rules, not dodgy commentators on chat groups.
@Chester-Draws said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:
That is an example when advantage should be over in my book. Rebels might have gone 80m if that pass had stuck. They had a clear advantage.
Instead we go back for a scrum 10 metres back from where the lineout would have been. Especially since it was only a scrum advantage. PK advantage would be different.
And again. Scrum advantage should be over once a team gets clean ball and are free to use it as they wish.
Except that's not what the rules say.
And I prefer referees who play to the actual rules, not dodgy commentators on chat groups.
Oh yeah. What does the law say? Enlighten me.
-
@Machpants said in Crusaders v Rebels:
I also remember prior to the quake, Christchurch was the only place the ABs test didn't always sell out - so is the demand there, long term?
I think Jade/AMI Stadium had a capacity of approx 38,000 in 2010. That year we hosted the Wallabies. The brand new Deans Stand was unofficially re-named the Henry stand for the night. The ground was sold out. Prior to that the capacity was greater - possibly closer to 45,000 which at more than 10% of the population was possibly a little high and some tests may not have sold out.
Our population now is greater than pre-quakes and at a function I attended last year a senior CCC official predicted our population would be 750,000 by the middle of this century.
@shark said in Crusaders v Rebels:
I think Jade/AMI Stadium had a capacity of approx 38,000 in 2010. That year we hosted the Wallabies. The brand new Deans Stand was unofficially re-named the Henry stand for the night. The ground was sold out. Prior to that the capacity was greater - possibly closer to 45,000 which at more than 10% of the population was possibly a little high and some tests may not have sold out.
I used to live in Chch, and the attendance at games was often average. More recently, the last game at Jade (which was a good stadium) for the NPC final was aroudn 3,000 (2010). So yeah - a roof may attract more, but the harsh reality of modern stadia is they only get filled intermittently, and the economics really struggle to stack up.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:
That is an example when advantage should be over in my book. Rebels might have gone 80m if that pass had stuck. They had a clear advantage.
Instead we go back for a scrum 10 metres back from where the lineout would have been. Especially since it was only a scrum advantage. PK advantage would be different.
And again. Scrum advantage should be over once a team gets clean ball and are free to use it as they wish.
Except that's not what the rules say.
And I prefer referees who play to the actual rules, not dodgy commentators on chat groups.
Oh yeah. What does the law say? Enlighten me.
@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@Chester-Draws said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:
That is an example when advantage should be over in my book. Rebels might have gone 80m if that pass had stuck. They had a clear advantage.
Instead we go back for a scrum 10 metres back from where the lineout would have been. Especially since it was only a scrum advantage. PK advantage would be different.
And again. Scrum advantage should be over once a team gets clean ball and are free to use it as they wish.
Except that's not what the rules say.
And I prefer referees who play to the actual rules, not dodgy commentators on chat groups.
Oh yeah. What does the law say? Enlighten me.
Fudge it. Can't resist:
Law 7(1):
Advantage:
a. May be tactical. The non-offending team is free to play the ball as they wish.
b. May be territorial. Play has moved towards the offending team’s dead-ball line.
c. May be a combination of tactical and territorial.
d. Must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain an advantage is not sufficient.What do you know, I almost quoted the actual law exactly in my post.
-
Since he probably won't tell you himself, I'm pretty sure that Damo is a ref.
Like, has a whistle and shorts he pulls up his ass, the full deal.
@gt12 said in Crusaders v Rebels:
Since he probably won't tell you himself, I'm pretty sure that Damo is a ref.
Like, has a whistle and shorts he pulls up his ass, the full deal.
Not a particularly good one, I'm happy to admit. But law knowledge is one of my strengths.
-
@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@Chester-Draws said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:
That is an example when advantage should be over in my book. Rebels might have gone 80m if that pass had stuck. They had a clear advantage.
Instead we go back for a scrum 10 metres back from where the lineout would have been. Especially since it was only a scrum advantage. PK advantage would be different.
And again. Scrum advantage should be over once a team gets clean ball and are free to use it as they wish.
Except that's not what the rules say.
And I prefer referees who play to the actual rules, not dodgy commentators on chat groups.
Oh yeah. What does the law say? Enlighten me.
Fudge it. Can't resist:
Law 7(1):
Advantage:
a. May be tactical. The non-offending team is free to play the ball as they wish.
b. May be territorial. Play has moved towards the offending team’s dead-ball line.
c. May be a combination of tactical and territorial.
d. Must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain an advantage is not sufficient.What do you know, I almost quoted the actual law exactly in my post.
