Crusaders v Reds, Round 11, 6 May 2016, AMI Stadium, Christchurch

[Sully]

CFS's was definitely not a try. No question. Even when compared to Macilai's
And by the letter of the law Macilai's is a try but is it a good look when the ball leaves his han a foot from the ground and because his fingertip was touching it when it hit the ground it's a try?
In my mind that's a no. If something similar had happened in the field of play would it have been a knock on or play on? Basically the law worked fine before slow motion replays but now needs a good looking at and adjusted to modern rugby.

More importantly Macilai's forth try was definitely a try and what was the ref doing using a law that doesn't exist to deny it.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^^ CFS no-try, agree 100%. Macilai try I don't recall any separation? More importantly, TMO didn't. Macilai no-try Ref did say something about double movement (I'm guessing that's the non-Law you're referring to) but he was penalised for not releasing (according to the on-screen caption, anyways).

Did I mention that there's a guy on Twitter calling himself @Only1Sully who knows no shame? You should consider taking action, people might start confusing you with him

 

[biggsy]

With 2 of the best super rugby scrums coming head to head. And they had a great solids battle last night. Metz's came out with a stat... crusader have won 13 penalties on scrum this season then he dropped the Reds stat with well over 30 penalties won by the Reds at scrum time this season.

 

[Sully]

^^^^^^^^^ CFS no-try, agree 100%. Macilai try I don't recall any separation? More importantly, TMO didn't. Macilai no-try Ref did say something about double movement (I'm guessing that's the non-Law you're referring to) but he was penalised for not releasing (according to the on-screen caption, anyways).

Did I mention that there's a guy on Twitter calling himself @Only1Sully who knows no shame? You should consider taking action, people might start confusing you with him

Definitely separation.

Shame? M is so last year. I've moved on to N.

Sent from my GT-N7000B using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

CFS's was definitely not a try. No question. Even when compared to Macilai's
And by the letter of the law Macilai's is a try but is it a good look when the ball leaves his han a foot from the ground and because his fingertip was touching it when it hit the ground it's a try?
In my mind that's a no. If something similar had happened in the field of play would it have been a knock on or play on? Basically the law worked fine before slow motion replays but now needs a good looking at and adjusted to modern rugby.

More importantly Macilai's forth try was definitely a try and what was the ref doing using a law that doesn't exist to deny it.

I thought they got all those decisions right.

The commentators and some fans are still not happy with the TMO ruling on grounding where the ball is coming out of the player's hand but it seems clear that if contact is retained at all times it is a try. It is different from the field of play because control isn't required. You just need to be in contact with the ball the whole time.

CFS was a no try because he lost contact with the ball.

It seems to me that this ruling is the only way to enable consistency. Contact at all times is a try and that can be ruled on a consistent basis. If you start adding in that the player has to be in control of the ball then it adds a huge grey area. What exactly counts as control? When you are planting the ball with one hand you could argue that any movement of the ball in the hand is a loss on control. It would be difficult to rule on.

Macilai's fourth try was penalised for not releasing the ball. The double movement comment is a description of how he didn't release and subsequently why it wasn't a try, not the law he broke (as that isn't a law). He has to play the ball immediately or release it but he pulled himself along the ground some more distance and then placed it.

 

[gel]

This is the Macilai try:

View attachment 7774

Hand in contact with ball + ball in contact with ground = try.

That is a pants on head retarded screenshot to show if you are trying to make a point.

*edit* I think both were contentious in terms of constant contact on the way down. i was happy enough to let them award the saders one, but then to watch them review just two views on CFS's which looked to be about the same was a bit shite (plus I have seen others awarded this season which were similar if not worse).

Not really upset though - as the move was good and just didn't get the result which the reds need to sort out.

IF CFS just hugged the ball and fell over the line we wouldn't even be talking about it.

*double edit* - I am also happy with the law as it is

 

[Dan54]

(In my mind that's a no. If something similar had happened in the field of play would it have been a knock on or play on? Basically the law worked fine before slow motion replays but now needs a good looking at and adjusted to modern rugby.)
Agree Sully about it being ok before slow mos etc, but that is apparently what everyone wants.
As for if it happened in field of play, yes it is a knock on, because the ball has gone forward after leaving the player's hand when it touched ground, but over the try line the play has finished when it touches ground when his fingers or whatever are on it, because a try has been scored.

Was watching bits of game again today, and tend to think we a bit harsh on commentators, although I not ahuge fan of Cullen behind the mike, I thought at times they had to go on a little how good the Crusaders were, because if they were truthful and said how bad the Reds were, I think perhaps they would of copped same criticism. They truly were bad, some of that backline play where they trough ball around whilst losing ground is in my mind beyond belief.

 

[Scrubber2050]

To me it was a simple affair
Ref got it wrong on the try and should have yellowed Saders plenty of times for professional fouls. It is an endemic methodology of play of the All Blacks and they get away with it more than any other team.
Saders had heaps of possession early and capitalised on it out wide. Magnay shoiuld be sent back to Prems. Very poor IMO (Yep a try but so what). I don't care that a player is 19 or 39 - he just has to do the job.

Scrums were an excellent contest and Slipper Holmes and Ready worked well. Gilly was off a bit. Saders bench belted ours .

