Highlanders v Hurricanes
-
Nice try to finish.
-
@Yeetyaah said in Highlanders v Hurricanes:
Tough week to be a Chiefs supporter but not as tough as it is to be a Landers supporter
Tough week to be a canes supporter, Roigard ruined by incompetent ref.
Obviously not as hard as anyone else
-
Fantastic game by the Canes. They are going to take some beating.
Hopefully Roigard isn’t as bad a we think but I think he’ll be gone for the season.
-
Just hope Roigard's injury is not as bad as first looks.
-
Just hope Roigard's injury is not as bad as first looks.
@Jailbreak7 said in Highlanders v Hurricanes:
Just hope Roigard's injury is not as bad as first looks.
A mate dislocated his kneecap last weekend. Tore tendons as a result, so it can be a long recovery. Hopefully not that bad for Cam.
-
I don't even want to think about that game. Holy shit it was bad, Patchell dropped a performance worse than anything Mitch Hunt ever served up - and that is saying something.
Folau Fakatava about the only positive, I thought amongst that shit show he was really good.
-
I had a feeling a toweling was coming. But, tried to talk this into being a banana skin game for the Canes. It certainly wasn't. The most disappointing aspect to the game was the shoddy attitude to defence and breakdowns in the first 30. Just really untidy. Patchell's honeymoon seems over. His flat passing at the line created some opps in the first few games. Now it seems easily read. For all of Gilbert's physical attributes, he lacks the ability to do much at speed. Struggles to change direction and gets found out in D. Fakatava was great. Harmon tried really hard. Naholo out Tavatavanawai'd Tavatavanawai. Some of our guys could develop well around talented veterans. They are judt having to carry too much.
-
The one silver lining for the Canes with Cam’s injury is that TJ gets plenty of opportunity to push his case to be the AB starter again and then we have a young gun in Jordi Vijoen waiting in the wings. Not all doom and gloom.
-
@Machpants said in Highlanders v Hurricanes:
Such a stupid rule you can jump from out of the field of play, and take ball back in
The plane of touch must be the most confusing area of law in the game. So easy to simplify IMO.
@antipodean said in Highlanders v Hurricanes:
@Machpants said in Highlanders v Hurricanes:
Such a stupid rule you can jump from out of the field of play, and take ball back in
The plane of touch must be the most confusing area of law in the game. So easy to simplify IMO.
They should just copy the cricket law.
Ball is out if it touches the ground or something touching the ground over the sideline, or it touches a player that started from outside the field of play.
Simple, easy and done.
-
@antipodean said in Highlanders v Hurricanes:
@Machpants said in Highlanders v Hurricanes:
Such a stupid rule you can jump from out of the field of play, and take ball back in
The plane of touch must be the most confusing area of law in the game. So easy to simplify IMO.
They should just copy the cricket law.
Ball is out if it touches the ground or something touching the ground over the sideline, or it touches a player that started from outside the field of play.
Simple, easy and done.
@Damo said in Highlanders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Highlanders v Hurricanes:
@Machpants said in Highlanders v Hurricanes:
Such a stupid rule you can jump from out of the field of play, and take ball back in
The plane of touch must be the most confusing area of law in the game. So easy to simplify IMO.
They should just copy the cricket law.
Ball is out if it touches the ground or something touching the ground over the sideline, or it touches a player that started from outside the field of play.
Simple, easy and done.
I think for consistency they'd have to address the ability of a player out of the field of play to score a try too.
-
@Damo said in Highlanders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Highlanders v Hurricanes:
@Machpants said in Highlanders v Hurricanes:
Such a stupid rule you can jump from out of the field of play, and take ball back in
The plane of touch must be the most confusing area of law in the game. So easy to simplify IMO.
They should just copy the cricket law.
Ball is out if it touches the ground or something touching the ground over the sideline, or it touches a player that started from outside the field of play.
Simple, easy and done.
I think for consistency they'd have to address the ability of a player out of the field of play to score a try too.
@antipodean said in Highlanders v Hurricanes:
@Damo said in Highlanders v Hurricanes:
@antipodean said in Highlanders v Hurricanes:
@Machpants said in Highlanders v Hurricanes:
Such a stupid rule you can jump from out of the field of play, and take ball back in
The plane of touch must be the most confusing area of law in the game. So easy to simplify IMO.
They should just copy the cricket law.
Ball is out if it touches the ground or something touching the ground over the sideline, or it touches a player that started from outside the field of play.
Simple, easy and done.
I think for consistency they'd have to address the ability of a player out of the field of play to score a try too.
I think the point of that particular law is that the moment the ball is touched it is simultaneously a try and in touch, so it is defendable in principle.
I refereed for 13 odd years and never struck it once. I don't think it is big on the list of priorities.
