Highlanders V Brumbies Super Bang Bang quarter finals
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pakman" data-cid="599043" data-time="1469208294">
<div>
<p>Not sure I've got my head around the play off format -- am I right that it's not as simple as the Clan play winner of the (e.g.) Canes/Sharks game? Or is it third placed p[lays second placed of those making semi's??</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>It's seeded based on the teams remaining...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Highest remaining seed plays 4th remaining seed</p>
<p>2nd plays 3rd</p> -
Win is a win...flush the dunny and move on.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Damo" data-cid="599005" data-time="1469183818">
<div>
<p><strong>I think a big part of the reason the ref didn't go to the pocket was because Moore (and then Fardy and Pocock) kept demanding it all the time. </strong> Highlanders were probably a bit lucky not to get a card after one of the mauls. Was it luck though, or just bad management by the Brumbies?</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Totally agree with that. Their ref management is shocking. It's not just a one off for Moore either, he's always been bad and yet still gets picked as captain. I'm not sure that's the 'right' way to ref a game of rugby though. Personalities shouldn't come into it and if a team is playing cynical rugby (15 penalties) then they probably should be shown a yellow.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="598985" data-time="1469181356"><p>
I thought initially it would be a clear try - but, he had the ball out in front of him as he lunged for the line and then somehow it ended at his hip - so not sure how he couldn't have lost it.</p></blockquote>
<br>
There was pne shot where he appeared he may have lost it. That and no clear and obvious evidence of a try being scored it was the correct decision. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="598992" data-time="1469181967"><p>
Larkham looks like he can't believe they lost. He's a shit coach, which surprises me given he was such a smart player. <br><br><br></p></blockquote>
<br>
Top players with natural ability often make shit coaches -
<p>loved the way Smith was down low shouting encouragement into the tunnel in the last few scrums.</p>
-
<p>I thought it appeared he may have even lost control of it, far too much doubt.</p>
-
<p>I wonder if League has things right in these cases. The ref makes a call, then he can look up stairs for any reason to over turn the call. If that was an AB instead of a Brumbie last night, I would have been pissed at the no try call. Cameras don't always see everything. To be honest, in real time I thought that looked a dead set try.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Toddy" data-cid="599064" data-time="1469223243">
<div>
<p>Seems Larkham is having a real big whinge about the no try. I thought it was a pretty good call. Video ref couldn't see the ball grounded and on the front on camera it appeared that in all likely hood the Brumbie was short of the line. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>He cries like a girl over a practice which protects his side equally from questionable decisions, they cannot give it if they cannot see it - the hypocrisy shines bright.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crazy Horse" data-cid="599067" data-time="1469224093"><p>
I wonder if League has things right in these cases. The ref makes a call, then he can look up stairs for any reason to over turn the call. If that was an AB instead of a Brumbie last night, I would have been pissed at the no try call. Cameras don't always see everything. To be honest, in real time I thought that looked a dead set try.</p></blockquote>
<br>
I don't really agree. This just brings another variable that is likely to cause fuck ups. If the ref can't see it he shouldn't be making a call based on a hunch. If he sees it grounded he can either give it or say "i have seen a grounding but want to check ......" -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pukunui" data-cid="599091" data-time="1469232763">
<div>
<p>I don't really agree. This just brings another variable that is likely to cause fuck ups. If the ref can't see it he shouldn't be making a call based on a hunch. If he sees it grounded he can either give it or say "i have seen a grounding but want to check ......"</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>thats where he says give me a reason why I cannot award a try...so in that instance last night, unless the TMO saw something (knock on) then he would have awarded it.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pukunui" data-cid="599091" data-time="1469232763"><p>
I don't really agree. This just brings another variable that is likely to cause fuck ups. If the ref can't see it he shouldn't be making a call based on a hunch. If he sees it grounded he can either give it or say "i have seen a grounding but want to check ......"</p></blockquote>
<br>
Why not? They should say ' give me a reason to award the try' or 'give me a reason not to award a try'. The way it stands at the moment, and I think it was Chris B that raised this a few weeks ago, the defending teams get the benefit of the doubt when those questions aren't asked. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crazy Horse" data-cid="599137" data-time="1469244551">
<div>
<p>Why not? They should say ' give me a reason to award the try' or '<strong>give me a reason not to award a try</strong>'.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>in particularly the latter example the problem is clear; there was no evidence of grounding. So asking that way wouldn't make a difference.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="599139" data-time="1469245266">
<div>
<p>in particularly the latter example the problem is clear; there was no evidence of grounding. So asking that way wouldn't make a difference.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I think the tenor of the question in that case is supposed to be that there needs to be good evidence that the ball was held up.</p>
