Chiefs v Hurricanes
-
Wow! A classic, hard-fought NZ Derby. Commiserations to the Chiefs and their fans, some great offloads there. Probably should have been a draw.
So proud of the Hurricanes though. Great spirit and belief to bounce back a tough loss to the Blues.
Really pleased for Jordie Barrett to silence all those cow bells and the critics. He is a very special talent and a match winner. I thought Kirifi was fantastic.
-
@sparky said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
Really pleased for Jordie Barrett to silence all those cow bells and the critics
This comment suggests you don't really listen to the actual criticism of Jordie.
@Nepia said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@sparky said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
Really pleased for Jordie Barrett to silence all those cow bells and the critics
This comment suggests you don't really listen to the actual criticism of Jordie.
No, it suggests I think he's a match winner.
-
@Nepia said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@sparky said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
Really pleased for Jordie Barrett to silence all those cow bells and the critics
This comment suggests you don't really listen to the actual criticism of Jordie.
No, it suggests I think he's a match winner.
@sparky said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@Nepia said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@sparky said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
Really pleased for Jordie Barrett to silence all those cow bells and the critics
This comment suggests you don't really listen to the actual criticism of Jordie.
No, it suggests I think he's a match winner.
Fair enough, I'll let you have your told you so moment ... and I'll bookmark this in preparation for the next clanger.
-
@Nepia said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@sparky said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
Really pleased for Jordie Barrett to silence all those cow bells and the critics
This comment suggests you don't really listen to the actual criticism of Jordie.
No, it suggests I think he's a match winner.
@sparky said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@Nepia said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@sparky said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
Really pleased for Jordie Barrett to silence all those cow bells and the critics
This comment suggests you don't really listen to the actual criticism of Jordie.
No, it suggests I think he's a match winner.
He did help the Blues win the match last week.
-
Weren't the Chiefs supposed to be wearing a special jersey? Or is it the return fixture?
@KiwiMurph said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
Weren't the Chiefs supposed to be wearing a special jersey? Or is it the return fixture?
That pink jersey is for the Bulls home game on April 4.
-
I haven't read any comments but that was a frustrating game for a Chiefs supporter. The Chiefs' game management was really poor in the last 20 mins, highlighted by the inaccurate kicking of Weber, Cruden and DMac. Trying to run the ball from within your 22 was stupid when territory was going to be more important in the last 10 mins. Play at the right end of the field, even if you don't have possession.
I said to my friends at HT, that I hoped not coming away with any points in added time wouldn't come back to haunt the Chiefs. I can understand Cane wanting to go for the jugular but I would have taken the 3 pts when they had a penalty right out in front of the posts.
-
I haven't read any comments but that was a frustrating game for a Chiefs supporter. The Chiefs' game management was really poor in the last 20 mins, highlighted by the inaccurate kicking of Weber, Cruden and DMac. Trying to run the ball from within your 22 was stupid when territory was going to be more important in the last 10 mins. Play at the right end of the field, even if you don't have possession.
I said to my friends at HT, that I hoped not coming away with any points in added time wouldn't come back to haunt the Chiefs. I can understand Cane wanting to go for the jugular but I would have taken the 3 pts when they had a penalty right out in front of the posts.
@Bovidae Yep, that was frustrating on so many levels. I wish they'd gone for the 3 when they got the final penalty although I think going for the try initially was fine.
Agree on the game management being poor in the last 20.
Also, the JB catch the ball from out, even though (or especially because) it's in the laws is annoying the fuck out of me on a level that is irrational and far outweighs the importance of this match.
How can the laws allow a player to play the ball when starting out if the field of play. It's stupid . -
@Bovidae Yep, that was frustrating on so many levels. I wish they'd gone for the 3 when they got the final penalty although I think going for the try initially was fine.
Agree on the game management being poor in the last 20.
Also, the JB catch the ball from out, even though (or especially because) it's in the laws is annoying the fuck out of me on a level that is irrational and far outweighs the importance of this match.
How can the laws allow a player to play the ball when starting out if the field of play. It's stupid .@Nepia said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
Also, the JB catch the ball from out, even though (or especially because) it's in the laws is annoying the fuck out of me on a level that is irrational and far outweighs the importance of this match.
How can the laws allow a player to play the ball when starting out if the field of play. It's stupid .Yes. I thought they have changed the law so you can't come from outside the field of play?
I wish they would just go back to if the ball crosses the plane of touch it is out. Simple.
-
@Bovidae Yep, that was frustrating on so many levels. I wish they'd gone for the 3 when they got the final penalty although I think going for the try initially was fine.
Agree on the game management being poor in the last 20.
Also, the JB catch the ball from out, even though (or especially because) it's in the laws is annoying the fuck out of me on a level that is irrational and far outweighs the importance of this match.
How can the laws allow a player to play the ball when starting out if the field of play. It's stupid .@Nepia said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@Bovidae Yep, that was frustrating on so many levels. I wish they'd gone for the 3 when they got the final penalty although I think going for the try initially was fine.
Agree on the game management being poor in the last 20.
Also, the JB catch the ball from out, even though (or especially because) it's in the laws is annoying the fuck out of me on a level that is irrational and far outweighs the importance of this match.
How can the laws allow a player to play the ball when starting out if the field of play. It's stupid .The same way you can ground a ball for a try if you're outside the field of play.
The simple way to remember it is it's in touch or touch-in-goal when:
- the ball or ball-carrier touches the touchline, touch-in-goal line or anything beyond.
- a player, who is already touching the touchline, touch-in-goal line or anything beyond, catches or holds the ball.
