How good are the crusaders?

[butchmcdick]

Who the blues or the crusaders ?

 

[Butters]

Laugh now.. will you come back in two weeks when the reds lose?

:lol:

 

[Te Kaha]

Who the blues or the crusaders ?

They couldnt even beat a 'Canes team with a third string backline.

 

[Te Kaha]

:lol:

Still shooting your load early.. they havent won anything yet.

 

[Butters]

I like how you ignore all the injuries the reds had going into that game. But all thats irrelevant anyway, the reds are unbeatable at home which is where they'll be playing all their finals games from.

 

[Butters]

Still shooting your load early.. they havent won anything yet.

Pretty sure they won tonight.

 

[Te Kaha]

I like how you ignore all the injuries the reds had going into that game. But all thats irrelevant anyway, the reds are unbeatable at home which is where they'll be playing all their finals games from.

Which was less than the Crusaders had... hardly ignored

Pretty sure they won tonight.

Like your boyfriend says to you... one swallow doesnt make a summer.... the reds won with dickensons incompetance.. that wont happen in the finals.

 

[Parra]

he was playing by the rules.. dickenson was wrong.. the crusaders had counterrucked and there were not two players over the ball...

Bullshit.

The officials missed quite a few things.

But this decision was correct.

 

[Parra]

One from twitter for you:

"
SirGrahamHenry Graham Henry by Matt_Gagger



Did Stewie Dickinson forget who Richie Mccaw is? IRB Law 115-B clearly states that R Mccaw is infallible in the rucks. Outrageous! #Rugby

 

[Te Kaha]

Bullshit.

The officials missed quite a few things.

But this decision was correct.

Go read the rules... no it wasnt.. the counter ruck had pushed the reds off the ball.. there was NOONE standing over the ball... the law cleary states you need two players over the ball for a ruck to be formed.

Rule 16.1.b How can a ruck form. Players are on their feet. At least one player must be in physical

contact with an opponent. The ball must be on the ground. If the ball is off the ground for​

any reason, the ruck is not formed

There was NOBODY on their feet let alone in "contact" with another player... the crusaders had pushed the reds off the ball... It was a bad call, one of many from a useless ref.

 

[Thomas]

Laws, mate. They're called laws.

Regardless of the call, when a ref is telling you not to touch the ball....you don't touch the ball. It's as simple as that. The ref is always right. He's the one with the whistle.

I watched a replay last night (thank you Fox IQ) and the Crusaders seemed a bit clueless in the backs. They looked like they had no idea how to break the Qld defence. Their forwards were fantastic (almost an All Black pack, really) but as soon as the ball got out past Carter, their attack was stifled. Not sure if this is the fault of the Crusaders or because of the immense pressure put on by the Red centres. Anthony Fa'ainga had a great game. A really solid performance.

I really think the Crusaders missed Ellis. A lot.

 

[Thomas]

Oh and this is a quote on another forum from a poster who is also a ref. And a fairly good ref at that (not S15 level but refs 7's matches etc).

on first sight it was one of those that had me thinking "oh f**k". The reply I saw led me to:


ruck formed; good counter rucking from Franks.
Saint Richie, from an on-side position and through the gate went to contest (and ultimately) pick up the ball.

Question? Had the ruck ended? For the ruck to have ended, the ball must "leave the ruck" or when the ruck or ball goes in goal.

Had the ball left the ruck? It was on the floor and from what I saw "could" [my emphasis] still have been under Red feet.

End result - may seem harsh but it would appear to be correct.

I am more than happy to be shown replays which contradict this but refs do not get the luxury of replays; they have to make a decision there and then.

 

[Te Kaha]

Laws, mate. They're called laws.

Regardless of the call, when a ref is telling you not to touch the ball....you don't touch the ball. It's as simple as that. The ref is always right. He's the one with the whistle.

I watched a replay last night (thank you Fox IQ) and the Crusaders seemed a bit clueless in the backs. They looked like they had no idea how to break the Qld defence. Their forwards were fantastic (almost an All Black pack, really) but as soon as the ball got out past Carter, their attack was stifled. Not sure if this is the fault of the Crusaders or because of the immense pressure put on by the Red centres. Anthony Fa'ainga had a great game. A really solid performance.

I really think the Crusaders missed Ellis. A lot.

I think they missed Dagg and Maitland more.. there wasnt any penetration in the backs...

Oh and this is a quote on another forum from a poster who is also a ref. And a fairly good ref at that (not S15 level but refs 7's matches etc).

Except the counter ruck had moved the ruck off the ball... there where no reds players on their feet within spitting distance of the ball... thats not even bringing up the blatent knockon by inone just before the ruck that was missed... 15 reds points were a result of crappy reffeeing.. they wont get that in the finals... the reds wont win it.

 

[Thomas]

I think they missed Dagg and Maitland more.. there wasnt any penetration in the backs...



