[2016 Super Rugby] Hurricanes vs. Chiefs (Round 9) 23/04/2016

[Bluemoon]

Golden Oldies is a new phrase to me. Guessing it's a SH thing.

 

[austingtir]

The Thiefs have got to be the jammiest, luckiest MFing team in super rugby!!!

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Nah, still the sharks.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Ahhhhh!!! Woodward had the chance to win it had he held onto the ball. Chiefs win it. That forward pass from Horrell which led to the Chiefs second try proved crucial. And Barrett's failure from the Tee, as he outplayed Cruden imo.

 

[bazwaz]

...Yeah boi, another famous win for the Mighty Chiefs...looking good at the top of the table...

 

[nzlizard]

Well done Chiefs, great second half.

 

[GoTheNaki]

I just..

Barrett **** the bed like he always does for big games, but only for the first half this time.. And Woodward ain't even a super rugby player, I always scoff at his inclusion. And just when I thought he might be alright.

****.

 

[Bluemoon]

In fairness, Barrett was outstanding at 10 when you take the kicking out of it.

 

[nzlizard]

Yup Barrett had a pretty solid game, was the pick of the Canes backs, kicking aside.

I thought Woodward was OK and Barrett's last pass wasn't the the best.

Sam Cane was immense for me, just delivered tonight and played Savea of the field, every time they showed Savea he wasp gasping for air, every time they showed Cane he was smiling or chatting away.

Chiefs really missed Ngatai tonight.

 

[smartcooky]

Haha, you should be having a word with Justin Marshall, he was getting a bit excited in the commentary box: adamant that it wasn't a try. My first thought when I saw it was it was a try.

Well, I wrote to "ReUnion" onm this subject a few years back and they read my letter out. JM was on the panel on that night, and he didn't agree. Then a week or two later, they had one of the SR referees (Chris Pollock?) on as a guest, JM asked him about it, and he told him exactly what I said in my letter, almost word for word. Poor old JM didn't have a lot to say after that !

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Well, I wrote to "ReUnion" onm this subject a few years back and they read my letter out. JM was on the panel on that night, and he didn't agree. Then a week or two later, they had one of the SR referees (Chris Pollock?) on as a guest, JM asked him about it, and he told him exactly what I said in my letter, almost word for word. Poor old JM didn't have a lot to say after that !

The thing is Tamanivalu didn't think he'd scored it either. He didn't celebrate like he thought he'd grounded it properly.

 

[smartcooky]

The thing is Tamanivalu didn't think he'd scored it either. He didn't celebrate like he thought he'd grounded it properly.

Maybe he doesn't know the Law either, and thought because he didn't have control he hadn't scored it.

Anyway, I had a look this morning on the replay. This what the Law says about grounding the ball

[TEXTAREA]LAW 22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL
There are two ways a player can ground the ball:

(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. 'Holding' means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player's body from waist to neck inclusive.[/TEXTAREA]

Clause (a) applies when the ball carrier has the ball in his possession, and clause (b) applies to a loose ball in goal.

The important thing is that "forcing" or "pressing down" ONLY applies to a loose ball, and the Law does not mention "control" at all. However, was Tamanivalu holding the ball, did he have possession?

[TEXTAREA]LAW 12 DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.[/TEXTAREA]

A player holding the ball is regarded as continuing to hold the ball until he's not holding it any more, until he loses possession of it. In order to determine whether a player has "lost possession" of the ball, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and that line is "clear separation"; there must be clear separation between the ball and the hand carrying it. This is why you hear TMO's using the term "no clear separation"; it means the TMO cannot see if the ball separated from the hand and touched the ground before the player gets a hand back on the ball again. In this regard, think about a basketballer dribbling the ball, and relate that back to rugby. During "upper" part of the dribbling action, the player is pushing the ball down faster than gravity is pulling it - in rugby terms that player is holding the ball even though he may not have a firm grip on it (you often see this when players reach out with one hand over the goal-line). When the ball separates in the "lower" part of the dribbling action, that is separation and in basketball it doesn't matter, but in rugby it does.

In Tamanivalu's first try, there is no apparent separation between ball and hand, and his hand is in contact with the right side of the ball all the way down to when the point of the ball touches the ground, and even if he doesn't have a grip on the ball, he is still considered to "holding" it.

Try awarded and correctly so IMO.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Nice one Smartcookey, now try and explain the Horrell forward pass preceding the Chief's second try, I don't think you need to go into as much detail as their first try.

 

[smartcooky]

Nice one Smartcookey, now try and explain the Horrell forward pass preceding the Chief's second try, I don't think you need to go into as much detail as their first try.

No detail needed. That pass looked forward to me.

 

[austingtir]

Im guessing Ardies had Hansen in his ear. I see he's not sticking with the sevens now.

Iv never personally rated Cane or Ardie.... to me Ardie by far has the most potential he's just a bit of a ding bat and to young atm.

Could be a good move to get him in the environment again this year and maybe next year he could be very useful against the Lions. To me he's the type of player the Lions simply wont be able to contain, especially in the second half. Great impact player like Vito has been for us.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

The Chiefs have now scored four or more tries in their last 8 matches - I wonder if this has ever previously happened in Super Rugby? Unfortunately under the new system they have missed out on four bonus points... Sigh.

4 tries v Crusaders (no BP)
4 tries v Lions (no BP)
7 tries v Kings (BP)
4 tries v Jaguares (no BP)
9 tries v Force (BP)
6 tries v Brumbies (BP)
5 tries v Blues (BP)
4 tries v Hurricanes (no BP)

They have scored more tries this year than 9 teams scored last year in a whole season (themselves included), more than 10 teams in 2014, 9 teams in 2013, 10 teams in 2012 and 10 teams in 2011.

The most tries scored in a season by a team was the 71 by the Crusaders in 2005 (with 13 games). That's an average of 5.46 tries per game. The Chiefs are currently averaging 5.38 tries per game, but will play at least 15 games this and could potentially play up to 18. Whilst it's unlikely the Chiefs will break the Crusaders record within 13 games, it would not be surprising to see them break the record for most tries in a season.

 

[nzlizard]

Yeah they have been super entertaining to watch, any rugby fan must love watching the Chiefs play like this.

 

[Regan]

Yeah they have been super entertaining to watch, any rugby fan must love watching the Chiefs play like this.

Yes and no, their defence has been pretty poor. It's one reason I don't see them winning the ***le. They've been quite lucky in their past few games too. The Canes showed that they're very beatable if anything. Overseas teams have made them look better than they actually are imo (but that's the same for the Canes too etc.)

 

[TRF_heineken]

Yeah they have been super entertaining to watch, any rugby fan must love watching the Chiefs play like this.

I cringe when they scrum. They surely are one of the poorest teams at scrum time.

 

[nzlizard]

Yes and no, their defence has been pretty poor. It's one reason I don't see them winning the ***le. They've been quite lucky in their past few games too. The Canes showed that they're very beatable if anything. Overseas teams have made them look better than they actually are imo (but that's the same for the Canes too etc.)

They have shown they can defend, the Chiefs style of play tends to create points for most teams as they do leave gaps when they counter attack or try exit with ball in hand.

Surely they can't be lucky all the time?, they know how to win, its what they do well and is the culture they are creating, closing out games when it matters, Rennie manages his squad given the injuries we have had and yet they keep on winning.

I cringe when they scrum. They surely are one of the poorest teams at scrum time.

Yeah it's not one of our strengths and we struggle with it, but in all fairness we are down 3 props and that makes a huge difference, also missing Bird. It has been average most of the super season, with a couple little gimmers of hope every now and then.

But we counter like a wild beast and that is fun to watch.