Lions v Hurricanes (SF)
-
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
Its the yellow card tahst the issue
Its a shame that a dreadful reffing decision had such a big impact on the game. bUT THE Canes looked stuffed after about 35 minutes. something has to be done about the travel in the finals to make them fairer. Ive mentioned before that the semis should have been Chiefs lions and Crusaders / Canes. But this obvious less travel option is beyond the wit of the super rugby brain-dead administators
But well done to the Lions. Deserved winner. Should be a good final with 1 vs 2.
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
Its the yellow card tahst the issue
Its a shame that a dreadful reffing decision had such a big impact on the game. bUT THE Canes looked stuffed after about 35 minutes. something has to be done about the travel in the finals to make them fairer. Ive mentioned before that the semis should have been Chiefs lions and Crusaders / Canes. But this obvious less travel option is beyond the wit of the super rugby brain-dead administators
But well done to the Lions. Deserved winner. Should be a good final with 1 vs 2.
I will give Beaudy the benefit of the doubt in that he "wasn't aware of the position" of the ball being between his legs. But he still he pulled it back when rolling away and there was a turnover. Yes, it was accidental, but still in my opinion a professional foul in the red zone. Should it have only been a penalty? The Supersport board of ex-international players and coaches say no, it is a yellow card.
-
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
Its the yellow card tahst the issue
Its a shame that a dreadful reffing decision had such a big impact on the game. bUT THE Canes looked stuffed after about 35 minutes. something has to be done about the travel in the finals to make them fairer. Ive mentioned before that the semis should have been Chiefs lions and Crusaders / Canes. But this obvious less travel option is beyond the wit of the super rugby brain-dead administators
But well done to the Lions. Deserved winner. Should be a good final with 1 vs 2.
I will give Beaudy the benefit of the doubt in that he "wasn't aware of the position" of the ball being between his legs. But he still he pulled it back when rolling away and there was a turnover. Yes, it was accidental, but still in my opinion a professional foul in the red zone. Should it have only been a penalty? The Supersport board of ex-international players and coaches say no, it is a yellow card.
@JustAnotherFan said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
Its the yellow card tahst the issue
Its a shame that a dreadful reffing decision had such a big impact on the game. bUT THE Canes looked stuffed after about 35 minutes. something has to be done about the travel in the finals to make them fairer. Ive mentioned before that the semis should have been Chiefs lions and Crusaders / Canes. But this obvious less travel option is beyond the wit of the super rugby brain-dead administators
But well done to the Lions. Deserved winner. Should be a good final with 1 vs 2.
I will give Beaudy the benefit of the doubt in that he "wasn't aware of the position" of the ball being between his legs. But he still he pulled it back when rolling away and there was a turnover. Yes, it was accidental, but still in my opinion a professional foul in the red zone. Should it have only been a penalty? The Supersport board of ex-international players and coaches say no, it is a yellow card.
The definition of a "professional foul" - includes the act being deliberate.
-
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
Its the yellow card tahst the issue
Its a shame that a dreadful reffing decision had such a big impact on the game. bUT THE Canes looked stuffed after about 35 minutes. something has to be done about the travel in the finals to make them fairer. Ive mentioned before that the semis should have been Chiefs lions and Crusaders / Canes. But this obvious less travel option is beyond the wit of the super rugby brain-dead administators
But well done to the Lions. Deserved winner. Should be a good final with 1 vs 2.
I will give Beaudy the benefit of the doubt in that he "wasn't aware of the position" of the ball being between his legs. But he still he pulled it back when rolling away and there was a turnover. Yes, it was accidental, but still in my opinion a professional foul in the red zone. Should it have only been a penalty? The Supersport board of ex-international players and coaches say no, it is a yellow card.
