Waratahs Crusaders Friday 31st May 5:40pm AEST
- Thread starter JSRF10
- Start date
- Status
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
No way.
Jackson may have been wrong but he must have seen enough to award a try and just wanted to make sure he had not missed something that would have prevented it being a try. If he felt that then it would be a travesty if the whole decision was left with the TMO because the video was not capable of supporting the awarding of a try only because there were insufficient angles, as in to be sure you'd need 100 different angles: ref cam might hav given a better insight into what Jackson saw.
Although my tipping benefitted from the last "scrum" that whole episode was a debacle. I had the sound off but on no account should a single restart take 5 minutes.
Someone stood up in those scrums and he should have penalised one or other the first time it happened. The outcome of the game may very well have been the same but the idea that a scrum could take all but 6 minutes to decide is disturbing.
If there is true merit in referee appointments I would not expect to see Jackson again: and I say that being happy with result.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
As it should.
He was relatively on the spot and saw an angle no camera had.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Bruwheresmycar
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Of course the wording determines the outcome. It's meant to be like that. The ref either asks to be over-ruled or hands full responsibility over to the TMO depending on how good his view was.
This is good because on many occasions the ref has a better view than the camera. That maul try today was a perfect example, the camera's didn't have much luck but the ref who was trailing the maul could have had a good view.
That's why the NRL have switched to the system them use. It makes more sense. And I hope we move to that system in the near future.
If you don't agree with me watch the Reds vs Cheetahs game two rounds ago, the TMO pretty much reffed that game and tell me how exciting it was.
This is good because on many occasions the ref has a better view than the camera. That maul try today was a perfect example, the camera's didn't have much luck but the ref who was trailing the maul could have had a good view.
That's why the NRL have switched to the system them use. It makes more sense. And I hope we move to that system in the near future.
If you don't agree with me watch the Reds vs Cheetahs game two rounds ago, the TMO pretty much reffed that game and tell me how exciting it was.
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
While I am not all that happy with the result, particularly given the first 38.5 minutes, congratulations need to go to both teams for their efforts.
Going in to this match even Waratah Jesus would not have been all that confident that the Tahs would come away with a victory.
They got so close, to the point where the decision on win/loss was in their hands. Full credit to the boys for being able to do that.
The Whitelocks and Their Friends and Relations bounced back well after oranges. They certainly know how to grind out a victory, and have done it in several tight games this year. They were able to force the Tahs into a change of tactics which ultimately was their downfall. This is the sign of a good and confident team with a mature system.
Tahs are fundamentally a good team, but seem lacking a little confidence and their system is still evolving. While they are 16 years into a 3 year rebuild programme, there are plenty of positive signs for 2014.
Hopefully the new scrum laws for next year will eliminate the chance that the fatties and referees can allow one single restart to consume nearly 5 minutes of game time. In a tight game that had seem plenty of ball movement and pressure, that was a rather disappointing way to finish.
Going in to this match even Waratah Jesus would not have been all that confident that the Tahs would come away with a victory.
They got so close, to the point where the decision on win/loss was in their hands. Full credit to the boys for being able to do that.
The Whitelocks and Their Friends and Relations bounced back well after oranges. They certainly know how to grind out a victory, and have done it in several tight games this year. They were able to force the Tahs into a change of tactics which ultimately was their downfall. This is the sign of a good and confident team with a mature system.
Tahs are fundamentally a good team, but seem lacking a little confidence and their system is still evolving. While they are 16 years into a 3 year rebuild programme, there are plenty of positive signs for 2014.
Hopefully the new scrum laws for next year will eliminate the chance that the fatties and referees can allow one single restart to consume nearly 5 minutes of game time. In a tight game that had seem plenty of ball movement and pressure, that was a rather disappointing way to finish.
Ghibli
Ted Thorn (20)
After the match vs the Brumbies Cheika was happy abour ref performance. After the match vs the Crusaders he was not.
Is it a coincidence, or the outcomes of matches influence a coach's views in that regard.
