Waratahs vs Crusaders 2014 Super Rugby Grand Final

[Dan54]

How much longer can Crockett get away with his blatant cheating in scrums?

Always someone has a moan at ref about something, Crockett was actually winning penalties at scrum time, but i sure you know better than Joubert 'It is '.
On the try decision, I thought Nadolo may have hit sideline with foot, not sure though, he didn't lose ball in any form, hand was always in contact with ball, so can't argue with try, probably glad it didn't decide match as I suspect there would of been meltdown of ref abuse. I can't help feeling good about the good the result has done Aus rugby, and so I think Tahs deserve a lot of congrats for that, and thanks from me because I was able to shut the League boys up at work today!!!

 

[fatprop]

How much longer can Crockett get away with his blatant cheating in scrums?
Otherwise, Crusaders are an absolute credit to themselves and country.
Great to hear the warm applause afforded Carter when he hobbled off too.

Not cheating mate, scrummaging, and it was all in check until TPN went off.

With Kepu & TPN, Crockett wasn't allowed to bore in. With Latu & Kepu, well we saw the result, he (Latu) needs work, but he is a baby

 

[Braveheart81]

My main problem with the Nadolo try was that Ayoub should have looked at it more.

I watched it many times yesterday and still couldn't make a definitive decision. There's too much shadow so it's impossible to see whether Nadolo's foot actually touches the ground or whether it stayed just off the ground. Certainly it was over the touch line at the crucial moment so it was just a question whether it touched down.

All in all you probably have to award the try there because you can't say for sure he went out but you can say he grounded the ball (he kept contact with the ball the whole way. It doesn't matter that he was in the process of losing it when it was grounded).

I certainly think that was the most controversial decision about the match.

The only 50/50 part of the final penalty was because McCaw normally gets away with that. It was a blatant penalty. McCaw wasn't the tackler so he has to come in through the gate. He came in directly from the side and had a go at the ball.

 

[en_force_er]

The only thing unlucky was that they got called for it then. The Crusaders were 'swimming' around the rucks all day to put pressure on the halfback.

Not that the Tahs weren't getting away with plenty of offsides too, but they both had their indiscretions blown up at crucial moments rather than on a consistent basis.

 

[Grant NZ]

My main problem with the Nadolo try was that Ayoub should have looked at it more.

I watched it many times yesterday and still couldn't make a definitive decision. There's too much shadow so it's impossible to see whether Nadolo's foot actually touches the ground or whether it stayed just off the ground. Certainly it was over the touch line at the crucial moment so it was just a question whether it touched down.

All in all you probably have to award the try there because you can't say for sure he went out but you can say he grounded the ball (he kept contact with the ball the whole way. It doesn't matter that he was in the process of losing it when it was grounded).

I certainly think that was the most controversial decision about the match.

The only 50/50 part of the final penalty was because McCaw normally gets away with that. It was a blatant penalty. McCaw wasn't the tackler so he has to come in through the gate. He came in directly from the side and had a go at the ball.

Nadolo got very lucky that Beale's leg was also on the line - meant you couldn't see his foot touching white.

There was no tackle on the McCaw one, the ball carrier tripped over, so there's no gate, no offside. It's not even 50/50, it's just a bad call, but given the Nadolo try and a couple of 50/50 calls earlier, I'd have to say it's the right result.

 

[en_force_er]

There was no tackle on the McCaw one, the ball carrier tripped over, so there's no gate, no offside. It's not even 50/50, it's just a bad call.

You're correct but I've never seen a ref treat a player that trips over and then has a ruck form over them that way. It would completely change the game.

The other anomaly is when someone tries to pilfer the ball, get's their hands on it momentarily (not enough to get the penalty), and gets cleaned out, should this not be called a knock on? They did after all lose the ball forward.

It's just how it is.

 

[Grant NZ]

You're correct but I've never seen a ref treat a player that trips over and then has a ruck form over them that way. It would completely change the game.

The other anomaly is when someone tries to pilfer the ball, get's their hands on it momentarily (not enough to get the penalty), and gets cleaned out, should this not be called a knock on? They did after all lose the ball forward.

It's just how it is.

