Final: Chiefs v Crusaders
-
@nostrildamus Chiefs performed better given the circumstances, 22 of the Crusaders 25 points were scored against 14 men, 3 yellow cards, roughly 1/2 the match disadvantaged, Crusaders looked clueless whenever the Chiefs had a full compliment.
@kiwi_expat said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@nostrildamus Chiefs performed better given the circumstances, 22 of the Crusaders 25 points were scored against 14 men, 3 yellow cards, roughly 1/2 the match disadvantaged, Crusaders looked clueless whenever the Chiefs had a full compliment.
Perhaps the Chiefs should've concentrated on keeping a full complement for the entirety of the fixture.
-
@nostrildamus Chiefs performed better given the circumstances, 22 of the Crusaders 25 points were scored against 14 men, 3 yellow cards, roughly 1/2 the match disadvantaged, Crusaders looked clueless whenever the Chiefs had a full compliment.
@kiwi_expat said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@nostrildamus Chiefs performed better given the circumstances, 22 of the Crusaders 25 points were scored against 14 men, 3 yellow cards, roughly 1/2 the match disadvantaged, Crusaders looked clueless whenever the Chiefs had a full compliment.
Maybe if they hadn’t infringed the Crusaders would have scored prior. Using the existing rules the team with the most points wins.
-
@nostrildamus Chiefs performed better given the circumstances, 22 of the Crusaders 25 points were scored against 14 men, 3 yellow cards, roughly 1/2 the match disadvantaged, Crusaders looked clueless whenever the Chiefs had a full compliment.
@kiwi_expat said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@nostrildamus Chiefs performed better given the circumstances, 22 of the Crusaders 25 points were scored against 14 men, 3 yellow cards, roughly 1/2 the match disadvantaged, Crusaders looked clueless whenever the Chiefs had a full compliment.
I think you meant complement. Given that, you are saying for those 3 yellow cards, 37.5% of the game (or for nearly all of it given ALB should have been given a red card), the Crusaders didn't look clueless.
I am afraid we have to consider discipline: the Chiefs made key mistakes and the Crusaders were ruthless in capitalizing on those mistakes and squeezing the Chiefs out of the game. That is how they typically play.
I'd have been happy if the Chiefs won, but they had their chances and their warnings, and they didn't change tack.
That shows even if their players individually may have been superior the team had a tactical or leadership flaw. -
I won’t and don’t blame the ref, but I do have a problem with the interpretation of the laws. The maul (especially stopping one) is a joke and that laws needs a reinterpretation soon.
All of that aside, had we kicked to the corner and held the ball instead of kicking for goal, we may have won that game. That’s not on the Saders, that’s on our game drivers who were still on the field.
Additionally, we played plenty of rugby in that game, so even though we lost, I don’t really mind that we lose to a team that can only really trouble us while we are down to 14. I don’t mean that in a bitchy way, just that I’m happy we could accumulate points 15 vs 15. If we had better discipline, we would have prevented the Saders getting theirs versus 14, so that’s a huge work-on for next year. They deserve their win; they did better at line out time and in the last 15 minutes.
-
@Winger said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Chris-B said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Windows97 On the contrary...
https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/topic/5006/waikato-v-tasman-premiership-final/101?page=6
Here you see a perfect example of gracious losing - the previous page notes discussion of some contentious calls - though not by me.
Much like the Chiefs we died of self-inflicted wounds that night!
Depends on the circumstances. Wellington has been on the wrong side of of lopsided reffing and have been pissed off. Same with the AB
This game with a one sided penalty count and likewise yellow cards. And a badly missed forward pass. And also a close game. Fans from the losing side were always going to be annoyed
But if my team lose and the reffing is fair I just accept the better team won and move on.
In this game I thought the better team lost. Whether it was due to poor discipline or biased reffing I just don't know. But can understand why chiefs fabs are annoyed. It's good to see some strong feelings from the fans but some have gone too far. As NZ fans did with Barnes
Says the poster who has been saying for the last 3-4 years that the Crusaders have “ruined” Super Rugby. Hard to take you serious when you comment on Crusader games or threads.
I think we can kill the idea that the reffing was biased. There’s absolutely no evidence of that. Were things missed, you bet ya. That’s the nature of it and it isn’t going to change as long as we put humans in charge of a game that has laws that are open to interpretation from the guy with the whistle. The maul and breakdown are still subjective as it was back in the pre-professional days.
@ACT-Crusader said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Says the poster who has been saying for the last 3-4 years that the Crusaders have “ruined” Super Rugby. Hard to take you serious when you comment on Crusader games or threads.
No I haven't. I've said that there are 2 big issues with super rugby. One is that one team always wins = boring and predicable. I would feel the same if it was the Canes. But would be less vocal about it (the other of course is weak Aussie teams).