@JustAnotherFan said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
Its the yellow card tahst the issue
Its a shame that a dreadful reffing decision had such a big impact on the game. bUT THE Canes looked stuffed after about 35 minutes. something has to be done about the travel in the finals to make them fairer. Ive mentioned before that the semis should have been Chiefs lions and Crusaders / Canes. But this obvious less travel option is beyond the wit of the super rugby brain-dead administators
But well done to the Lions. Deserved winner. Should be a good final with 1 vs 2.
I will give Beaudy the benefit of the doubt in that he "wasn't aware of the position" of the ball being between his legs. But he still he pulled it back when rolling away and there was a turnover. Yes, it was accidental, but still in my opinion a professional foul in the red zone. Should it have only been a penalty? The Supersport board of ex-international players and coaches say no, it is a yellow card.
Christ. You might as well cite Fox Sports Rugby panel for decisions that go the way of the Wallabies...
-
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
Its the yellow card tahst the issue
Its a shame that a dreadful reffing decision had such a big impact on the game. bUT THE Canes looked stuffed after about 35 minutes. something has to be done about the travel in the finals to make them fairer. Ive mentioned before that the semis should have been Chiefs lions and Crusaders / Canes. But this obvious less travel option is beyond the wit of the super rugby brain-dead administators
But well done to the Lions. Deserved winner. Should be a good final with 1 vs 2.
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
Its the yellow card tahst the issue
Its a shame that a dreadful reffing decision had such a big impact on the game. bUT THE Canes looked stuffed after about 35 minutes. something has to be done about the travel in the finals to make them fairer. Ive mentioned before that the semis should have been Chiefs lions and Crusaders / Canes. But this obvious less travel option is beyond the wit of the super rugby brain-dead administators
But well done to the Lions. Deserved winner. Should be a good final with 1 vs 2.
Yep - as I've admitted above - yes, the YC is the issue, and I agree... shit, I agree with Winger... the YC was 'wrong'.
-
This competition can really get fucked. 1st it's the stupid conference system then they have home town refs with hometown TV producers wanting to also win it for the home team. How the fuck can there only by one camera angle for the disputed try, yet immediately after the try is given they show a reply from a side angle, which the referee wanted.
-
This competition can really get fucked. 1st it's the stupid conference system then they have home town refs with hometown TV producers wanting to also win it for the home team. How the fuck can there only by one camera angle for the disputed try, yet immediately after the try is given they show a reply from a side angle, which the referee wanted.
@Rebound I know the utter incompetence of the NRL bunker system puts people off the concept, but properly implemented would solve a number of issues. The conference system is a separate matter. As shit as it is, it's the best solution to an expanded Super Rugby tournament that tries to accommodate Australia's inability to have a national rugby competition.
-
BB is just not capable of controlling a game. How stupid is it to continuously kick the ball away, especially those silly chip kicks. He kept on doing it even when the Canes were trailing by 10. Dumb.
The Lions though are a class team and impressed immensely. They will be hard to beat next week.
-
BB is just not capable of controlling a game. How stupid is it to continuously kick the ball away, especially those silly chip kicks. He kept on doing it even when the Canes were trailing by 10. Dumb.
The Lions though are a class team and impressed immensely. They will be hard to beat next week.
@akan004 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
BB is just not capable of controlling a game. How stupid is it to continuously kick the ball away, especially those silly chip kicks. He kept on doing it even when the Canes were trailing by 10. Dumb.
The Lions though are a class team though and impressed immensely. They will be hard to beat next week.
I thought he did the right thing. Clear the line. iM SURE the Crusaders will do likewise next week
-
Lions were paying $2.20 head to head, canes were $2.35 at 12 and under!
So crusaders 13+ And Lions win multi was decent.
-
I think the Canes played very well in the first half and dominated the contact areas. Shields, Savea and Lousi were excellent in that respect. Everytime they went wide, a try was menacing. But they missed several opportunities to finish the Lions off. Then the jet lag plus the altitude were too much for them. A number a players became mere spectators (May, JTA, Abbott, Fifita, Aso being the most blatant examples). The yellow card to BB then sealed the issue of the game. I don't think Peyper had a bad day at the office. But the YC was really harsh IMO.