How would it change the game? You don't see people go to ground without being tackled very often in those situations. A ruck can form over him of course, in fact that's what happened as soon as the first arriving Tahs support player gets there. The only difference is that the first man in isn't required to go through the gate regardless of whether he's a tackler or not.

 

[Tangawizi]

Seems that Nadolo has copped some abuse on his return to Christchurch. Disappointing stuff.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/10344425/Nemani-Nadolo-racially-abused

 

[Braveheart81]

There was no tackle on the McCaw one, the ball carrier tripped over, so there's no gate, no offside. It's not even 50/50, it's just a bad call, but given the Nadolo try and a couple of 50/50 calls earlier, I'd have to say it's the right result.

The other arriving player was on top of Latu at the time so he became a tackler hence stopping Latu getting back on his feet.

 

[en_force_er]

How would it change the game? You don't see people go to ground without being tackled very often in those situations. A ruck can form over him of course, in fact that's what happened as soon as the first arriving Tahs support player gets there. The only difference is that the first man in isn't required to go through the gate regardless of whether he's a tackler or not.

But a ruck is defined as being a contest over a tackled player, not the contest over a man who has fallen over.

 

[Grant NZ]

The other arriving player was on top of Latu at the time so he became a tackler hence stopping Latu getting back on his feet.

McCaw arrived before that player (Latu literally falls at his feet) and even then I don't think an arriving player creates a 'tackle'. A tackle requires the ball carrier to be brought to ground - he was already on the ground.

It seems to me this is covered by Law 14 - Ball Carrier on the Ground. It says that the ball carrier has to release or get to his feet immediately (obviously when there's a player on their feet contesting the 2nd one is ruled out) and doesn't have any requirement for players on their feet to come through a gate (because it's general play - no offside).

 

[Grant NZ]

But a ruck is defined as being a contest over a tackled player, not the contest over a man who has fallen over.

No, a ruck is defined as a contest over the ball.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Not cheating mate, scrummaging, and it was all in check until TPN went off.

With Kepu & TPN, Crockett wasn't allowed to bore in. With Latu & Kepu, well we saw the result, he (Latu) needs work, but he is a baby

Cheating ???????
Isn't that what players do? Get away with what they can. - especially those pying the dark arts of the front row - the more experienced a prop or hooker becomes he is often able to "manipulate" situations better than his younger opponents. Again, the old saying remains true:

'Old age and treachery will always defeat youth and enthusiasm"

Otherwise Referees wouldn't be needed at all

 

[Pfitzy]

We've been talking about the last penalty over at the fern, and one of the guys made the interesting point that, as Latu takes the ball ahead, Joubert is looking away. When he looks back, McCaw seems like he has come in from the side, basically on the evidence of his left foot.

It was a stupid move by Latu as he had no mates in support, but there's no going back.

 

[Pfitzy]

Story emerging that Nemani Nadolo was racially abused after the grand final... in Christchurch... by a New Zealander.

Fuck that guy - life ban.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Thought Izzy was very well contained by the Saders. They seemed to be "aware" of his presence and limited his opportunities. Maybe opened some chances for others. Am sure other countries will use the same model heading towards RWC

 

[en_force_er]

Fuck that guy - life ban.

Honestly, even if you were a racist to vilify one of your most consistent players of 2014, who even had a good game, defies logic.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Fuck that guy - life ban.

AAAAAAGH, the deep south ?????????

Agree with ban and chemical casteration as well. That sort of shit just needs to be rubbed out, in rugby and society in general.

Says a bloke from the deep north !!!!!!!!!

 

[Braveheart81]

Thought Izzy was very well contained by the Saders. They seemed to be "aware" of his presence and limited his opportunities. Maybe opened some chances for others. Am sure other countries will use the same model heading towards RWC

I agree that he was well contained but he also beat or almost beat that first defender a lot of times and always made strong metres down the flanks.

Also had 5 offloads I believe.

Several times he gained 20+ metres out wide. Whilst we've come to expect the amazing from him every time, his consistency is really important.

 

[Pfitzy]

More importantly, Folau's offloads went to hand this week, unlike two of them last week that went astray. Showed the difference between the defensive alignment of the opponents.