Hawke's Bay v Canterbury
-
Darry looked useful, although he needs to add some bulk. Pity the Blues have locked him up for the next three years. And on that note, likewise Otago and the Highlanders re Will Tucker. Both highly promising locally produced locks at 2m+ and both lost to the Crusaders when we need to be considering how we replace Whitelock. I read that Razor said Darry didn't want to compete for a spot. Ouch.
-
Generally speaking I don't like hangovers, but this one I'm strangely enjoying. That game last night was something special, not just because Hawkes Bay won it but because it had a bit of everything. Hawkes Bay started well, moved Canterbury around and kept the attacking mindset. The set piece namely the scrum was strong, and out wide Visinia and Lowe were on fire. Toala looked full of running and Baker at the back looked very assured. Fokatava played well, but too many inside flick passes. Canterbury as per usual after halftime came out full of fire, and looked to be pulling away towards the 70 minute mark, but for me the best part of this game was that Hawkes Bay stayed tough, stayed in the fight and never gave in. Devan Flanders, Ash Dixon, Tom Parsons, Joe Apikitoa take a bow, you were all simply brilliant. Brendan O'Connor likewise at the breakdown. Jason Long magnificent last scrum, and good to see he like the rest of the pack never gave in and conceded. 1982 seems a long time ago, and is but this Hawkes Bay effort showed everything you want to see in players in the Black and White jersey. Great game, great effort, and for once an enjoyable hangover. Well done boys.
-
Hilarious. I just saw the highlight of the first HB try on insta, the last pass is a mile forward
@mariner4life said in Hawke's Bay v Canterbury:
Hilarious. I just saw the highlight of the first HB try on insta, the last pass is a mile forward
I'll have to check that one out again, but there was another with two very marginal passes as well.
-
I take it back re the two marginal passes; that try was disallowed (was the one where Visinia was held-up).
But upon review, the Visinia try down the right touch should have been disallowed. O'Connor passed the ball exactly on the 22m line, and Visinia caught it as he stood on the painted 2 on the goal-line side of the 22. Which is about 1m forward. Although in real time it looks ok, to the point where I didn't question it last night.
-
Some guys still don't know how it works aye. It's not about where a player catches the ball, a ball is allowed to drift forward; it's about where players are when the pass is made. At the time that O'Connor passed the ball, Visinia was next to him (to be more precise, about a footlength behind him).
The second thing that you need to look at is the position of the hand of the player passing the ball. The ball should leave his hands backward. And that's exactly what O'Connor did.
So it was the flattest of flat balls. Near perfect. Not forward.
Sorry, I didn't manage to make a better screenshot. This is just after the ball left O'Connor's hand. O'Connor is still a tiny bit in front (look at their feet). And there's a good reason why Visinia was in front of him a second or two later: O'Connor was tackled and Visinia is faster. The ball drifted forward; that happens when you pass a ball while running. Physics.
-
Some guys still don't know how it works aye. It's not about where a player catches the ball, a ball is allowed to drift forward; it's about where players are when the pass is made. At the time that O'Connor passed the ball, Visinia was next to him (to be more precise, about a footlength behind him).
The second thing that you need to look at is the position of the hand of the player passing the ball. The ball should leave his hands backward. And that's exactly what O'Connor did.
So it was the flattest of flat balls. Near perfect. Not forward.
Sorry, I didn't manage to make a better screenshot. This is just after the ball left O'Connor's hand. O'Connor is still a tiny bit in front (look at their feet). And there's a good reason why Visinia was in front of him a second or two later: O'Connor was tackled and Visinia is faster. The ball drifted forward; that happens when you pass a ball while running. Physics.
@Stargazer I'm fully aware of the rule. It's an argument / justification which will simply never wash with me though and therefore IMHO that try shouldn't have been allowed.
How far forward should a ball be allowed to drift due to physics? How can it be determined if this is au naturale or deliberate / careless? For mine, the best way to rule on this is that anything forward is forward, simple as that.
