Blues v Crusaders
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="583557" data-time="1464435771">
<div>
<p>Hmm, not the easiest Aussie teams though, but should be possible. The Blues have been so inconsistent this year; it depends on which Blues team turns up, I guess.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Hardly inconsistent. We've lost the games we were expected to lose and won the games we've expected to win apart from the Reds game. The only really bad performance w've had was against the Lions.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="African Monkey" data-cid="583559" data-time="1464436050">
<div>
<p>Hardly inconsistent. We've lost the games we were expected to lose and won the games we've expected to win apart from the Reds game. The only really bad performance w've had was against the Lions.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>They were consistent because the results were according to expectation? Strange reasoning. You'd think it would be because they played consistently good or consistently bad. They weren't expected to beat the Highlanders, but they <em>just</em> did. After that win, the Blues were expected to beat the Canes (who had lost their two first games, including their disaster loss to the Brumbies), but they didn't. They beat the Force last week, but weren't playing well at all and it could have gone the other way if the Force had taken their chances at the end. They were pretty lucky against the Jaguares but played much better against the Chiefs & on another day might have beaten them. As a neutral, I call that inconsistent. </p> -
<p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">As published on the Planet Rugby website:</span></span><br>
</p>
<br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
<p><span style="font-size:18px;"><strong><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Crotty and Havili cited</span></strong></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:12px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">May 28 2016</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Crusaders duo Ryan Crotty and David Havili have been cited following their 26-21 Super Rugby win over the Blues at Eden Park on Saturday.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Crotty has been issued with a Citing Commissioner Warning for contravening Law 10.4 (e) Dangerous Tackling during the hard-fought victory.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">The incident occurred in the 80th minute of the game. Whilst attempting a tackle on Ihaia West, Crotty made contact with the player's head.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">A Citing Commissioner Warning may be issued by the SANZAAR Citing Commissioner for foul play incidents that are very close to, but in his opinion do not meet the Red Card threshold for citings.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">In this case the referee for the match did not act upon the incident. Upon further review of the match footage the Citing Commissioner deemed a Citing Commissioner Warning was appropriate.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Meanwhile, Havili is alleged to have contravened Law 10.4 (a) Punching or Striking during the match.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Havili is alleged to have made contact with a swinging arm to the neck of the Blues centre Piers Francis.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Upon further review of the match footage, the Citing Commissioner deemed in his opinion the incident had met the red card threshold for foul play.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">The citing is to be considered in the first instance by SANZAAR Duty Judicial Officer Michael Heron QC.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">All SANZAAR disciplinary matters are in the first instance referred to a Duty Judicial Officer hearing to provide the option of expediting the judicial process.</span></span><br>
<br><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">For a matter to be dispensed with at this hearing, the person appearing must plead guilty and accept the penalty offered by the DJO.</span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Glad Crotty's possible All Blacks selection is not at stake with a warning; it looked accidental to me because West was already going down.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:14px;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Am a bit surprised by the citing of Havili; would like to see the footage again before I form an opinion of it. I don't remember it looking that serious; not more than Francis action v Mo'unga anyway (in which Mo'unga's head hit the ground). Strangely enough (in that light), Francis has not been cited.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Because basically the procedure forces players to admit guilt (to avoid a full hearing), a suspension is almost unavoidable unless the QC doesn't agree with the citing commissioner from the start. As Havili no doubt was going to play club rugby during the June break, I wonder how long his suspension is going to be if a suspension is imposed.</p> -
<p>Great game. Crusaders able to keep their composure and a missed tackle by West became the difference. What to do with Moala? His game has improved heaps and he not longer loses the ball in the tackle but is he an AB 12 or 13. I know he has played on the wing but I would like to think we have more pace players who naturally play wing/FB for that position. Pryor did what I expect from him and had 3 dumb penalties I noted. Some players just do stupid things and can't shake it. Blues forward went well and their scrum pretty well considering the opposition.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="583561" data-time="1464437490">
<div>
<p>They were consistent because the results were according to expectation? Strange reasoning. You'd think it would be because they played consistently good or consistently bad. They weren't expected to beat the Highlanders, but they <em>just</em> did. After that win, the Blues were expected to beat the Canes (who had lost their two first games, including their disaster loss to the Brumbies), but they didn't. They beat the Force last week, but weren't playing well at all and it could have gone the other way if the Force had taken their chances at the end. They were pretty lucky against the Jaguares but played much better against the Chiefs & on another day might have beaten them. As a neutral, I call that inconsistent. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>If anything, our performances have shown that we've shown a lot of grit defensively throughout apart from the Lions game the season whilst struggling on attack for large periods of the season. I don't know how we were favourites against the Hurricanes when they have a far superior side on paper. Their loss against the Brumbies was a blip on the radar, while they could easily have won against the Highlanders the next week so they were going to get it right eventually, and those other 3 games you mention proves my point where we hung in there with some solid defence for large periods of those games whilst also struggling at times on attack so yes, I would say that there is a consistent pattern with our performances.</p> -
<p>Felt really sorry for the Blues last night. Can't blame anyone directly but themselves for not finding the way to victory (and not taking anything away from the Crusaders) but that game really swung on a couple of marginal calls/non-calls.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That penalty for not releasing when the player was tackled on the ground then never released was rough, then the non-call on the hit on Francis, then the non-call on the obstruction, the non-call on the offside followed by frustration getting the better of Francis looking to dish out justice himself was all just a sequence that overwhelmed the Blues.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pukunui" data-cid="583558" data-time="1464435841"><p>
I hate that 'diving on the emerging ball' law that the Crusaders got pinged for in front of the posts late in the game.<br>
Such a stupid law. It's either in the ruck or out and free game. In this case i thought it was clearly out and the players were competing for the loose ball. I don't really see the point of it.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Agree. I don't follow rule changes these days so that was the first I learned it. I just thought WTF? Add another page to the law book to differentiate between diving on a ball and diving on an emerging ball. What is the point. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="broughie" data-cid="583572" data-time="1464451196">
<div>
<p>What to do with Moala? His game has improved heaps and he not longer loses the ball in the tackle but is he an AB 12 or 13. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/75836897/Tana-Umaga-confident-Rene-Ranger-and-George-Moala-midfield-will-fire-for-Blues'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/75836897/Tana-Umaga-confident-Rene-Ranger-and-George-Moala-midfield-will-fire-for-Blues</a></p>
<p>Tana Umaga:</p>
<p>"If you look at the midfielders that have moved on in that 12 space, George fits into that mould as well."</p> -
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mooshld" data-cid="584328" data-time="1464679906">
<div>
<p>Not sure how Crottys high shot could be considered close to a red. It was a penalty in regular play and nothing more. Just because the Ref missed it doesn't mean it was 10 times worse. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I doubt the ref missed it. It was replayed about 100 times on the screen provoking a loud response from the crowd. He just didn't consider it serious enough for a card. IMO the right decision.</p>