Reds v Chiefs
-
@yeetyaah said in Reds v Chiefs:
Hope he never does that type of shit in the Black Jersey. That would be unforgiveable.
You mean like how SBW did it and still kept the starting jersey?
Another Chiefs playerâŚ
@act-crusader said in Reds v Chiefs:
@yeetyaah said in Reds v Chiefs:
Hope he never does that type of shit in the Black Jersey. That would be unforgiveable.
You mean like how SBW did it and still kept the starting jersey?
Another Chiefs playerâŚ
Learned everything about rugby from that Crusaders culture.
-
@act-crusader said in Reds v Chiefs:
@yeetyaah said in Reds v Chiefs:
Hope he never does that type of shit in the Black Jersey. That would be unforgiveable.
You mean like how SBW did it and still kept the starting jersey?
Another Chiefs playerâŚ
Learned everything about rugby from that Crusaders culture.
@gt12 said in Reds v Chiefs:
@act-crusader said in Reds v Chiefs:
@yeetyaah said in Reds v Chiefs:
Hope he never does that type of shit in the Black Jersey. That would be unforgiveable.
You mean like how SBW did it and still kept the starting jersey?
Another Chiefs playerâŚ
Learned everything about rugby from that Crusaders culture.
He was a shining light of positive and productive play in a Saders jersey.
-
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy I don't think that's a sensible route. Teams can cover fines. Bans are already in place.
Imagine a RWC and some English thug takes out our best player in the 2nd minute. Gets a $20k fine and 4 weeks off. No impact on the team and they go on to win.
Lunacy
They still get removed from the match and hopefully many more. The team suffers because they have to use a replacement. The fans don't because it is still 15 on 15.
A team could literally call up a hit man to take out the other team's best player. That's a crazy idea. The best balance is struck by the 20 minute red card. Just stick with that.
@hydro11 said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@voodoo said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy I don't think that's a sensible route. Teams can cover fines. Bans are already in place.
Imagine a RWC and some English thug takes out our best player in the 2nd minute. Gets a $20k fine and 4 weeks off. No impact on the team and they go on to win.
Lunacy
They still get removed from the match and hopefully many more. The team suffers because they have to use a replacement. The fans don't because it is still 15 on 15.
A team could literally call up a hit man to take out the other team's best player. That's a crazy idea. The best balance is struck by the 20 minute red card. Just stick with that.
Agreed, it's a good compromise.
The Chiefs should never have conceded as many points as they did during that period they were down to 13.
If they'd have stayed within 2-3 scores in the first half I think they win it in the 2nd half.
-
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
The "how" is a bit tougher, but financial penalties and bans should encourage them to be more wary of the other players wellbeing.
Having read the thread it sounds like the Chiefs even getting close was a good result.
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
-
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
@barbarian said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
I think that the fans were. I want an even contest, yes it got close, but the damage was done with the cards when I switched it off and it was a foregone conclusion.
No argument that 20 mins is better.
-
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
@barbarian said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
This.
Whether you agree with the card decision or not, they could have stayed in the fight if they had sacked up and tried to survive for the 20 minutes. Instead they played like pea-hearted retards until Messam came on and showed a bit of leadership.
Weber in particular clearly has little standing as a leader and shouldnât be captain.
-
@barbarian said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
I think that the fans were. I want an even contest, yes it got close, but the damage was done with the cards when I switched it off and it was a foregone conclusion.
No argument that 20 mins is better.
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@barbarian said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
I think that the fans were. I want an even contest, yes it got close, but the damage was done with the cards when I switched it off and it was a foregone conclusion.
We also have to separate the cards. The first YC was a fair call every day of the week IMO.
So if the Chiefs just had 14, then I think the contest would have been a little different.
That and if the Chiefs hadn't decided to lay down for that 20 minutes, as gt12 points out.
-
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@barbarian said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
I think that the fans were. I want an even contest, yes it got close, but the damage was done with the cards when I switched it off and it was a foregone conclusion.
We also have to separate the cards. The first YC was a fair call every day of the week IMO.
So if the Chiefs just had 14, then I think the contest would have been a little different.