Richo
John Thornett (49)
This all makes sense, as does IS's similar point. Clearly I was not thinking very well after those last whiskies. I retract the point.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I believe that the Tahs downfall lay not in a change of tactics as such, Hugh Jarse, but rather in a change of personnel: ditching Horne (I'm no fan) in favour of Barnes (somewhat of a fan) and taking McKibbin (not sure if I like him or not) off changed the tone and shape of the game.
I can say that as soon as Lucas came on, though I think he is not a bad player, I said to #1 son: "putting him on will cost the Tahs". I cant point to an incident that showed he did cost them or even that some lessening in quality in his position cost them it was just a feeling then and a feeling now.
These seemed to me to be substitutions for substitution's sake: if it aint broke dont fix it. Usually, I can see the point in a replacement but these seemed to remove players that the Saders were not dominating and at times were having difficulty managing. Although I dont think it affected the game directly at all the substitution of Mitchell for Crawford seemed utterly pointless (as would a sub of Betham).
Interested to see what other's think.
I can say that as soon as Lucas came on, though I think he is not a bad player, I said to #1 son: "putting him on will cost the Tahs". I cant point to an incident that showed he did cost them or even that some lessening in quality in his position cost them it was just a feeling then and a feeling now.
These seemed to me to be substitutions for substitution's sake: if it aint broke dont fix it. Usually, I can see the point in a replacement but these seemed to remove players that the Saders were not dominating and at times were having difficulty managing. Although I dont think it affected the game directly at all the substitution of Mitchell for Crawford seemed utterly pointless (as would a sub of Betham).
Interested to see what other's think.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Funny Gwerty, I thought that the most clear cut obstruction I have seen, he actually moved body back to get in way of chasing player.
I agree 100 % if it's not broken don't fix it. Why Cheika put on a new 9 & 10 combination with 20min to go, cost the Tahs the match. If you looked at the Brumbies match coach White left on his critical players to close out the match and that was the difference. Lucas is small and missed one on one tackles which should have been made and he looked a bit out of place out there, when it counted. The tactic of trying for a scrum penalty in a very difficult kick range was a bit poor. I believe they should have worked for a penalty closer to the post or scored a try at the end, it proved that they went for the wrong option but the really shouldn't have been in the situation of being behind on the score board.
Hugh Jarse
Rocky Elsom (76)
Bit of a chicken and eggs situation. Did the tactics change as a consequence of the personnel change, or was the personnel change a consequence of a decision by Coach to change tactics?
Regardless, it seemed to me to be the turning point.
Regardless, it seemed to me to be the turning point.
Bruce Ross
Ken Catchpole (46)
Am I missing something by just focussing on watching the rugby and neglecting to score the referee's performance?
Referee = Random Decision Generator.
.
Referee = Random Decision Generator.
.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I accept that.
So if you look at, say, Barnes.
You know he's going to bring a kicking game that Horne does not have. Bring him on and low and behold the kicking begins. Why you would want to kick to Dagg, Guilford and, even, Mitchell is beyond me.
Everything has been going OK to that point - Yes 'Saders are closing the gap but that's what you would expect of them at home, so its not a failure in systems or structure, and it doesn't mean they've worked you out.
Has to be that a decision was taken pre-match that we're running these blokes on with 20 to go.
Do not understand why any winger, who is picked to start, needs to be replaced with 20 to go particularly where the Tahs put so much effort into their conditioning this year.
The coach needs to adapt and play what's in front of him too!
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Depends on what you make of the 6 minute scrum at the end: and I'd certainly like to know what you think about it.
I dont think the Tahs are in any way blameless for the consequences of that fiasco - it reminds me of those repacked 5m scrums against the Reds 2(?) season ago when Waugh was "in charge".
Bruce Ross
Ken Catchpole (46)
I know I'm going to come across as a Neanderthal, IS, but I could watch scrums indefinitely.
.
here here!
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Different issue, I think, and i doubt you'd sacrifice a victory just so you could finish the game with 6 minutes of scrums.
Seems to me, Sully, that they are entirely to blame.
If you dont actually want to play football - i.e. restart the game and put the ball back in play - then its pretty hard, if not impossible, to win a game of football.
You have to play footy to win footy.
- Status