Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final
-
@Hooroo It wouldn't have been 17 on the trot for the Lions or Crusaders, so I could only imagine that that was what they meant. The Crusaders unbeaten streak ended when they lost to the Canes and the Lions could only have reached 15 if they'd won the final.
Edited to add: the Lions could have equalled the Crusaders record if they'd won the final and then the first game of 2018.
17 is the longest unbeaten streak so I assume that is what hooroo saw
-
17 is the longest unbeaten streak so I assume that is what hooroo saw
@Duluth said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
17 is the longest unbeaten streak so I assume that is what hooroo saw
And what a season that was
If I was to compare the two I'd probably take this one given the strength of the NZ conference the Lions tour 'disruption' and some of the newbies that have shone under Razor's gameplan.
-
While Robertson is getting most of the plaudits for turning the Crusaders around, I wonder how much credit we should be giving Whitelock? Is he turning out to be a better leader than Read?
-
17 is the longest unbeaten streak so I assume that is what hooroo saw
@Duluth @ACT-Crusader Just a detail, but an important one, the longest unbeaten streak is 16. See the graphic I posted above from Opta.
-
@Duluth @ACT-Crusader Just a detail, but an important one, the longest unbeaten streak is 16. See the graphic I posted above from Opta.
-
@Duluth @ACT-Crusader Just a detail, but an important one, the longest unbeaten streak is 16. See the graphic I posted above from Opta.
@Stargazer said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
@Duluth @ACT-Crusader Just a detail, but an important one, the longest unbeaten streak is 16. See the graphic I posted above from Opta.
No you are wrong
The longest winning streak is 16
The longest unbeaten streak is 17
The winning streak ended when the Crusaders drew with the Force (A good trivia question - who ended the winning streak)
They then lost the next game to finish the unbeaten streak
-
@Stargazer Who's that guy in the photo advertising for a Mako$ contract?
-
@Stargazer said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
@Duluth @ACT-Crusader Just a detail, but an important one, the longest unbeaten streak is 16. See the graphic I posted above from Opta.
No you are wrong
The longest winning streak is 16
The longest unbeaten streak is 17
The winning streak ended when the Crusaders drew with the Force (A good trivia question - who ended the winning streak)
They then lost the next game to finish the unbeaten streak
-
@Stargazer said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
@Duluth Ah, okay, we're looking at draws now, too!
Words have meanings
Winning is not the same as unbeaten
It's not that difficult
-
@Stargazer said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
@Duluth Ah, okay, we're looking at draws now, too!
Words have meanings
Winning is not the same as unbeaten
It's not that difficult
-
So @Duluth didn't they put up a visual during the game saying the Crusaders were on an unbeaten streak of 15 of summink?
-
So @Duluth didn't they put up a visual during the game saying the Crusaders were on an unbeaten streak of 15 of summink?
@Hooroo said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
So @Duluth didn't they put up a visual during the game saying the Crusaders were on an unbeaten streak of 15 of summink?
We were on a great run up until the Canes game. That's what they must've shown.
-
@pakman said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
Using the patented play pause technique on the YouTube clip it seems Smith propped when Havili jumped. I don't think he challenged. But to be honest it all happened so quickly I'm not sure Smith had time to think. He certainly was too slow to avoid being smacked in the way through.
So, whilst the red seems correct under the guidelines, it seems doubtful to me that Smith could have done much differently. In which case an accident, not reckless and not a situation where protocol ought to be mandatory red.
Which begs the question of the jumper...What, you don't think Smith knew the ball had been kicked in the air?
Once a ball has been kicked it is very, very clear that you can't just run blindly into the landing zone. You have to assess whether you can legitimately contest the catch. If you're not in a position to do so then your absolute priority is to not make contact with a guy who is in the dominant catching position while he is in the air.
If you do, you are playing with fire.
@Chris-B. said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
@pakman said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
Using the patented play pause technique on the YouTube clip it seems Smith propped when Havili jumped. I don't think he challenged. But to be honest it all happened so quickly I'm not sure Smith had time to think. He certainly was too slow to avoid being smacked in the way through.
So, whilst the red seems correct under the guidelines, it seems doubtful to me that Smith could have done much differently. In which case an accident, not reckless and not a situation where protocol ought to be mandatory red.
Which begs the question of the jumper...What, you don't think Smith knew the ball had been kicked in the air?
