Reds vs Crusaders Super Rugby Rd11 2012
- Thread starter No4918
- Start date
- Status
Poor start by Bryce, a couple of early penalties where the ball was out within a couple of seconds but called for being "slowed" or some such which was refereeing pedantry at its best. From then he became the focus for everyone. As such, any later calls which went against the Reds were howled at, even though some were fine. I thought the call on Gill was 50-50, and those calls happen often in that situation.
The scrum was interesting. Crusaders were better, no doubt. But, he allowed Crusaders props to have their hands down often, and he decided early that Holmes was the culprit and he rode him all day. The Franks bros are consummate scrummagers, and pretty sneaky too. A few of the calls on Holmes for "angling" saw the THP angling in a fair bit too, but that was fine.
Reds played a lot of good footy, but they fluffed a couple of good chances.
Bryce is just way below standard, and the sooner he goes the better. I am sick of him being the focus of most games he refs.
The scrum was interesting. Crusaders were better, no doubt. But, he allowed Crusaders props to have their hands down often, and he decided early that Holmes was the culprit and he rode him all day. The Franks bros are consummate scrummagers, and pretty sneaky too. A few of the calls on Holmes for "angling" saw the THP angling in a fair bit too, but that was fine.
Reds played a lot of good footy, but they fluffed a couple of good chances.
Bryce is just way below standard, and the sooner he goes the better. I am sick of him being the focus of most games he refs.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
As I said before... Lawrence was pretty bad towards both sides...
He didn't influence the outcome...
Both sides had good attacking moments that fell apart from poor handling or poor decision making...
The 'Saders seemed to lift towards the end of the second half and despite the scoreline looked set for victory...
He didn't influence the outcome...
Both sides had good attacking moments that fell apart from poor handling or poor decision making...
The 'Saders seemed to lift towards the end of the second half and despite the scoreline looked set for victory...
twenty seven
Tom Lawton (22)
17 - 7 penalty count with only one try in the game and you think that that doesn't influence the outcome of the game, or that is evenly spread. What does Slim like to say "that's reaching...."
liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
but is this fair to Gill? We all know how being the incumbant can help future selection, if you are consistantly picked for a team you seem to get picked more often, and it is sometimes hard to get dropped- Look at Rocky Elsom
Why not ask Gill where he wants to play, he might want to prove himself for a season so that when the Lions tour he is well established and picked in every game. If and it is a big if he is selected ahead of Hooper he would want to stay there, if Hooper has a blinder whenever he is on the field then Gill might miss out for years, he could become a David Croft type player, deserving of more rep honors but behind other standout players.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
That says the Reds infringed more (which they clearly did)...
Not that it was "unfair"...
the sabanator
Ron Walden (29)
Why would anyone want Hooper backing up Pocock when you could have Gill? It's going to be a Smith, Croft-Waugh situation all over again. One player established as the best, then two very good others having to miss out. But Gill is this good, so young, it can't be long until he's looking at a starting berth for the Wallabies.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Why would anyone want Gill backing up Pocock when you could have Hooper?
the sabanator
Ron Walden (29)
Because you could have Gill and not Hooper, pretty obvious.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Slim and Blue, I am always troubled by the seemingly logical argument that 'many bad ref errors but equally distributed to both teams' 'had no impact on the game'.
In fact, the impact can potentially be huge as what may have unfolded in play - had the penalty been correctly not awarded - may well have been dramatically different than what unfolded directly via the erroneous penalty. In fact, we can be almost certain that play would have unfolded differently, as the impact upon what happens after a penalty is significant in most cases. Though no one knows if the no-penalty play scenario would have favored Team A or B.
When there's lots of erroneous penalties and the game is otherwise close, the whole truth of the game and the known balance of the two teams' capabilities are both thrown into doubt.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
It would be silly to have 3 opensides in the squad with Pocock to start in all available games though...
He'll probably get an opportunity on the EOYT... but there's no need for him in the squad with Pocock and Hooper...
It benefits no one to have him not playing the JWC, and not playing test rugby at the same time...
He'll probably get an opportunity on the EOYT... but there's no need for him in the squad with Pocock and Hooper...
It benefits no one to have him not playing the JWC, and not playing test rugby at the same time...
the sabanator
Ron Walden (29)
Torn Hammy
Johnnie Wallace (23)
In the 2nd half the Crusaders popped the Reds hooker and got the penalty. They kicked 10 metres from Reds line and from the line-out the Crusaders got a loose head scrum. In a mighty effort the Reds popped their hooker 3, yes 3 times and he merely resets the scrum each time. Bryce equals serendipity.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Hey Slim, Hooper plays for the Tahs next year. Same tune as next year
As long as the Tahs don't break him...
- Status