Except the counter ruck had moved the ruck off the ball... there where no reds players on their feet within spitting distance of the ball... thats not even bringing up the blatent knockon by inone just before the ruck that was missed... 15 reds points were a result of crappy reffeeing.. they wont get that in the finals... the reds wont win it.

No, the Reds probably won't win the final. I have doubted their mental strength all season...yet they have been proving me wrong. I think if Robinson is ruled out for the season then they'll struggle to win at the breakdown. He's been Qld's best player all season.

As for the points. The last 2 penalties the Crusaders scored came from 2 reffing blunders as well. A forward pass which was a metre forward and Dickenson overruled his touch judge and incorrectly awarded the Crusaders a lineout a few metres out from the Red's line. It should have been a Reds throw in...which they probably would have lost, mind you. Also, the last penalty for the Crusaders, from the scrum right in front, was incorrect. The replays show the Crusaders hooker popping up from the scrum. He got it wrong for both teams.

 

[Te Kaha]

No, the Reds probably won't win the final. I have doubted their mental strength all season...yet they have been proving me wrong. I think if Robinson is ruled out for the season then they'll struggle to win at the breakdown. He's been Qld's best player all season.

As for the points. The last 2 penalties the Crusaders scored came from 2 reffing blunders as well. A forward pass which was a metre forward and Dickenson overruled his touch judge and incorrectly awarded the Crusaders a lineout a few metres out from the Red's line. It should have been a Reds throw in...which they probably would have lost, mind you. Also, the last penalty for the Crusaders, from the scrum right in front, was incorrect. The replays show the Crusaders hooker popping up from the scrum. He got it wrong for both teams.

15 points wrong, including both tries vs 2 penalties???? its still a a massive leg up to the reds....

usually one or two bad calls a game are usual.. you wear it.. but the amount of missed forward passes, knock ons, killing the ball, entering from the side that was missed was astounding... Had it been a better ref and touch judges the reds would have lost by a good margin... and i agree the loss of Robinson will be a huge loss... he was already well on his way to surpassing Mccaw as the games biggest "cheat".. he plays on the wrong side of the rules very well..

 

[Thomas]

You need to roll with the punches. The Reds were on the wrong side of the ref against the Canes and lost. I missed the Reds second try...what was the issue there?

The fact is, the Reds have beaten all of the SA sides they have played and the top 2 NZ teams. Given how shit the Reds were 2 years ago, this is an achievement in itself.

 

[Parra]

I don't agree that the ruck had ended. In any case, Dickinson was clear and McCaw either didn't hear him or chose to ignore him. When a player pushes the boundaries as often as McCaw does this happens sometimes.

Robinson likewise - the guy is a yellow card waiting to happen. He is not as clever or persistent as McCaw though.

The thing that stands out in your referee quote Thomas is the mention of through the gate - this term has no meaning once a ruck has formed. And the point is that the ruck had formed, and the ball was deemed to be still in it when McCaw reached in. There was no need to do this at all - the hard work had been done.

 

[Thomas]

If McCaw had bound onto Franks and stepped over the ball...I reckon Dickenson would have let if go and the Crusaders would have won the game. Instead he picked it up, even after the ref told him not to.

Silly.

Another silly move was the long restart by Carter after fulltime? What was he thinking? He didn't even give his team a chance...just belted it long and Genia hoofed it out. Even after Cooper slotted that penalty I was expecting the Crusaders to come back.

 

[Te Kaha]

You need to roll with the punches. The Reds were on the wrong side of the ref against the Canes and lost. I missed the Reds second try...what was the issue there?

Samo had the ball, ran into robinson and went to ground, you could argue a shepard but would have been marginal at best.. the crusaders player was attempting to steal the ball when robinson swung around, from the crusaders side to seal it off, genia picked up the ball and scored... it wasnt even in from the side, he came in from the crusaders side!!!

I don't agree that the ruck had ended. In any case, Dickinson was clear and McCaw either didn't hear him or chose to ignore him. When a player pushes the boundaries as often as McCaw does this happens sometimes.

Robinson likewise - the guy is a yellow card waiting to happen. He is not as clever or persistent as McCaw though.

The thing that stands out in your referee quote Thomas is the mention of through the gate - this term has no meaning once a ruck has formed. And the point is that the ruck had formed, and the ball was deemed to be still in it when McCaw reached in. There was no need to do this at all - the hard work had been done.

The ruck had passed.. the only person on their feet ANYWHERE near the ball was Mccaw.. how could the ruck NOT have ended????

If McCaw had bound onto Franks and stepped over the ball...I reckon Dickenson would have let if go and the Crusaders would have won the game. Instead he picked it up, even after the ref told him not to.

Silly.

franks had gone well passed the ball mccaw would have had to have taken 3 or four steps to bind to franks.. of course it wouldnt have mattered had dickenson not already missed the blatent knock on in the lead up.

 

[Thomas]

Dickenson didn't see the knock on because he was on the wrong side. The touch judge didn't say a word. The same touchie that missed the Crusaders impersonation at a quarterback NFL pass.