Chiefs v Highlanders
-
Alright fuck I've chilled out a bit. So here my 2 cents.
Good:
Slater was incredible, needs to be starting every game.
Cane was great, apart from his card.
Mckenzie was good, didn't do anything overly stupid.
ALB looked great even at 13.Bad:
All of the replacement forwards.
Warren Gatland.Extra:
Aaron Smith was incredible.
The McKenzie try should have been allowed.Extremely disappointed in the Chiefs for losing that as it looked great, but hats off to the Highlanders for playing with that much heart.
-
So there were two breakdowns after the breakdown created by the offside play. Who knows if that's within protocol?
-
@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
@Bones three and he saw it let it go.
Mate I've literally just watched it again twice, two.
-
@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
@Yeetyaah bad must include tupaea and alaimalo
Tupaea with the crucial miss on shit Nareki.
-
Does it really matter? Worst case he made one mistake to fix another
-
@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
so have i . cane created one two more after that that is three after incident
That breakdown was created from the offside play. Two after that.
Tupaea with the crucial miss on Tomkinson too. Ouch.
-
@Crucial found this online RWC explaining the rules
fromThe scoring of a try, whether the grounding of the ball or the build-up to the try. Any infringement within the two phases prior to a try would render it illegal.@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
@Crucial found this online RWC explaining the rules
fromThe scoring of a try, whether the grounding of the ball or the build-up to the try. Any infringement within the two phases prior to a try would render it illegal.That’s what I thought.
Others have said it was 3 rucks so Cane was right to question it and the ref should have checked that the TMO was keeping to protocol. Has baby face ever actually TMOd before? I can’t remember it if he has.
Doesn’t take away from the Chiefs being shit in the second half just means they didn’t win despite that. -
When you look at the guys upfront who finished that game for the Chiefs, three things become apparent:
-
The chiefs have been hurt by injuries - rather than Moli finishing up, we have Geldenhys
-
The chiefs have been hurt by injuries and coaches don’t know what the fuck they are doing - Nel is playing club rugby while old man Thomson gets a run
-
There is no way we have enough depth for 8 strong teams, what a fucking dream
-
-
@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
so have i . cane created one two more after that that is three after incident
That breakdown was created from the offside play. Two after that.
Tupaea with the crucial miss on Tomkinson too. Ouch.
@Bones said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
so have i . cane created one two more after that that is three after incident
That breakdown was created from the offside play. Two after that.
Tupaea with the crucial miss on Tomkinson too. Ouch.
That breakdown still counts as it happened after the incident surely.
-
@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
so have i . cane created one two more after that that is three after incident
That breakdown was created from the offside play. Two after that.
Tupaea with the crucial miss on Tomkinson too. Ouch.
@Bones said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
so have i . cane created one two more after that that is three after incident
That breakdown was created from the offside play. Two after that.
Tupaea with the crucial miss on Tomkinson too. Ouch.
So how many after it touched Trask? That’s all that matters.
I think the ref team fucked up on this but it is understandable why. Just think maybe they should have double checked when the question was raised. -
@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
so have i . cane created one two more after that that is three after incident
That breakdown was created from the offside play. Two after that.
Tupaea with the crucial miss on Tomkinson too. Ouch.
@Bones
trask was the offside player not cane .hit trask cane claimed ball (he would have claimed it even if it hadnt hit trask, bit like running into your own player and not inpeading another tackler,,i know that doent matter) three rucks after offside player dmac scores -
@Bones
trask was the offside player not cane .hit trask cane claimed ball (he would have claimed it even if it hadnt hit trask, bit like running into your own player and not inpeading another tackler,,i know that doent matter) three rucks after offside player dmac scores@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
@Bones
trask was the offside player not cane .hit trask cane claimed ball (he would have claimed it even if it hadnt hit trask, bit like running into your own player and not inpeading another tackler,,i know that doent matter) three rucks after offside player dmac scoresThat’s the whole thing, we don’t know he would have regained it, I don’t get people getting really strict about was it two rucks or three but just skipping over the offside to start with
-
@Bones
trask was the offside player not cane .hit trask cane claimed ball (he would have claimed it even if it hadnt hit trask, bit like running into your own player and not inpeading another tackler,,i know that doent matter) three rucks after offside player dmac scoresI’m not too worried about that one; I thought it was a bit harsh, but if it had gone the other way I probably wouldn’t want it awarded.
-
@Bones
trask was the offside player not cane .hit trask cane claimed ball (he would have claimed it even if it hadnt hit trask, bit like running into your own player and not inpeading another tackler,,i know that doent matter) three rucks after offside player dmac scores@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
he would have claimed it even if it hadnt hit trask
Ok now I know you're not really taking it seriously. How on earth do you know this? I guess the Highlanders that the ball was traveling towards on the other side of Trask were just gonna stand and watch right?
Three breakdowns after the ball hit Trask, however without Trask there's no breakdown. Interesting one.
Sooo...how is a phase defined anyway?
-
I’m not too worried about that one; I thought it was a bit harsh, but if it had gone the other way I probably wouldn’t want it awarded.
-
@gt12
its one clearly defined rule though 2 phases. if it had happened to our advantage i would have thought that the other fans would be pissed off@ploughboy said in Chiefs v Highlanders:
@gt12
its one clearly defined rule though 2 phases. if it had happened to our advantage i would have thought that the other fans would be pissed offI wouldn't be. What's a phase defined as?
