Final: Chiefs v Crusaders
-
@KiwiMurph said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@barky1 said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@KiwiMurph should have been off for the rest of the game
Yeah sorry I meant 20 minute red card. Poihipi would have come on.
Not much lost there.
-
@pakman said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Saders stole it, and their name is on the trophy but obvious they know that this was one they didn’t merit.
This sort of line always cracks me up because it doesn’t match the reality of what went on out on the field tonight or what sport is all about - a contest. Tonight was a genuine contest. And even for those that thought the ref “had a shocker”, the contest was there and both teams made errors and both teams made plays to get them scoring opportunities. That doesn’t mean one team deserved it or didn’t, it just means there was a result and that’s sport. Said the same thing the night we lost to the Tahs after a call that the Saffa ref admitted after was wrong. It’s sport.
As an aside I thought BOK was giving the Chiefs a hell of a lot of leeway at the breakdown in the first 15 minutes of the 2nd half.
-
@Tim said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
We will keep deleting the insult posts, but I'd rather read about the situation in Russia.
Can you guys knock it off or take it to a PM?
Don't PM me with insults though please.
I don't care enough to trade insults with someone over a rugby game.
-
There were two "shockers" by the ref tonight. ALB should have gotten a red, which would have had a major impact on the game, and a missed forward pass several phases before a try was scored, which would have had a marginal impact on the match at the time.
All of the rest were pretty normal ruby calls, nothing to call the WAHHHHHHHHAMBULANCE about.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@pakman said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
Saders stole it, and their name is on the trophy but obvious they know that this was one they didn’t merit.
This sort of line always cracks me up because it doesn’t match the reality of what went on out on the field tonight or what sport is all about - a contest. Tonight was a genuine contest. And even for those that thought the ref “had a shocker”, the contest was there and both teams made errors and both teams made plays to get them scoring opportunities. That doesn’t mean one team deserved it or didn’t, it just means there was a result and that’s sport. Said the same thing the night we lost to the Tahs after a call that the Saffa ref admitted after was wrong. It’s sport.
As an aside I thought BOK was giving the Chiefs a hell of a lot of leeway at the breakdown in the first 15 minutes of the 2nd half.
So do you think the Saders would have come back from 27-15? They looked almost done to me.
-
@Canerbry said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
There were two "shockers" by the ref tonight. ALB should have gotten a red, which would have had a major impact on the game, and a missed forward pass several phases before a try was scored, which would have had a marginal impact on the match at the time.
All of the rest were pretty normal ruby calls, nothing to call the WAHHHHHHHHAMBULANCE about.
Unless I am mistaken the forward pass was in a different passage of play to the try. The Chiefs had the ball back in between the forward pass and the try.
-
@Damo said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
@Canerbry said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
There were two "shockers" by the ref tonight. ALB should have gotten a red, which would have had a major impact on the game, and a missed forward pass several phases before a try was scored, which would have had a marginal impact on the match at the time.
All of the rest were pretty normal ruby calls, nothing to call the WAHHHHHHHHAMBULANCE about.
Unless I am mistaken the forward pass was in a different passage of play to the try. The Chiefs had the ball back in between the forward pass and the try.
If Chiefs have scrum on halfway at 36 Saders don’t score try.
Then at 56 it’s 20-8 to Chiefs.
So not much turned on it.
-
Very excited to see if/how ABs improve next year (with the new coach) given this win was with such a depleted/novice side.
Still think Scott Barrett is a great lock so should play there. -
@Canerbry said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
There were two "shockers" by the ref tonight. ALB should have gotten a red, which would have had a major impact on the game, and a missed forward pass several phases before a try was scored, which would have had a marginal impact on the match at the time.
All of the rest were pretty normal ruby calls, nothing to call the WAHHHHHHHHAMBULANCE about.
I actually agree with this. The problem is the nonchalant use of “normal rugby calls”. When they go your way, it’s easy to sit smug. When they don’t, it’s easy to melt down.
And that’s basically what rugby is now. Hoping the ref is good to your team.
-
-
-
@MajorRage said in Final: Chiefs v Crusaders:
I actually agree with this. The problem is the nonchalant use of “normal rugby calls”. When they go your way, it’s easy to sit smug. When they don’t, it’s easy to melt down.
And that’s basically what rugby is now. Hoping the ref is good to your team.
OK, I'll put it another way, the Chiefs got SHITLOADS wrong right in front of the refs, and that's not how you win.
-
-
For all those going on about jownthe Chiefs were hard done by, the first try to the Chiefs came from a stop off Will Jordan after the tackle had been completed. Should have been a PK to Crusaders for no release.
It gets a bit silly at some point to keep worrying about these calls and what ifs. Every decision is a sliding doors moment, not just the ones that go incorrectly against your side.
-
Very flat. I was expecting us to win if it was an arm wrestle, otherwise I expected a Crusaders win to be much less close on the scoreboard.
A bloody good fight, and overseen by two decent blokes as coaches trying to get one over on the other.
As much as I wasn't wanting to see a breakdancing opportunity tonight, it's clear from it each year just how much the Crusaders players love their coach.
