• Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Rugby Matches
crusadershurricanes
278 Posts 46 Posters 15.2k Views
Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • D Offline
    D Offline
    dingo
    replied to Damo on last edited by dingo
    #113

    @damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    @dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.

    Though Codie came up first, the reason he popped up was because the canes players were back pedalling and bailed out, forcing the scrum up rather than backwards.

    Looked a reasonable call to me.

    So what were they penalised for exactly? From the rules book.

    They didn't collapse. They weren't popped. To me it didn't look like their Loose forwards released early...So what?

    I'm not arguing it wasn't the right decision but why? What was the exact infringement ruled?

    DamoD 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • ACT CrusaderA Offline
    ACT CrusaderA Offline
    ACT Crusader
    wrote on last edited by
    #114

    Up and down first half from the Good Guys. Some lovely hands and nice ball retention, but letting ourselves down with lack of polish.

    Lovely break from Richie. FABGB playing excellent on both sides. Hall’s speed to the ruck and his pass has been very good.

    Canes look a little lost in attack. Forwards and backs not linking. I get the kicking because you want to be down the right end against the Sader defence and not in the middle of the park where we cause a lot of turnovers.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • canefanC Offline
    canefanC Offline
    canefan
    wrote on last edited by
    #115

    Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team

    KiwiMurphK D H 3 Replies Last reply
    1
  • KiwiMurphK Offline
    KiwiMurphK Offline
    KiwiMurph
    replied to canefan on last edited by
    #116

    @canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team

    No one is up to the level of this Crusaders team. This comp is one team and a country mile to the rest.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • D Offline
    D Offline
    dingo
    replied to canefan on last edited by
    #117

    @canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team

    Particularly when you decide to hand them points like that.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • ACT CrusaderA Offline
    ACT CrusaderA Offline
    ACT Crusader
    wrote on last edited by
    #118

    Skudder didn’t read the wind when he ran on at half time?

    Nice run from Goodhue

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • G Offline
    G Offline
    Gunner
    wrote on last edited by
    #119

    Game over ladies and gentlemen

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • DiceD Offline
    DiceD Offline
    Dice
    wrote on last edited by
    #120

    NMS without a lethal step is just Michael Collins.

    canefanC 1 Reply Last reply
    9
  • canefanC Offline
    canefanC Offline
    canefan
    replied to Dice on last edited by
    #121

    @dice said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    NMS without a lethal step is just Michael Collins.

    He'll always have his 2015 medal but all the injuries and the standard of the game has moved on

    1 Reply Last reply
    4
  • Chester DrawsC Offline
    Chester DrawsC Offline
    Chester Draws
    replied to dingo on last edited by
    #122

    @dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    Holy shit.

    I just saw the Crusaders forward pack and compared it to the Canes.

    Only a complete meltdown from the Crusaders and FABCRR (Future AB Coach Razor Robertson) could lose them this game.

    Canes complete underdogs.

    Todd Blackadder had forward packs like that, including McCaw.

    Robertson has taken them from contenders to unbackable favourites in two years.

    1 Reply Last reply
    7
  • H Offline
    H Offline
    hydro11
    replied to canefan on last edited by
    #123

    @canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team

    We are probably the second best team in the competition this season. Hard to argue who else is better than us.

    canefanC 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • No QuarterN Offline
    No QuarterN Offline
    No Quarter
    wrote on last edited by No Quarter
    #124

    Feel like this is going to get very ugly.

    canefanC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • canefanC Offline
    canefanC Offline
    canefan
    replied to hydro11 on last edited by
    #125

    @hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    @canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team

    We are probably the second best team in the competition this season. Hard to argue who else is better than us.

    I didn't think we would get past the Chiefs last week. Just a step too far

    H 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • DamoD Offline
    DamoD Offline
    Damo
    replied to dingo on last edited by
    #126

    @dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    @damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    @dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.

    Though Codie came up first, the reason he popped up was because the canes players were back pedalling and bailed out, forcing the scrum up rather than backwards.

    Looked a reasonable call to me.

    So what were they penalised for exactly? From the rules book.

    They didn't collapse. They weren't popped. To me it didn't look like their Loose forwards released early...So what?

    I'm not arguing it wasn't the right decision but why? What was the exact infringement ruled?

    Not maintaining a bind is the technical offence.

    Colloquially it is standing up under pressure, causing the scrum to disintegrate.

    D 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • canefanC Offline
    canefanC Offline
    canefan
    replied to No Quarter on last edited by
    #127

    @no-quarter said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    Feel like this is going to get very ugly.

    Being on the ginger and Ihaia West, it'll get ugly

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • H Offline
    H Offline
    hydro11
    replied to canefan on last edited by
    #128

    @canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    @hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    @canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team

    We are probably the second best team in the competition this season. Hard to argue who else is better than us.

    I didn't think we would get past the Chiefs last week. Just a step too far

    I thought we would be too much for them at home. We did beat them in the two that mattered, although we were helped by being at home.

    canefanC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • D Offline
    D Offline
    dingo
    replied to Damo on last edited by
    #129

    @damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    @dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    @damo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    @dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    TBF Grant Nesbit made a fair statement there. What was the penalty for when Codie Taylor popped his bind first? J Marshall appear to answer that its the zen of the thing.

    Though Codie came up first, the reason he popped up was because the canes players were back pedalling and bailed out, forcing the scrum up rather than backwards.

    Looked a reasonable call to me.

    So what were they penalised for exactly? From the rules book.

    They didn't collapse. They weren't popped. To me it didn't look like their Loose forwards released early...So what?

    I'm not arguing it wasn't the right decision but why? What was the exact infringement ruled?

    Not maintaining a bind is the technical offence.

    Colloquially it is standing up under pressure, causing the scrum to disintegrate.

    Yeah, so the Crusader who stood up should be penalised. Not the canes.

    Going backwards while maintaining a bind is not penalisable.

    ACT CrusaderA RapidoR 2 Replies Last reply
    0
  • ACT CrusaderA Offline
    ACT CrusaderA Offline
    ACT Crusader
    wrote on last edited by
    #130

    Taufua hasn’t been the same since the International break.

    StargazerS 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • ACT CrusaderA Offline
    ACT CrusaderA Offline
    ACT Crusader
    replied to dingo on last edited by
    #131

    @dingo I look forward to the still shots and arrows pointing to who stands up first.

    D 1 Reply Last reply
    3
  • canefanC Offline
    canefanC Offline
    canefan
    replied to hydro11 on last edited by
    #132

    @hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    @canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    @hydro11 said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    @canefan said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

    Canes are exactly who I thought they were. Just not up to the level of the title winning team

    We are probably the second best team in the competition this season. Hard to argue who else is better than us.

    I didn't think we would get past the Chiefs last week. Just a step too far

    I thought we would be too much for them at home. We did beat them in the two that mattered, although we were helped by being at home.

    We were so poor over the last month of the regular season, the bar was pretty low

    1 Reply Last reply
    0

Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF
Rugby Matches
crusadershurricanes
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.