-
Geez just watching the highlights and it's great to see Lolagi Visinia doing so well. He was one of the great wasted talents over the years who had it all. I thought he'd go on to be an AB for sure but was poorly handled during his time at the Blues and Auckland. I'd love to see him get a super rugby contract somewhere.
-
Geez just watching the highlights and it's great to see Lolagi Visinia doing so well. He was one of the great wasted talents over the years who had it all. I thought he'd go on to be an AB for sure but was poorly handled during his time at the Blues and Auckland. I'd love to see him get a super rugby contract somewhere.
@African-Monkey Maybe Ben Lam's spot at the Canes?
-
@Chris-B said in Hawke's Bay v Canterbury:
Congratulations Hawkes Bay!
Jeez - there's a bit of a lack of weaponry in that Canterbury team.
Give it to Mataele, but if he doesn't do something big, there's not many others who are regularly going to make big plays.
Was Mataele playing?
@ACT-Crusader said in Hawke's Bay v Canterbury:
@Chris-B said in Hawke's Bay v Canterbury:
Congratulations Hawkes Bay!
Jeez - there's a bit of a lack of weaponry in that Canterbury team.
Give it to Mataele, but if he doesn't do something big, there's not many others who are regularly going to make big plays.
Was Mataele playing?
Not as well as they needed him to be.
@shark Lots of role players in that Canterbury team, but not that much that strikes fear in the heart. Reuben's almost got a team created in his own image.
I'd go with all of your changes. The pack is OK, though I continue to wonder what the point of conscripting Irish Oli to the Crusaders is/was. I'd probably start Christie ahead of Harmon.
Problems really start with Brett Cameron, who's a lot more Stephen Brett or Cameron McIntyre (perhaps not surprisingly) than Danny Boy. That AB call-up was definitely a roll of the dice. I thought Burke added some spark when he came on.
Midfield seems a bit anonymous and Knewstubb a bit DMac-lite. Need to add some more physicality somehow.
-
@Stargazer I'm fully aware of the rule. It's an argument / justification which will simply never wash with me though and therefore IMHO that try shouldn't have been allowed.
How far forward should a ball be allowed to drift due to physics? How can it be determined if this is au naturale or deliberate / careless? For mine, the best way to rule on this is that anything forward is forward, simple as that.
@shark said in Hawke's Bay v Canterbury:
@Stargazer I'm fully aware of the rule. It's an argument / justification which will simply never wash with me though and therefore IMHO that try shouldn't have been allowed.
How far forward should a ball be allowed to drift due to physics? How can it be determined if this is au naturale or deliberate / careless? For mine, the best way to rule on this is that anything forward is forward, simple as that.
So, to be clear, you think the examples in the video below (passing backwards relative to motion to a player behind) should be illegal?
I'm down with the interpretation of 'backwards out of the hands' -- but it's the implications that make my brain hurt. If you're running backwards with the ball, and you throw it to another player running forward (like fullback/wing interchange), should that be ruled a forward pass? It's 'forward' relative to the motion. Common sense says to be legal, it should EITHER be backwards in absolute space (ie relative to teh ground), or backwards relative to the motion towards the goal line (ie relative to the player -- backwards out of the hands). EDIT: but that isn't what the laws say - they are silent and ambiguous (like most Rugby Laws, let's be honest)
Either way, let's keep Wayne Barnes out of this discussion
-
We know what the rule, jesus. That was forward out of the hands.
-
We know what the rule, jesus. That was forward out of the hands.
@mariner4life I thought the rule was pretty clear, but @Stargazer doesn't seem to agree.
Looked very very flat ... Gregan and Genia level flat
-
Had a rewatch this morning over breakfast. Those idiot maul calls still making me fume a bit.
Hopefully the Canes coach was watching Flanders in this match, he's a beast when you give him a decent amount of rugby. The favoured son at the Canes, Prinsep was invisible the first 60 minutes.