-
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
Its the yellow card tahst the issue
Its a shame that a dreadful reffing decision had such a big impact on the game. bUT THE Canes looked stuffed after about 35 minutes. something has to be done about the travel in the finals to make them fairer. Ive mentioned before that the semis should have been Chiefs lions and Crusaders / Canes. But this obvious less travel option is beyond the wit of the super rugby brain-dead administators
But well done to the Lions. Deserved winner. Should be a good final with 1 vs 2.
I will give Beaudy the benefit of the doubt in that he "wasn't aware of the position" of the ball being between his legs. But he still he pulled it back when rolling away and there was a turnover. Yes, it was accidental, but still in my opinion a professional foul in the red zone. Should it have only been a penalty? The Supersport board of ex-international players and coaches say no, it is a yellow card.
@JustAnotherFan said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
Its the yellow card tahst the issue
Its a shame that a dreadful reffing decision had such a big impact on the game. bUT THE Canes looked stuffed after about 35 minutes. something has to be done about the travel in the finals to make them fairer. Ive mentioned before that the semis should have been Chiefs lions and Crusaders / Canes. But this obvious less travel option is beyond the wit of the super rugby brain-dead administators
But well done to the Lions. Deserved winner. Should be a good final with 1 vs 2.
I will give Beaudy the benefit of the doubt in that he "wasn't aware of the position" of the ball being between his legs. But he still he pulled it back when rolling away and there was a turnover. Yes, it was accidental, but still in my opinion a professional foul in the red zone. Should it have only been a penalty? The Supersport board of ex-international players and coaches say no, it is a yellow card.
I was with you on first watch. My son disagreed. On the second watch I have to say it looked to me that BB tried to sneakily (and deliberately) take the ball back with his legs whilst trying to make it 'look' accidental. Which is a yellow.
-
@akan004 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
BB is just not capable of controlling a game. How stupid is it to continuously kick the ball away, especially those silly chip kicks. He kept on doing it even when the Canes were trailing by 10. Dumb.
The Lions though are a class team though and impressed immensely. They will be hard to beat next week.
I thought he did the right thing. Clear the line. iM SURE the Crusaders will do likewise next week
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@akan004 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
BB is just not capable of controlling a game. How stupid is it to continuously kick the ball away, especially those silly chip kicks. He kept on doing it even when the Canes were trailing by 10. Dumb.
The Lions though are a class team though and impressed immensely. They will be hard to beat next week.
I thought he did the right thing. Clear the line. iM SURE the Crusaders will do likewise next week
You can bet that Dagg will kick the ball into next week (or should that be the week after?)!
-
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
This.
He tried hard to make it look accidental but nah
-
@JustAnotherFan said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
Its the yellow card tahst the issue
Its a shame that a dreadful reffing decision had such a big impact on the game. bUT THE Canes looked stuffed after about 35 minutes. something has to be done about the travel in the finals to make them fairer. Ive mentioned before that the semis should have been Chiefs lions and Crusaders / Canes. But this obvious less travel option is beyond the wit of the super rugby brain-dead administators
But well done to the Lions. Deserved winner. Should be a good final with 1 vs 2.
I will give Beaudy the benefit of the doubt in that he "wasn't aware of the position" of the ball being between his legs. But he still he pulled it back when rolling away and there was a turnover. Yes, it was accidental, but still in my opinion a professional foul in the red zone. Should it have only been a penalty? The Supersport board of ex-international players and coaches say no, it is a yellow card.
I was with you on first watch. My son disagreed. On the second watch I have to say it looked to me that BB tried to sneakily (and deliberately) take the ball back with his legs whilst trying to make it 'look' accidental. Which is a yellow.
@pakman said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@JustAnotherFan said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Kruse said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@hydro11 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@Winger said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
@ACT-Crusader said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Nah that's a YC all day. Hot on attack, and they had quick ball and Barrett impeded that. Doesn't matter that it was an accident.