Once a ball has been kicked it is very, very clear that you can't just run blindly into the landing zone. You have to assess whether you can legitimately contest the catch. If you're not in a position to do so then your absolute priority is to not make contact with a guy who is in the dominant catching position while he is in the air.
If you do, you are playing with fire.
+1 to this. I couldn't believe there was any dispute about it on the always solid and sensible Fern.
He had a brain fart where he ran at full tit towards where the ball would land and arrived right on cue - slow motion has no seat at this judicial table.
-
IMHO Robertson really only stuffed up once with his selecting: he got the B&I team selection wrong.
Fair play to him for putting it right and not losing to the Lions for a 2nd time in 2017.
-
@Chris-B. said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
@pakman said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
Using the patented play pause technique on the YouTube clip it seems Smith propped when Havili jumped. I don't think he challenged. But to be honest it all happened so quickly I'm not sure Smith had time to think. He certainly was too slow to avoid being smacked in the way through.
So, whilst the red seems correct under the guidelines, it seems doubtful to me that Smith could have done much differently. In which case an accident, not reckless and not a situation where protocol ought to be mandatory red.
Which begs the question of the jumper...What, you don't think Smith knew the ball had been kicked in the air?
Once a ball has been kicked it is very, very clear that you can't just run blindly into the landing zone. You have to assess whether you can legitimately contest the catch. If you're not in a position to do so then your absolute priority is to not make contact with a guy who is in the dominant catching position while he is in the air.
If you do, you are playing with fire.
+1 to this. I couldn't believe there was any dispute about it on the always solid and sensible Fern.
He had a brain fart where he ran at full tit towards where the ball would land and arrived right on cue - slow motion has no seat at this judicial table.
@KiwiPie said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
@Chris-B. said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
@pakman said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
Using the patented play pause technique on the YouTube clip it seems Smith propped when Havili jumped. I don't think he challenged. But to be honest it all happened so quickly I'm not sure Smith had time to think. He certainly was too slow to avoid being smacked in the way through.
So, whilst the red seems correct under the guidelines, it seems doubtful to me that Smith could have done much differently. In which case an accident, not reckless and not a situation where protocol ought to be mandatory red.
Which begs the question of the jumper...What, you don't think Smith knew the ball had been kicked in the air?
Once a ball has been kicked it is very, very clear that you can't just run blindly into the landing zone. You have to assess whether you can legitimately contest the catch. If you're not in a position to do so then your absolute priority is to not make contact with a guy who is in the dominant catching position while he is in the air.
If you do, you are playing with fire.
+1 to this. I couldn't believe there was any dispute about it on the always solid and sensible Fern.
He had a brain fart where he ran at full tit towards where the ball would land and arrived right on cue - slow motion has no seat at this judicial table.
Never venture to the Off Topic part of the forum KP?
-
People are asking what Smith should have done. See the clip below for what he should have done*:
Dagg knew early on in the chase that he wasn't a realistic chance to compete for the ball so he pulled back and timed his run so as to tackle the catcher the moment his legs hit the ground. It's what Smith should have done. He played with fire and got burnt.
IMO It was a dreadful challenge and deserved a Red Card. Not because of an "interpretation" or because of some silly rule the refs have to follow - he deserved a Red Card because he recklessly committed an act that could have snapped a guys neck if anything had gone majorly wrong.
*Clip shamelessly stolen from the Rugbyrefs forum.
-
People are asking what Smith should have done. See the clip below for what he should have done*:
Dagg knew early on in the chase that he wasn't a realistic chance to compete for the ball so he pulled back and timed his run so as to tackle the catcher the moment his legs hit the ground. It's what Smith should have done. He played with fire and got burnt.
IMO It was a dreadful challenge and deserved a Red Card. Not because of an "interpretation" or because of some silly rule the refs have to follow - he deserved a Red Card because he recklessly committed an act that could have snapped a guys neck if anything had gone majorly wrong.
*Clip shamelessly stolen from the Rugbyrefs forum.
@Damo said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
People are asking what Smith should have done. See the clip below for what he should have done*:
Dagg knew early on in the chase that he wasn't a realistic chance to compete for the ball so he pulled back and timed his run so as to tackle the catcher the moment his legs hit the ground. It's what Smith should have done. He played with fire and got burnt.
IMO It was a dreadful challenge and deserved a Red Card. Not because of an "interpretation" or because of some silly rule the refs have to follow - he deserved a Red Card because he recklessly committed an act that could have snapped a guys neck if anything had gone majorly wrong.
*Clip shamelessly stolen from the Rugbyrefs forum.