That and if the Chiefs hadn't decided to lay down for that 20 minutes, as gt12 points out.
@barbarian said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
@barbarian said in Reds v Chiefs:
@snowy said in Reds v Chiefs:
I stopped watching with the cards and 13 players. Not because I thought the cards were wrong, just because it seemed like the contest was over. Which is why I hate the concept. Punish the player, not the team and fans.
But surely last night displayed why the 20 minutes red card rule has to be permanent, because it showed the contest wasn't over when the red was issued.
The Chiefs were punished by the Reds with 13, but they had enough time with 15 to fight their way back into the game and set up a tight finish.
With the former Red Card law I reckon that game finished 65-21 or something.
So the player was punished but not the fans.
I think that the fans were. I want an even contest, yes it got close, but the damage was done with the cards when I switched it off and it was a foregone conclusion.
We also have to separate the cards. The first YC was a fair call every day of the week IMO.
So if the Chiefs just had 14, then I think the contest would have been a little different.
That and if the Chiefs hadn't decided to lay down for that 20 minutes, as gt12 points out.
No doubt they laid down Sally.
The point was is if cards are the best way to regulate play, when people pay to see an uneven contest. It is not specific to this game or those cards. It just happens to have come up in this match. Well again actually.
-
@gt12 said in Reds v Chiefs:
So, I think I might even be looking forward to having Gatland back; at least he wouldn't /shouldn't be as dumb as those retards for rolling out that team against the current SRA champions - who were also coming to the game with something to prove.
That may be going a bit far... I'll take Clayton's Chiefs over Gatland's any day. Last year a loss would have been fortold at the start of the week.
-
@gt12 said in Reds v Chiefs:
So, I think I might even be looking forward to having Gatland back; at least he wouldn't /shouldn't be as dumb as those retards for rolling out that team against the current SRA champions - who were also coming to the game with something to prove.
That may be going a bit far... I'll take Clayton's Chiefs over Gatland's any day. Last year a loss would have been fortold at the start of the week.
@donsteppa said in Reds v Chiefs:
@gt12 said in Reds v Chiefs:
So, I think I might even be looking forward to having Gatland back; at least he wouldn't /shouldn't be as dumb as those retards for rolling out that team against the current SRA champions - who were also coming to the game with something to prove.
That may be going a bit far... I'll take Clayton's Chiefs over Gatland's any day. Last year a loss would have been fortold at the start of the week.
I said âI mightâ
What I am sure if is that McMillan was too smart for his own boots.
The love affair with Tiatia should go in the bin too - that guy off the bench perhaps but as a starting wing was stupidity.
-
@yeetyaah said in Reds v Chiefs:
Hope he never does that type of shit in the Black Jersey. That would be unforgiveable.
You mean like how SBW did it and still kept the starting jersey?
Another Chiefs playerâŚ
@act-crusader said in Reds v Chiefs:
@yeetyaah said in Reds v Chiefs:
Hope he never does that type of shit in the Black Jersey. That would be unforgiveable.
You mean like how SBW did it and still kept the starting jersey?
Another Chiefs playerâŚ
Was a Blues player by then
-
On the Chiefs jersey, what happened to that white alternate with the Maori pattern? Those were pretty sweet, wouldâve avoided the colour clash and better than the cursed grey
-
@donsteppa said in Reds v Chiefs:
@gt12 said in Reds v Chiefs:
So, I think I might even be looking forward to having Gatland back; at least he wouldn't /shouldn't be as dumb as those retards for rolling out that team against the current SRA champions - who were also coming to the game with something to prove.
That may be going a bit far... I'll take Clayton's Chiefs over Gatland's any day. Last year a loss would have been fortold at the start of the week.
I said âI mightâ
What I am sure if is that McMillan was too smart for his own boots.
The love affair with Tiatia should go in the bin too - that guy off the bench perhaps but as a starting wing was stupidity.
@gt12 said in Reds v Chiefs:
The love affair with Tiatia should go in the bin too - that guy off the bench perhaps but as a starting wing was stupidity.