Given the above, if the ball is still in the field of play (i.e. hasn't crossed the plane of touch), you are deemed to have taken it out. If it's not in the field of play (has crossed), then you didn't.
You can catch, knock or kick the ball as long as you're in the playing area regardless of whether it crosses the plane of touch. Hence why you can jump from outside, catch or knock the ball and land within the playing area, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch. You can jump from in the playing area, knock the ball back into the playing area, before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch.
To be in touch you have to be on the ground. If you catch the ball in touch, the ball is now in touch.
The only strange one is that you can be in touch, kick or knock the ball provided it has not reached the plane of touch. But that's because you didn't catch it.
-
@Nepia said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@Bovidae Yep, that was frustrating on so many levels. I wish they'd gone for the 3 when they got the final penalty although I think going for the try initially was fine.
Agree on the game management being poor in the last 20.
Also, the JB catch the ball from out, even though (or especially because) it's in the laws is annoying the fuck out of me on a level that is irrational and far outweighs the importance of this match.
How can the laws allow a player to play the ball when starting out if the field of play. It's stupid .The same way you can ground a ball for a try if you're outside the field of play.
The simple way to remember it is it's in touch or touch-in-goal when:
- the ball or ball-carrier touches the touchline, touch-in-goal line or anything beyond.
- a player, who is already touching the touchline, touch-in-goal line or anything beyond, catches or holds the ball.
Given the above, if the ball is still in the field of play (i.e. hasn't crossed the plane of touch), you are deemed to have taken it out. If it's not in the field of play (has crossed), then you didn't.
You can catch, knock or kick the ball as long as you're in the playing area regardless of whether it crosses the plane of touch. Hence why you can jump from outside, catch or knock the ball and land within the playing area, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch. You can jump from in the playing area, knock the ball back into the playing area, before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch.
To be in touch you have to be on the ground. If you catch the ball in touch, the ball is now in touch.
The only strange one is that you can be in touch, kick or knock the ball provided it has not reached the plane of touch. But that's because you didn't catch it.
@antipodean any idea on the logic for the change?
only thing I can think of is to encourage teams kicking for touch to make sure it stays in touch, thus not carving off as much distance, which is a lame change for minimal gain for the game.
-
@antipodean any idea on the logic for the change?
only thing I can think of is to encourage teams kicking for touch to make sure it stays in touch, thus not carving off as much distance, which is a lame change for minimal gain for the game.
@taniwharugby No idea. Guess someone made a compelling case that it made more sense this way.
-
@Duluth why the hell do we need a full article about the ref?
-
@Duluth why the hell do we need a full article about the ref?
@mariner4life Because "clicks".
-
@Duluth why the hell do we need a full article about the ref?
@mariner4life said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
why the hell do we need a full article about the ref?
Need? No
Want? Some people maybe are interested. Personally I find it easy to not read something I don’t want to
It relates to want people have chosen to discuss in this thread
-
@mariner4life said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
why the hell do we need a full article about the ref?
Need? No
Want? Some people maybe are interested. Personally I find it easy to not read something I don’t want to
It relates to want people have chosen to discuss in this thread
@Duluth said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@mariner4life said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
why the hell do we need a full article about the ref?
Need? No
Want? Some people maybe are interested. Personally I find it easy to not read something I don’t want to
It relates to want people have chosen to discuss in this thread
Wasn'ta shot at you, and by we I didn't mean the Fern, I meant everybody.
Rugbys obsession with referees drives me insane.
-
@Duluth said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@mariner4life said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
why the hell do we need a full article about the ref?
Need? No
Want? Some people maybe are interested. Personally I find it easy to not read something I don’t want to
It relates to want people have chosen to discuss in this thread
Wasn'ta shot at you, and by we I didn't mean the Fern, I meant everybody.
Rugbys obsession with referees drives me insane.
@mariner4life said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
Rugbys obsession with referees drives me insane.
I agree on the whining about refs. A bit of positive feedback about refs is good to see IMO. A decent amount of the whining is because the fans are incorrect
-
@Nepia said in Chiefs v Hurricanes:
@Bovidae Yep, that was frustrating on so many levels. I wish they'd gone for the 3 when they got the final penalty although I think going for the try initially was fine.
Agree on the game management being poor in the last 20.
Also, the JB catch the ball from out, even though (or especially because) it's in the laws is annoying the fuck out of me on a level that is irrational and far outweighs the importance of this match.
How can the laws allow a player to play the ball when starting out if the field of play. It's stupid .The same way you can ground a ball for a try if you're outside the field of play.
The simple way to remember it is it's in touch or touch-in-goal when:
- the ball or ball-carrier touches the touchline, touch-in-goal line or anything beyond.
- a player, who is already touching the touchline, touch-in-goal line or anything beyond, catches or holds the ball.
Given the above, if the ball is still in the field of play (i.e. hasn't crossed the plane of touch), you are deemed to have taken it out. If it's not in the field of play (has crossed), then you didn't.
You can catch, knock or kick the ball as long as you're in the playing area regardless of whether it crosses the plane of touch. Hence why you can jump from outside, catch or knock the ball and land within the playing area, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch. You can jump from in the playing area, knock the ball back into the playing area, before landing in touch or touch-in-goal, regardless of whether the ball reached the plane of touch.
To be in touch you have to be on the ground. If you catch the ball in touch, the ball is now in touch.
The only strange one is that you can be in touch, kick or knock the ball provided it has not reached the plane of touch. But that's because you didn't catch it.
@antipodean The rationalisation of the law doesn't change my feelings about the stupidity of it.
I'd think it was just as silly if DMac had done into the Canes ... granted I probably would have only mentioned it once and not spammed all forums, social media and direct messages about it.