Its not. Its just shocking reffing
Umm no, it's the right decision.
Why? It's inadvertent! You can't have a deterrent for inadvertent play. It's a joke.
You have to penalise regardless of intent - otherwise it becomes a game of who can "act the innocent" the best. Hence the wording around the new head-contact rules... it's not about intent, but "reckless", "avoidable", etc.
Its the yellow card tahst the issue
Its a shame that a dreadful reffing decision had such a big impact on the game. bUT THE Canes looked stuffed after about 35 minutes. something has to be done about the travel in the finals to make them fairer. Ive mentioned before that the semis should have been Chiefs lions and Crusaders / Canes. But this obvious less travel option is beyond the wit of the super rugby brain-dead administators
But well done to the Lions. Deserved winner. Should be a good final with 1 vs 2.
I will give Beaudy the benefit of the doubt in that he "wasn't aware of the position" of the ball being between his legs. But he still he pulled it back when rolling away and there was a turnover. Yes, it was accidental, but still in my opinion a professional foul in the red zone. Should it have only been a penalty? The Supersport board of ex-international players and coaches say no, it is a yellow card.
I was with you on first watch. My son disagreed. On the second watch I have to say it looked to me that BB tried to sneakily (and deliberately) take the ball back with his legs whilst trying to make it 'look' accidental. Which is a yellow.
Agreed
-
just watched the highlights, the BB YC is one that could easily just have been penalised rather than YC, but YC was probably the correct call.
Think when the game was very close and just before the Lions scored Peyper has called advantage for a high tackle (which I wouldnt see where it happened) as JB is all over the ball, but no pen awarded then a great line by a Lions player scored to put them ahead.
Did they show more angles of that try in the left corner that Rasta was adamant was a try, highlights showed one angle only and wasnt clear he got over, but Rasta was very adamant despite Peyper giving him an out.
-
I don't get what Shag and co see in Vaea Fifita tbh. He is an ok SR player but lacks the physicality to be a test player imo. The easy metres the Lions runners made by running at him was noticeable. Definitely a massive step down from Kaino, Squire, Luatua etc.
-
I don't get what Shag and co see in Vaea Fifita tbh. He is an ok SR player but lacks the physicality to be a test player imo. The easy metres the Lions runners made by running at him was noticeable. Definitely a massive step down from Kaino, Squire, Luatua etc.
@akan004 said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
I don't get what Shag and co see in Vaea Fifita tbh. He is an ok SR player but lacks the physicality to be a test player imo. The easy metres the Lions runners made by running at him was noticeable. Definitely a massive step down from Kaino, Squire, Luatua etc.
Chris Boyd was on radio sport prior to the final lions test and essentially said the same thing.
Heaps of potential but needs to develop the physicality of kaino etc to be a test match 6.
-
just watched the highlights, the BB YC is one that could easily just have been penalised rather than YC, but YC was probably the correct call.
Think when the game was very close and just before the Lions scored Peyper has called advantage for a high tackle (which I wouldnt see where it happened) as JB is all over the ball, but no pen awarded then a great line by a Lions player scored to put them ahead.
Did they show more angles of that try in the left corner that Rasta was adamant was a try, highlights showed one angle only and wasnt clear he got over, but Rasta was very adamant despite Peyper giving him an out.
@taniwharugby said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
just watched the highlights, the BB YC is one that could easily just have been penalised rather than YC, but YC was probably the correct call.
Think when the game was very close and just before the Lions scored Peyper has called advantage for a high tackle (which I wouldnt see where it happened) as JB is all over the ball, but no pen awarded then a great line by a Lions player scored to put them ahead.
Did they show more angles of that try in the left corner that Rasta was adamant was a try, highlights showed one angle only and wasnt clear he got over, but Rasta was very adamant despite Peyper giving him an out.
A minute or later after the try was scored Marius came on the radio, which was broadcast and said "Good call Rasta". So if it were to be referred to the TMO it would have been given.