I think Fakatava's game was was somewhere a bit in between the good that some are giving it and the bad others are. His decision making was off yesterday, especially compared with last year. You'd think being down and learning from Smith would help in that regard, but it's gotten worse ... maybe that hair dye is leaking into his brain. His little kicks with attacking ball needs to be shelved, but I think he needs to start again to keep the Hasting Boys 8-12 combo.
Dixon seems to get better with age, pity it appears to late for an AB call up. Parsons did the business too, glad he actually stayed this year.
Lowe had a good game even though he really doesn't get ball in space too often.
It's quite handy having Evans come on as a replacement. Stacking our bench with our ex All Black. ILW coming on and smashing everything certainly helped too.
-
Had a rewatch this morning over breakfast. Those idiot maul calls still making me fume a bit.
Hopefully the Canes coach was watching Flanders in this match, he's a beast when you give him a decent amount of rugby. The favoured son at the Canes, Prinsep was invisible the first 60 minutes.
I think Fakatava's game was was somewhere a bit in between the good that some are giving it and the bad others are. His decision making was off yesterday, especially compared with last year. You'd think being down and learning from Smith would help in that regard, but it's gotten worse ... maybe that hair dye is leaking into his brain. His little kicks with attacking ball needs to be shelved, but I think he needs to start again to keep the Hasting Boys 8-12 combo.
Dixon seems to get better with age, pity it appears to late for an AB call up. Parsons did the business too, glad he actually stayed this year.
Lowe had a good game even though he really doesn't get ball in space too often.
It's quite handy having Evans come on as a replacement. Stacking our bench with our ex All Black. ILW coming on and smashing everything certainly helped too.
@Nepia It's funny how Ozich has swapped Mikaele-Tu'u and Flanders, compared to where they played at SR level. I definitely think that 8 is the best position for both, but for some reason he prefers Flanders at the back of the scrum. Not sure why, but it may have to do with that Hastings Boys' 8 - 12 combo you're talking about? I'm not sure it's good for Mikaele-Tu'u, but it's definitely good for Flanders to get all this game time at 8. It will be interesting to see what the line-up will be, next week. Will Evans be preferred at 8, or does he stay on the bench? Or will they move him to 7, with O'Connor moving to the bench?
-
He threw it forward.
Its cool, they got away with one. I'm of the view rugby codes shouldn't be viewed under a microscope and frame by frame anyway
@mariner4life said in Hawke's Bay v Canterbury:
He threw it forward.
Its cool, they got away with one. I'm of the view rugby codes shouldn't be viewed under a microscope and frame by frame anyway
Agree on both counts, which is why I hadn't examined it until it was mentioned. Then, frame by frame, its a forward pass. But in real time, looks ok. I think a factor which takes away from the 'it's allowed to drift forward' argument is that it was a relatively short pass.
When I played, we were taught to pass backwards. Then any forward momentum drift would result in a flat pass. These days it seems flat passes are the teaching and surprise surprise, they often float forward. I don't know why this needs to be justified.
-
I was extremely magnanimous in victory last night, congratulating every Canterbury supporter in the clubrooms on their well deserved bonus point. Well not quite all as one turned out to confess later on that he was born in Hastings. That detail did not stop him demonstrating total support to Canterbury throughout. Thought seriously about aiming incorrectly when running into him in the urinal! The hangover is improving.
-
@mariner4life said in Hawke's Bay v Canterbury:
He threw it forward.
Its cool, they got away with one. I'm of the view rugby codes shouldn't be viewed under a microscope and frame by frame anyway
Agree on both counts, which is why I hadn't examined it until it was mentioned. Then, frame by frame, its a forward pass. But in real time, looks ok. I think a factor which takes away from the 'it's allowed to drift forward' argument is that it was a relatively short pass.
When I played, we were taught to pass backwards. Then any forward momentum drift would result in a flat pass. These days it seems flat passes are the teaching and surprise surprise, they often float forward. I don't know why this needs to be justified.
@shark have been plenty of those short balls this season have looked forward but are let go without even a second look, especially when a number have resulted in a try and they could have had a look, but didnt...
maybe the refs were admiring the sweeping movements too much to worry about what thier job was