@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:
Fudge it. Can't resist:
Law 7(1):
Advantage:
a. May be tactical. The non-offending team is free to play the ball as they wish.
b. May be territorial. Play has moved towards the offending team’s dead-ball line.
c. May be a combination of tactical and territorial.
d. Must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain an advantage is not sufficient.Although I love it when refs play short advantages (as in call advantage over, not blow the whistle for no advantage), I do think there are lot of opportunities for a and d to contradict each other.
I.e - if you pass the ball to somebody 5 m behind the advantage line with nobody in front of them. At that point you satisfy a, advan over. Then if drop it ... did they get a, or did d come into play?
Hard to judge really.
-
@SammyC said in Crusaders v Rebels:
Lol they haven’t served Tui at the stadium for several years. True supporters would know that from actually attending games.
Really? I don't know what beer they sell at McLean Park for Magpies games so does that mean I'm not a true supporter? I do however know what beer they serve at Brookvale so I must be a true Manly/Tahs supporter then? :face_with_stuck-out_tongue_winking_eye:
@Nepia said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@SammyC said in Crusaders v Rebels:
Lol they haven’t served Tui at the stadium for several years. True supporters would know that from actually attending games.
Really? I don't know what beer they sell at McLean Park for Magpies games so does that mean I'm not a true supporter? I do however know what beer they serve at Brookvale so I must be a true Manly/Tahs supporter then? :face_with_stuck-out_tongue_winking_eye:
You’re from Sydney and Hawkes bay and work at a film school or something don’t you?
I highly doubt you even drink beer, probably just sip on shitty Sav Blanc and lattes aye
-
@Nepia said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@SammyC said in Crusaders v Rebels:
Lol they haven’t served Tui at the stadium for several years. True supporters would know that from actually attending games.
Really? I don't know what beer they sell at McLean Park for Magpies games so does that mean I'm not a true supporter? I do however know what beer they serve at Brookvale so I must be a true Manly/Tahs supporter then? :face_with_stuck-out_tongue_winking_eye:
You’re from Sydney and Hawkes bay and work at a film school or something don’t you?
I highly doubt you even drink beer, probably just sip on shitty Sav Blanc and lattes aye
@SammyC said in Crusaders v Rebels:
You’re from Sydney and Hawkes bay and work at a film school or something don’t you?
I highly doubt you even drink beer, probably just sip on shitty Sav Blanc and lattes aye
Dunno if the above is accurate or not, but the above reeks of being a craft beer piston wristed gibbon surely!
-
@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:
Fudge it. Can't resist:
Law 7(1):
Advantage:
a. May be tactical. The non-offending team is free to play the ball as they wish.
b. May be territorial. Play has moved towards the offending team’s dead-ball line.
c. May be a combination of tactical and territorial.
d. Must be clear and real. A mere opportunity to gain an advantage is not sufficient.Although I love it when refs play short advantages (as in call advantage over, not blow the whistle for no advantage), I do think there are lot of opportunities for a and d to contradict each other.
I.e - if you pass the ball to somebody 5 m behind the advantage line with nobody in front of them. At that point you satisfy a, advan over. Then if drop it ... did they get a, or did d come into play?
Hard to judge really.
@MajorRage said in Crusaders v Rebels:
I do think there are lot of opportunities for a and d to contradict each other.
I.e - if you pass the ball to somebody 5 m behind the advantage line with nobody in front of them. At that point you satisfy a, advan over. Then if drop it ... did they get a, or did d come into play?I'd have to see it, but could be either in my book.
The advantage law gives a huge amount of discretion to the referee.
In the last year and a half, there has been a trend towards longer advantages for scrum offences. I don't like it. Others may.
-
@gt12 said in Crusaders v Rebels:
Since he probably won't tell you himself, I'm pretty sure that Damo is a ref.
Like, has a whistle and shorts he pulls up his ass, the full deal.
Not a particularly good one, I'm happy to admit. But law knowledge is one of my strengths.
@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@gt12 said in Crusaders v Rebels:
Since he probably won't tell you himself, I'm pretty sure that Damo is a ref.
Like, has a whistle and shorts he pulls up his ass, the full deal.
Not a particularly good one, I'm happy to admit. But law knowledge is one of my strengths.
You seem qualified to be a Super Rugby ref. It's probably the second part that is letting you down.