Jeez the backline is poor, just fucking poor. All of them except Pickle. MOC cannot be doing himself any favours in trying to become HC. Surely it is time to scour Prems and give a 10, any fucking 10, a crack from there. McIntyre just doesn't seem to learn. Is he being coached at all?????? Greene's limited performance suggests to me he ain't the bloke to drive the team.

My rant is over for the moment

 

[Sully]

To me there was clear separation and under the current laws that's okay. But should the law be changed?

 

[Braveheart81]

To me there was clear separation and under the current laws that's okay. But should the law be changed?

The TMO has ruled that the thumb is still touching the ball at all times.

I don't see how the law can be changed to something that doesn't have more inconsistency because it would require a more subjective term such as control.

 

[Hawko]

Jeez the backline is poor, just fucking poor. All of them except Pickle. MOC cannot be doing himself any favours in trying to become HC. Surely it is time to scour Prems and give a 10, any fucking 10, a crack from there. McIntyre just doesn't seem to learn. Is he being coached at all?????? Greene's limited performance suggests to me he ain't the bloke to drive the team.

My rant is over for the moment

Greene's limited performance? How can you possibly tell when he only gets 5 minutes every second week?

There is a reason O'Connor was a big failure in the NH. He kept faith with players who didn't deserve it and didn't put his faith in others who did. AKA playing favourites. And guess what? He's doing it again.

McIntyre has shown all season that he would be perfectly at home in the NH, where conservatism wins out over skill and endeavour every time. But this is Super Rugby and conservatively shovelling it on, running from deep and heading for the sideline as a first step just won't cut it.

McIntyre has had 11 rounds to prove himself and hasn't. Rightly speaking Greene should get the next six to see what he has. But it won't happen.

 

[Simon.]

Except McIntyre's goal-kicking is not good enough for the NH style. Even his 70% record is a bit misleading because the Reds often go for the corner rather than for goal on tricky shots (both because they know they don't have the kicking skills and because they're usually well behind on the scoreboard so 3 points doesn't cut it).

I wonder if they have considered having Pickle start kicking for touch too. His in-play touchfinders are monsters compared to McIntyres.

 

[RugbyReg]

I can't see Greene staying around and I just get the feeling he will be one of those players that goes elsewhere and just clicks. For his sake, I hope he does.

I've seen enough of him at club and NRC level to suggest he deserves a starting chance, but I don't think he will get it.

He might as well chase his opportunity elsewhere.

 

[ForceFan]

For those who may be interested, Ruck Involvements for the Reds Forwards against the Crusaders.

Remember:
1. Early means 1st or 2nd of player’s team AFTER the ball carrier has been tackled and brought to ground.
2. Impact means active engagement: strong physical contact, changed shape of ruck, clean-out, protecting ball etc. (more than hand on someone’s bum or arriving after the hard work has been done). Yes it’s subjective - but as I collect all data at least it’s consistent.
3. Impact DOES NOT equate to Effectiveness. I’ve concluded that coming up with an effectiveness measure is just too hard in the time that I have available – but open to suggestions.

Involvements over time

Reds had 70% Possession and showed strong support for their own ball carriers and were generally standing off defence rucks.
Reds Forwards earned 4 Turn Overs Won.

 

[Strewthcobber]

For those who may be interested, Ruck Involvements for the Reds Forwards against the Crusaders.

Remember:
1. Early means 1st or 2nd of player’s team AFTER the ball carrier has been tackled and brought to ground.
2. Impact means active engagement: strong physical contact, changed shape of ruck, clean-out, protecting ball etc. (more than hand on someone’s bum or arriving after the hard work has been done). Yes it’s subjective - but as I collect all data at least it’s consistent.
3. Impact DOES NOT equate to Effectiveness. I’ve concluded that coming up with an effectiveness measure is just too hard in the time that I have available – but open to suggestions.

View attachment 7797

Involvements over time

View attachment 7798

Reds had 70% Possession and showed strong support for their own ball carriers and were generally standing off defence rucks.
Reds Forwards earned 4 Turn Overs Won.

Once again Rob Simmons showig why he's the number one lock picked

 

[Simon.]

"Reds had 70% Possession and showed strong support for their own ball carriers"

TOO strong support for their ball carriers IMO. Ball is too slow to be recycled from that pile of bodies which is part of the reason they are getting smothered in attack.

It's also why they are so vulnerable to the counterattack when they cough it up.

 

[Strewthcobber]

"Reds had 70% Possession and showed strong support for their own ball carriers"

TOO strong support for their ball carriers IMO. Ball is too slow to be recycled from that pile of bodies which is part of the reason they are getting smothered in attack.

It's also why they are so vulnerable to the counterattack when they cough it up.

Would love to see some moneyball style analysis of possession stats v points scored.

My impression is if you have the ball a lot it often means you're going nowhere and not scoring any points

 

[Scoey]

How good are Browning's numbers. On attack he was early to 60% and and on D he was early to all of his rucks. Both Attack and D he had 100% impact. The boy is taking his chance with both hands by the looks. Well played that man!

 

[Ash]

The stats on the front page aren't bad, either, especially when you consider that they are per game and he came off the bench a few times, and got subbed at 60 minutes quite often when he did start.

 

[Return of the Jedi]

Take the Reds with the start,good odds on a few sites.