Slightly different situation (and the problem is in these slight differences)
In the Dagg clip the receiving player was well in position near the point of landing and Dagg could see this and allowed him the claim. Dagg jumping would have achieved nothing except add danger the contest so he made a good decision.
In Smith's case no one was near the point of landing so he was running to get there first. Havili was standing back then accelerated into the area and took a flying leap.My initial comments were also based on seeing the slower/closer video and it does look different in the long shot. This post on RugbyRefs is very close to my view now.
*"I can understand the red but this is one where I feel sorry for the guy on the ground (I didn't feel sorry for Finn Russell, fwiw). Maybe this is because my first view of it (a replay during the game) was a side-on clip showing that the jumper first contacted the ball around the groin - I thought he'd mis-timed his jump - before he smashed into the face of Smith. Smith's seemed to be in a good place to compete for the ball. Except there was a (reckless?) jumper.
The fuller view of it shows Smith's chase after the kick ahead, with him looking ahead a couple or more times to check it is clear, whilst he also tracks the ball. He seems surprised by the jump and tries to stop. So it didn't seem a deliberate act, which leaves "reckless" for it to be red, according to the guidelines.
Maybe it was reckless of Smith, but I thought the jumper was more reckless with his own safety in this case - he seemed intent on being high in the air rather than focusing on the catch, which he missed"*
-
The other thing of note in that Dagg clip is that the ball catcher feels obliged to jump (pathetically in this case) when he didn't need to. The current laws encourage players to go to the air and create risk either to draw a penalty/card or simply to make the tackler hestitate.
We all agree that deliberately and unnecessarily jumping for a pass isn't fair so why do we view kicks differently?I like this idea for a law change to be trialled (again stolen from RugbyRefs)
"â–º A player cannot jump to catch the ball if it was last played by a team-mate.
This would mean kick chasers would not be allowed jump for the ball. It would also mean that a player would not be allowed to jump to catch a pass from a team-mate... this would at least solve the Faumuina-Sinkler scenario." -
@Damo said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
People are asking what Smith should have done. See the clip below for what he should have done*:
Dagg knew early on in the chase that he wasn't a realistic chance to compete for the ball so he pulled back and timed his run so as to tackle the catcher the moment his legs hit the ground. It's what Smith should have done. He played with fire and got burnt.
IMO It was a dreadful challenge and deserved a Red Card. Not because of an "interpretation" or because of some silly rule the refs have to follow - he deserved a Red Card because he recklessly committed an act that could have snapped a guys neck if anything had gone majorly wrong.
*Clip shamelessly stolen from the Rugbyrefs forum.
Slightly different situation (and the problem is in these slight differences)
In the Dagg clip the receiving player was well in position near the point of landing and Dagg could see this and allowed him the claim. Dagg jumping would have achieved nothing except add danger the contest so he made a good decision.
In Smith's case no one was near the point of landing so he was running to get there first. Havili was standing back then accelerated into the area and took a flying leap.My initial comments were also based on seeing the slower/closer video and it does look different in the long shot. This post on RugbyRefs is very close to my view now.
*"I can understand the red but this is one where I feel sorry for the guy on the ground (I didn't feel sorry for Finn Russell, fwiw). Maybe this is because my first view of it (a replay during the game) was a side-on clip showing that the jumper first contacted the ball around the groin - I thought he'd mis-timed his jump - before he smashed into the face of Smith. Smith's seemed to be in a good place to compete for the ball. Except there was a (reckless?) jumper.
The fuller view of it shows Smith's chase after the kick ahead, with him looking ahead a couple or more times to check it is clear, whilst he also tracks the ball. He seems surprised by the jump and tries to stop. So it didn't seem a deliberate act, which leaves "reckless" for it to be red, according to the guidelines.
Maybe it was reckless of Smith, but I thought the jumper was more reckless with his own safety in this case - he seemed intent on being high in the air rather than focusing on the catch, which he missed"*
@Crucial said in Lions v Crusaders - Super Rugby Final:
Slightly different situation (and the problem is in these slight differences)
In the Dagg clip the receiving player was well in position near the point of landing and Dagg could see this and allowed him the claim. Dagg jumping would have achieved nothing except add danger the contest so he made a good decision.Very true. The slightest bit of difference between Dagg example and Smith incident is that the former used the bits of grey matter between his ears to make a decision and adjusted accordingly, and the latter did not.
These are sometimes/often the very slight differences between winning and losing a championship.