-
@MajorRage said in Crusaders v Rebels:
I do think there are lot of opportunities for a and d to contradict each other.
I.e - if you pass the ball to somebody 5 m behind the advantage line with nobody in front of them. At that point you satisfy a, advan over. Then if drop it ... did they get a, or did d come into play?I'd have to see it, but could be either in my book.
The advantage law gives a huge amount of discretion to the referee.
In the last year and a half, there has been a trend towards longer advantages for scrum offences. I don't like it. Others may.
-
@MajorRage said in Crusaders v Rebels:
I do think there are lot of opportunities for a and d to contradict each other.
I.e - if you pass the ball to somebody 5 m behind the advantage line with nobody in front of them. At that point you satisfy a, advan over. Then if drop it ... did they get a, or did d come into play?I'd have to see it, but could be either in my book.
The advantage law gives a huge amount of discretion to the referee.
In the last year and a half, there has been a trend towards longer advantages for scrum offences. I don't like it. Others may.
@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:
In the last year and a half, there has been a trend towards longer advantages for scrum offences. I don't like it. Others may.
Longer advantages in general annoy me. It's wasted time. Modern defences don't break down in a few phases any more - so for me, if you don't see real advantage within 2-3 phases, go back and play the penalty (or scrum after 1 decent phase). It's even more irritating when some refs play two pass advantages from knock ons, and others wait to see how kicks go before they whistle up something.
Tough job, but coudl be done more consistently
-
@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@gt12 said in Crusaders v Rebels:
Since he probably won't tell you himself, I'm pretty sure that Damo is a ref.
Like, has a whistle and shorts he pulls up his ass, the full deal.
Not a particularly good one, I'm happy to admit. But law knowledge is one of my strengths.
You seem qualified to be a Super Rugby ref. It's probably the second part that is letting you down.
@gt12 said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@Damo said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@gt12 said in Crusaders v Rebels:
Since he probably won't tell you himself, I'm pretty sure that Damo is a ref.
Like, has a whistle and shorts he pulls up his ass, the full deal.
Not a particularly good one, I'm happy to admit. But law knowledge is one of my strengths.
You seem qualified to be a Super Rugby ref. It's probably the second part that is letting you down.
Poor peripheral vision/awareness, a general inability to process multiple things all at once and a lack of fitness lets me down. Some people just aren't made to be great refs I think. Still, I have found my level (first XV college stuff) and really enjoy secondary school rugby much more than senior club rugby.
But I do not appreciate people telling me what the rules say without even bothering to quote them or provide a law reference.
-
In replace of who though? Man we have some talent in NZ atm.
My backs atm are: Smith, Perenara, Hall, Barrett, Mo'unga, Leinert-Brown, Laumape, Goodhue, Crotty, Ioane, Bridge, Barrett, Smith, assuming they go with 13 backs - add in Ennor if they take 14.
@Canes4life said in Crusaders v Rebels:
In replace of who though? Man we have some talent in NZ atm.
My backs atm are: Smith, Perenara, Hall, Barrett, Mo'unga, Leinert-Brown, Laumape, Goodhue, Crotty, Ioane, Bridge, Barrett, Smith, assuming they go with 13 backs - add in Ennor if they take 14.
I'd take Ennor ahead of Bridge. It's super handy to have a guy who covers centre as well as the back 3. The guy has been the find of the season IMHO. In saying that Bridge, Havili and Reece have also played well for the Crusaders. Ioane, B Smith and J Barrett are certainties IMO, so one place open in the back 3.
-
@Stargazer of course, but i thought shark was talking generally the existing stadium was holding them back, not just the period after a new stadium was opened.
@taniwharugby said in Crusaders v Rebels:
@Stargazer of course, but i thought shark was talking generally the existing stadium was holding them back, not just the period after a new stadium was opened.
I'm saying the shit stadium is a special hindrance in finals games which would otherwise attract more fans and alleviate the costs of hosting games. I'm assuming you're au fait with the SANZAAR arrangement which sees the host side cover a large chunk of the visiting team's costs. I referenced 2018 where we barely made a dollar after hosting the Lions because of the high value of our share to host them. The ground was packed and I'd be surprised if they couldn't have sold 30,000+ tickets and made some decent coin if we were in any decent stadium. A brand new one might be worth another 5-10,000 punters even.
A rematch with the Rebels would be a financial disaster because noone would go, expecting to be able to attend a game or games over the following weeks, and the cost of hosting would be higher than if it were the Chiefs, who would also put more bums on seats.