NZR could easily address this issue by making all teams pick up a bigger share of the ABs salary (with a bigger player budget to compensate). This would stop the top teams picking up the best young players as required. And the weaker team struggling to attract players. But it doesn't suit NZR to do this as their focus is 100% on the AB's. There must be other solutions too but NZR aren't interested. So NZR is to blame for this issue not the Crusaders. Your team can't be blamed for using a system to your advantage
-
@Winger said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Chris-B said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
In this game I thought the better team lost. Whether it was due to poor discipline or biased reffing I just don't know.
The better team on paper or the better team on the night?
See, I thought the Crusaders dominated the majority of the match - largely on the back of the Chiefs' ill-discipline, though we started much better and they looked rattled from the get go.
I thought we dominated the first half and might pay for leaving too many points out there. That looked somewhat likely in the first 25 minutes of the second half, when they got on top. But, the tide got turned again and we clearly had the best of the final 15 minutes.
The stats largely seem to back me up - we clearly won territory, possession and time in the opposition 22. We won the set piece because we smoked their lineout and scrums were largely even. Crucially, their discipline was terrible and given ALB's yellow has been upgraded to a red, they were lucky not to be punished a lot worse. That was the most costly reffing error of the night - far bigger impact than a missed forward pass.
With the massive advantage of being at home and with the Crusaders missing a bunch of frontline players - the Chiefs should be absolutely kicking themselves for blowing that game.
But, I don't think they were hard done by on the night.
@Chris-B said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
The better team on paper or the better team on the night?
The better team during the season. And but for poor discipline (most likely this reason) and / or the ref being against them whether fair or not the better team on the night.
Similar to a team beating the Crusaders. It could be the Crusaders were overall the better team but say an injury to a key player and poor discipline (resulting in one yellow card) let them down.
-
There were two "shockers" by the ref tonight. ALB should have gotten a red, which would have had a major impact on the game, and a missed forward pass several phases before a try was scored, which would have had a marginal impact on the match at the time.
All of the rest were pretty normal ruby calls, nothing to call the WAHHHHHHHHAMBULANCE about.
@Canerbry said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
There were two "shockers" by the ref tonight. ALB should have gotten a red, which would have had a major impact on the game, and a missed forward pass several phases before a try was scored, which would have had a marginal impact on the match at the time.
All of the rest were pretty normal ruby calls, nothing to call the WAHHHHHHHHAMBULANCE about.
You can't blame the red card on BOK. What the TMO was thinking is a different matter!
To get some idea of the impact of the forward pass, recall that Jesters went from conceding try to penalty on half way. Even Bryn Hall on RPA acknowledged that (correctly I might add) saved the game for Jesters.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@nostrildamus Chiefs performed better given the circumstances, 22 of the Crusaders 25 points were scored against 14 men, 3 yellow cards, roughly 1/2 the match disadvantaged, Crusaders looked clueless whenever the Chiefs had a full compliment.
Maybe if they hadn’t infringed the Crusaders would have scored prior. Using the existing rules the team with the most points wins.
@kev said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@kiwi_expat said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@nostrildamus Chiefs performed better given the circumstances, 22 of the Crusaders 25 points were scored against 14 men, 3 yellow cards, roughly 1/2 the match disadvantaged, Crusaders looked clueless whenever the Chiefs had a full compliment.
Using the existing rules the team with the most points wins.
You're behind the times, Kev. Apparently, once there's a forward pass, any inconvenient rules, facts or events can be discarded!
-
In the history of stupid shit I have read on the Fern
And that's quite some history over the past 15-odd years
The last 10 pages is right up there
Have a fucking look at yourselves.
-
Why is everyone acting like the on field officials had no idea about Dmac being offside? The ref and touchie seemed to immediately be talking about it and specifically called it out when referring in to the tmo. If there was no tmo then I think that try still gets called back based on what the touch judge saw. As others have pointed out, the markings on the field made it really blatant that he wasn't back 10.
@Cyclops said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Why is everyone acting like the on field officials had no idea about Dmac being offside? The ref and touchie seemed to immediately be talking about it and specifically called it out when referring in to the tmo. If there was no tmo then I think that try still gets called back based on what the touch judge saw. As others have pointed out, the markings on the field made it really blatant that he wasn't back 10.
Everyone?
-
Fuck me, the Chiefs blew this game and like @game_film says above, the Saders found a way. The ref, linesman and TMO are not to blame for the result. And just quietly - the Saders were on the end of some shit calls too.
If I was a Chief's supporter I would be gutted. They had every right to expect to win the final after consistently being the better team through the season. But that's the thing when competitions have finals. Sometimes the competition's leaders don't win it.
I would love to see the ABs play like the Saders did in the period leading up to Cane's yellow. That was simple, brutal rugby. They smashed their way up the field. Hats off to the Chiefs for keeping them out, but unfortunately for them Cane flinched.