ENS gone to sevens, and with Lowe and Wainui on the injured list means it wasn't the worst thought out selection in the world either. The depth will really be tested this week if DMac goes badly with the judiciary...
-
@gt12 said in Reds v Chiefs:
The love affair with Tiatia should go in the bin too - that guy off the bench perhaps but as a starting wing was stupidity.
ENS gone to sevens, and with Lowe and Wainui on the injured list means it wasn't the worst thought out selection in the world either. The depth will really be tested this week if DMac goes badly with the judiciary...
@donsteppa said in Reds v Chiefs:
@gt12 said in Reds v Chiefs:
The love affair with Tiatia should go in the bin too - that guy off the bench perhaps but as a starting wing was stupidity.
ENS gone to sevens, and with Lowe and Wainui on the injured list means it wasn't the worst thought out selection in the world either. The depth will really be tested this week if DMac goes badly with the judiciary...
I disagree - him on the bench and Stevenson on the wing with his long kicking game would be much better. They are both rocks/diamonds but one of them is an established wing at this level.
-
This one? Was 2018-19 alt kit.
@yeetyaah said in Reds v Chiefs:
This one? Was 2018-19 alt kit.
That one was okay. I liked the earlier one in 2015 I think
-
Just a thought on the Chiefs.
Their last five games:
Away Auckland
Away Chch
Away Perth
Home
Away TownsvillePretty rough travel schedule.
No excuse for the poor selections though.
And further, at the risk of ridicule, I still think the red was harsh.
It was understandable in terms of the protocol, but I still have reservations. To my mind he wasn't attempting a tackle, he ran into the line that the halfback was running, and there was resultant contact, made to look worse by slomo.
Fire away.
-
Just a thought on the Chiefs.
Their last five games:
Away Auckland
Away Chch
Away Perth
Home
Away TownsvillePretty rough travel schedule.
No excuse for the poor selections though.
And further, at the risk of ridicule, I still think the red was harsh.
It was understandable in terms of the protocol, but I still have reservations. To my mind he wasn't attempting a tackle, he ran into the line that the halfback was running, and there was resultant contact, made to look worse by slomo.
Fire away.
@booboo said in Reds v Chiefs:
Just a thought on the Chiefs.
Their last five games:
Away Auckland
Away Chch
Away Perth
Home
Away TownsvillePretty rough travel schedule.
No excuse for the poor selections though.
And further, at the risk of ridicule, I still think the red was harsh.
It was understandable in terms of the protocol, but I still have reservations. To my mind he wasn't attempting a tackle, he ran into the line that the halfback was running, and there was resultant contact, made to look worse by slomo.
Fire away.
Not just the travel, theyâve played a good number of consecutive games too, so I think in any event they were going to (rightly or wrongly) rotate a few players.
-
Just a thought on the Chiefs.
Their last five games:
Away Auckland
Away Chch
Away Perth
Home
Away TownsvillePretty rough travel schedule.
No excuse for the poor selections though.
And further, at the risk of ridicule, I still think the red was harsh.
It was understandable in terms of the protocol, but I still have reservations. To my mind he wasn't attempting a tackle, he ran into the line that the halfback was running, and there was resultant contact, made to look worse by slomo.
Fire away.
@booboo said in Reds v Chiefs:
And further, at the risk of ridicule, I still think the red was harsh.
It was understandable in terms of the protocol, but I still have reservations. To my mind he wasn't attempting a tackle, he ran into the line that the halfback was running, and there was resultant contact, made to look worse by slomo.
Fire away.
Okay, I'll bite. The red was fully deserved and very similar to that of Alex Hodgman, who got a 3-week suspension. If it was just an unfortunate collision while running into the same line as the Reds' halfback, he wouldn't have jumped and directed his left shoulder towards the halfback's upper body (I assume he intended to hit him in the chest or shoulder). If he was just running, he would have kept both his feet on the ground and ran straight. He would probably have braced for impact with his right arm; instead, he used his left shoulder.
I haven't read the entire thread, but I just would like to add that Weber deserves a Razzie for the worst actor. Faking to be shocked by the decision. :thumbs_down_medium-light_skin_tone:
