Waratahs Crusaders Friday 31st May 5:40pm AEST

[Ruggo]

There was nothing wrong with going for the penalty, Jackson decided to waste 3-4 minutes on the scrum instead of giving it straight away which fucked us over however.

I think the Tahs had the advantage but a good captain must see when a ref is far to inconsistent to get the right reward from it. Jackson was all over the place and Dennis needed to try plan B because of this. They wasted a lot of time playing scrum lotto with Jackson. It was Phil Waugh 2011 all over again.

I think Justin Marshall was on the money in commentary when he was saying the Crusaders would have to become passive in their line defense and the breakdown in fear of conceding a penalty. They were there for the taking yet the Tahs didn't try and break them down.

Tahs for the most part were fantastic but I think this is just one of those hard lessons you learn.

 

[Ruggo]

As it should.
He was relatively on the spot and saw an angle no camera had.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well then he needs to grow a pair and back himself. If he has enough doubt to call on the video ref the the video ref needs total control over the decision and not just be restricted to the confines of the question posed by the bloke who has enough doubt to seek help. "Try or no try" needs to be the default call and SANZAR must make it very clear on its policy of benifit of the doubt.

Two games last night with two very different refs and Piper in the Brumbies game blew Jackson away performance wise.

I have come to like Cheika but no point whinging about the ref and the outcome. He could just as easily blame Barnes for missing. I suggest he listen to Conrad Smith's post game match interview after the Brumbies game. It was class.

 

[Ruggo]

I know I'm going to come across as a Neanderthal, IS, but I could watch scrums indefinitely.
.

No Bruce. To myself, it is like looking at art.

 

[Hawko]

On a lighter note Falou played another good game from the parts I remember. I don't think he should be the Wallabies 15 due to lack of experience, but he's making the best possible case for that job.

Particularly his field kicking. Everyone says he's hopeless at this, but based on what I've seen this season, if he was playing under a coach who wants field position, his kicking would be rated at better than good.

 

[FrankLind]

I have come to like Cheika but no point whinging about the ref and the outcome. He could just as easily blame Barnes for missing. I suggest he listen to Conrad Smith's post game match interview after the Brumbies game. It was class.

Just since you mentioned Conrad Smith, I think he one of the most consistent players I have ever seen. As in, he plays well at international and Super level without any apparent slackening off in attitude or intensity. Really respect the guy for that. I have seen him fall off a tackle maybe once every 5 games, and take the wrong option with the ball maybe once in a blue moon.

He gives skinny, white, not particularly quick white guys hope the world over.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

And yet you only copped 3 minute of it, we had to put up with 15 plus of him bottling it.

To blame the ref in this match is an appalling denial of reality. From memory, the Tahs were 14 points up and in solid command when they replaced their 9 AND 10... several minutes later they were behind. This is what lost the match. I am not against trying to egg a penalty from the scrum - but in the end its negative Rugby... I never thought Barne's kick was going to miss, until it did. If it had gone over, everyone was a genius, if it missed, well - there were other options...

If the backline combination had been left in place until they were at least 5 more points clear, it is unlikely the Crusaders would have had time to come back. It was a bad decision to replace the 9 & 10 - and that is what cost us. Blaming the Ref is just so... ENGLISH.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

Just since you mentioned Conrad Smith, I think he one of the most consistent players I have ever seen. As in, he plays well at international and Super level without any apparent slackening off in attitude or intensity. Really respect the guy for that. I have seen him fall off a tackle maybe once every 5 games, and take the wrong option with the ball maybe once in a blue moon.

He gives skinny, white, not particularly quick white guys hope the world over.

The first time I ever saw Conrad Smith play, he was passed the ball ON the tryline with no-one to beat, and after someone else had done all the work... He continued across to near the goalposts, and carried on like a regular little show pony - I took an instant dislike to him...

Since then, I have never seen another single sign of that type of behaviour, and instead have seen consistency, class and unrelenting ability in all kinds of weather - always carried out in a pretty-much understated, and capable kind of way. I agree with the comments here about his post-match interview last night... He reminds me of AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) in that he almost always seems to take the right option. I totally rate the bloke, and is one of the few AIGs I can say I was pleased for at the last World Cup.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Well then he needs to grow a pair and back himself. If he has enough doubt to call on the video ref the the video ref needs total control over the decision and not just be restricted to the confines of the question posed by the bloke who has enough doubt to seek help. "Try or no try" needs to be the default call and SANZAR must make it very clear on its policy of benifit of the doubt.

Two games last night with two very different refs and Piper in the Brumbies game blew Jackson away performance wise.

I have come to like Cheika but no point whinging about the ref and the outcome. He could just as easily blame Barnes for missing. I suggest he listen to Conrad Smith's post game match interview after the Brumbies game. It was class.

I agree with you: there was not the slightest hint of anything occurring to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the try.
If he saw the ball grounded or could infer from surrounding circumstances that it had been grounded then he had nothing at all to cast doubt on it.
I reckon he did not see the ball grounded and, in fact, had no idea whether it had been and nothing from which he could properly infer it had been, and he wanted to be sure that he wouldn't be caned in the media if there was an angle that showed it was never grounded.
AKA covering his arse.

 

[BPC]

Just since you mentioned Conrad Smith, I think he one of the most consistent players I have ever seen. As in, he plays well at international and Super level without any apparent slackening off in attitude or intensity. Really respect the guy for that. I have seen him fall off a tackle maybe once every 5 games, and take the wrong option with the ball maybe once in a blue moon.

He gives skinny, white, not particularly quick white guys hope the world over.

The Larry Bird of rugby.

 

[Hell West & Crooked]

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.

That's because it WAS the turning point.

I am a Barnes supporter - and disenchanted with Horne, but the 9 & 10 change at that point of the game was just trying to be 'one hurdle to clever'... and we fell at the last hurdle...

I believe the phrase is 'Hoist by one's own Petard' comes to mind.

 

[Tordah]

There's a sleeping issue in this: the refs often call the ball out.
I reckon they should desist: its like the defending team having a 16th man telling them when its OK to advance.
Fine to call it out if he's ruling on a challenge thats already occurred, but not to tell the defenders they can now attack the ball.

I disagree, I like it when refs call "ball out", because otherwise there's plenty of situations where the defending team deems the ball to be out, or looks at the ref and isn't sure because they might get pinged. And that's just shit. They need to know when they are allowed to react, because the ref might see differently from anyone else on the field.

A pet peeve of mine is when the ball is out the back of the ruck and then another player comes in and puts a leg behind it as if to put it back inside the ruck. Then defenders come to steal the ball and ref pings them and says ball was in the ruck. Once the ball is out, it's out.
I'dlike for every ref to communicate as well as Joubert does.

 

[qwerty51]

Dave Dennis went off, did anyone catch who went captain?

 

[I like to watch]

To blame the ref in this match is an appalling denial of reality. From memory, the Tahs were 14 points up and in solid command when they replaced their 9 AND 10. several minutes later they were behind. This is what lost the match. I am not against trying to egg a penalty from the scrum - but in the end its negative Rugby. I never thought Barne's kick was going to miss, until it did. If it had gone over, everyone was a genius, if it missed, well - there were other options.

If the backline combination had been left in place until they were at least 5 more points clear, it is unlikely the Crusaders would have had time to come back. It was a bad decision to replace the 9 & 10 - and that is what cost us. Blaming the Ref is just so. ENGLISH.

I agree with all of the above ,except they replaced the 9 & the 12.
Berrick did seem to be 1st receiver a lot though didn't he?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I disagree, I like it when refs call "ball out", because otherwise there's plenty of situations where the defending team deems the ball to be out, or looks at the ref and isn't sure because they might get pinged. And that's just shit. They need to know when they are allowed to react, because the ref might see differently from anyone else on the field.

A pet peeve of mine is when the ball is out the back of the ruck and then another player comes in and puts a leg behind it as if to put it back inside the ruck. Then defenders come to steal the ball and ref pings them and says ball was in the ruck. Once the ball is out, it's out.
I'dlike for every ref to communicate as well as Joubert does.

on that basis he should be yelling advice in all aspects of play

 

[JSRF10]

Dave Dennis went off, did anyone catch who went captain?

Pretty sure it was Hooper

 

[maxdacat]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...ulings-20130531-2nhvr.html?rand=1370008361671

Get 'em Cheiks

from the article:

"I am very disappointed, the game was taken away from us,'' Cheika, who was still annoyed Bray had not replied to some other queries earlier in the week, said
.​

err maybe if they deserved to win they would have slotted that last 3 pointer.....and you know...err won.​

 

[Bullrush]

I agree with all of the above ,except they replaced the 9 & the 12.
Berrick did seem to be 1st receiver a lot though didn't he?

They may have replaced the 12 but I'm pretty sure Barnes went into the fly-half position....

 

[Rassie]

What happened to respect for referees in games. I remember walking up to a referee and trying to debate the issue normally is accompanied by 10 yards back and the more you talk the more yards he he adds to the the penalty. Don't see them do that anymore.

 

[Capt_Funk]

But the Tahs lost the game pure and simple.

agree 100%.

yes there were some questionable reffing decisions, but the tahs lost that game. there was a moment about ten to fifteen minutes into the second half when the tahs were up 10-22, and the crusaders bombed a set-piece move with a forward pass. the crowd groaned - nothing was working for the crusaders. i remember clearly at that moment thinking "we've got this". and then it all went downhill. it was as if the team also sensed that moment, but instead of going in for the kill decided to stop for a rest and take a breather.

then after their second half try the crusaders started charging into the breakdown with an intensity previously missing and you could just see the game slipping away from the tahs. that last 20 minutes was agonising to watch - i couldn't believe they'd let that game go.

the ball retention and phase play in the first half was simply brilliant. it was proof of the type of play that every frustrated tahs fan knows the team is capable of.

but i'm trying to take in the bigger picture here. whilst i was massively frustrated at losing that game, i can see the longer-term benefits. i love this style of play. it was also there in the first half against the chiefs. i love that when the tahs win a scrum or lineout in their own 22, their first movement is to pass and run, rather than kick straight for touch. i love the confidence they have in their running game. they are developing well into a team who can move the play freely around the park, whilst also having the fitness to match the movement.

17 phases for that try in the first half, i can imagine every tahs fan was on their feet pumping their fists in the air - how good was it! and hooper's speed around dagg to feed betham to hold off four or five swarming crusader's defenders was another fist pumping moment.

the loss sucked, but the portents are good.

 

[Rassie]

agree 100%.

yes there were some questionable reffing decisions, but the tahs lost that game. there was a moment about ten to fifteen minutes into the second half when the tahs were up 10-22, and the crusaders bombed a set-piece move with a forward pass. the crowd groaned - nothing was working for the crusaders. i remember clearly at that moment thinking "we've got this". and then it all went downhill. it was as if the team also sensed that moment, but instead of going in for the kill decided to stop for a rest and take a breather.

then after their second half try the crusaders started charging into the breakdown with an intensity previously missing and you could just see the game slipping away from the tahs. that last 20 minutes was agonising to watch - i couldn't believe they'd let that game go.

the ball retention and phase play in the first half was simply brilliant. it was proof of the type of play that every frustrated tahs fan knows the team is capable of.

but i'm trying to take in the bigger picture here. whilst i was massively frustrated at losing that game, i can see the longer-term benefits. i love this style of play. it was also there in the first half against the chiefs. i love that when the tahs win a scrum or lineout in their own 22, their first movement is to pass and run, rather than kick straight for touch. i love the confidence they have in their running game. they are developing well into a team who can move the play freely around the park, whilst also having the fitness to match the movement.

17 phases for that try in the first half, i can imagine every tahs fan was on their feet pumping their fists in the air - how good was it! and hooper's speed around dagg to feed betham to hold off four or five swarming crusader's defenders was another fist pumping moment.

the loss sucked, but the portents are good.

17 phases. That is really the problem. You should really do it under 4 otherwise you are only sapping out the energy out of your pack