-
@Cyclops said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Why is everyone acting like the on field officials had no idea about Dmac being offside? The ref and touchie seemed to immediately be talking about it and specifically called it out when referring in to the tmo. If there was no tmo then I think that try still gets called back based on what the touch judge saw. As others have pointed out, the markings on the field made it really blatant that he wasn't back 10.
Everyone?
@booboo said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Cyclops said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Why is everyone acting like the on field officials had no idea about Dmac being offside? The ref and touchie seemed to immediately be talking about it and specifically called it out when referring in to the tmo. If there was no tmo then I think that try still gets called back based on what the touch judge saw. As others have pointed out, the markings on the field made it really blatant that he wasn't back 10.
Everyone?
Fair cop. 'Vocal minority'.
-
The thing that I like the most about this final is the ability of the Crusaders to ruthlessly exploit the Chiefs ill discipline and get the win against the odds. That's exactly what I want to see from the ABs - that ruthlessness has been missing post 2015 (mostly due to the player exodus) but we haven't been able to recapture it. In fact the opposite has happened - other teams have been exploiting AB ill discipline very effectively, which has cost us games. Razor was my 2nd choice for coach (I wanted Schmidt), but that does bode well for us next year.
-
@Stargazer said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@kiwi_expat said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Crusaders looked clueless
Only in your head.
The way the Crusaders ruthlessly throttled the Chiefs in the dying minutes with that unbroken and menacing line of defenders was a brutal and effective spectacle I'd love to see in the ABs tactics book.
-
Good from Sam Cane
“They do an outstanding job in what’s probably one of the toughest jobs in sport, and they play such a vital role from the grassroots all the way up to our footy,” Cane said.
“There’s an old saying that you don’t have a game without them. And no-one deserves to cop that sort of abuse, everyone goes out there to do the very best that they can. They’re no different to us as players, they’ve got to make split-second decisions
“So we’re lucky to have such a quality ref like Ben here in New Zealand, and I’m pleased to see that he’s called out that sort of behaviour.”
-
Foster correct in this points to one of the real reasons the Chiefs lost.
”We don't want them [yellow cards] and I am sure the Chiefs didn't want them,” Foster said.“Sometimes there is a bit of a lesson there, your senior players can sometimes want things so badly that they just over-extend or force a play when they don't need to.
“So, it's like every pressure moment, there's some great learnings in that.”
-
@kiwi_expat said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@nostrildamus Chiefs performed better given the circumstances, 22 of the Crusaders 25 points were scored against 14 men, 3 yellow cards, roughly 1/2 the match disadvantaged, Crusaders looked clueless whenever the Chiefs had a full compliment.
I think you meant complement. Given that, you are saying for those 3 yellow cards, 37.5% of the game (or for nearly all of it given ALB should have been given a red card), the Crusaders didn't look clueless.
I am afraid we have to consider discipline: the Chiefs made key mistakes and the Crusaders were ruthless in capitalizing on those mistakes and squeezing the Chiefs out of the game. That is how they typically play.
I'd have been happy if the Chiefs won, but they had their chances and their warnings, and they didn't change tack.
That shows even if their players individually may have been superior the team had a tactical or leadership flaw.@nostrildamus said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
I am afraid we have to consider discipline: the Chiefs made key mistakes and the Crusaders were ruthless in capitalizing on those mistakes and squeezing the Chiefs out of the game.
That's not how I saw it at all, this was quite similar to the Woman's WC final where the Ferns nearly handed England the win on a platter despite having a man advantage for a large chunk of the game, Crusaders were not ruthless, it's a numbers game & they won because of that.
-
@nostrildamus said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
I am afraid we have to consider discipline: the Chiefs made key mistakes and the Crusaders were ruthless in capitalizing on those mistakes and squeezing the Chiefs out of the game.
That's not how I saw it at all, this was quite similar to the Woman's WC final where the Ferns nearly handed England the win on a platter despite having a man advantage for a large chunk of the game, Crusaders were not ruthless, it's a numbers game & they won because of that.
@kiwi_expat said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@nostrildamus said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
I am afraid we have to consider discipline: the Chiefs made key mistakes and the Crusaders were ruthless in capitalizing on those mistakes and squeezing the Chiefs out of the game.
That's not how I saw it at all, this was quite similar to the Woman's WC final where the Ferns nearly handed England the win on a platter despite having a man advantage for a large chunk of the game, Crusaders were not ruthless, it's a numbers game & they won because of that.
There have been so many matches in the last 5 years alone that teams have won when they have had yellow cards, and even red and been down player/s. Teams train scenarios being down a man.
-
Don’t understand all the fuss about this one. Chiefs blew it, Saders hung in there and found a way. Love me some Brer O’Keefe. Just a shame he won’t be able to ref the RWC final.
@game_film said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Don’t understand all the fuss about this one. Chiefs blew it, Saders hung in there and found a way. Love me some Brer O’Keefe. Just a shame he won’t be able to ref the RWC final.
Who would he favour then France or Ireland?
