[2017 Super Rugby] The FINAL: Lions vs. Crusaders (05/08/2017)

[GoTheNaki]

Its unfortunate that the South African national coaches have shown no intent to play like the Lions do... Although, i havent seen them play this season. I feel if SA played like the Lions, we'd see them return to rugby power. But as always in SA rugby, there is more than simply just that going on.

 

[smartcooky]

I can't see any realistic way to resolve the issue of players being taken out when jumping for the ball, short of some drastic changes to the Law. Some of these might involve completely removing the competition in the air for the ball, e.g.


► Outlaw jumping to catch a ball in open play
Not my first choice, because it would remove a spectacular element of the game.


► A player cannot jump to catch the ball if it was last played by a team-mate.
This would mean kick chasers would not be allowed jump for the ball. It would also mean that a player would not be allowed to jump to catch a pass from a team-mate... this would at least solve the Faumuina-Sinkler scenario.


If a Law has to be changed, I would prefer the second one. I think it would change the type of kicking teams would do. We'd see more kicking to land/space and less box kicking, and I can't say I would object to that. It would also remove the scope for indecision from the kick chaser. No longer would he have to decide what to do... he simply times his run to tackle the catcher as soon as possible after the catcher's feet touch the ground.... he just has to make sure he doesn't get him early. IMO, the second one is worth trialing.

 

[saulan]

► Outlaw jumping to catch a ball in open play
Not my first choice, because it would remove a spectacular element of the game.

I was thinking about this yesterday and came to the opposite conclusion. If we are interested in maximizing player welfare, then jumping to catch the ball from a kick or pass has to be banned from the game. They have tried banning tackling a player in the air, but as we have seen on numerous occasions, this can often happen without intent from the perspective of the tackler (best example I can think of is Zas in Super Rugby against the Waratahs I think. He went to contest a high ball against their fullback but the ground was muddy so when he tried to jump he slipped and didn't leave the air, going to ground. The waratahs player was taken out in the air and Zas was red carded, but there really wasn't anything he could have done from the point of slipping).

I don't even see jumping contests as a spectacle of rugby anyway, nowadays I just watch it happening as a potential red card, slightly nervous someone will run in from below or that they will hit someone with their momentum.

We are all about player welfare, the only way to ensure that players cannot suffer a terrible injury from this is by taking jumping for the ball out of the game. On the flip side, seeing a red card for it, even if it's for the opposition, often feels like it makes it an undeserved non contest. This final would have been way more interesting without that card, but the correct letter of the law was followed and no complaints can be had in that regard. We need to stop this from happening, not make sure it only happens by accident.

 

[Skylinerd1]

Something needs to be done about the endless kicking in games. Players are getting (head knocks and concussion is the big one not spinal injuries even though its obvious it could happen) injured despite all these BS rules that were meant to stop it. Look at Ben Smith in the lions series basically forced from the field because of being peppered game after game with this BS tactic.

Im am tired seeing game after game ended as a contest over what I still think are over the top red cards. Nobodys been seriously injured yet from decades of rugby from these kicks (not saying they aint dangerous) but they do need to tone it down on these type of kicks by adjusting laws and forcing teams to kick for territory rather than these lolly scramble box kicks or deep high kicks with chasers. Because thats all they are is lolly scrambles.

This game could of had a truly great ending if it wasnt for this red card. In the end the second half was meaningless even if the lions werent totally out of it.

 

[Skylinerd1]

And its a bit of a worry such a young saders team was able to win the comp. They keep most of these players and nobodys going to beat them for a good few season I would think. The Chiefs and Blues are no chance the Highlanders dont quite have the personal to pull off beating them unless they unearth a couple of freaks in the pack/backrow next year. The Canes maybe but their front row/pack is absolute crap compared to the Saders.

 

[Ground We Won]

Great to see the Lions lose this, undoubtedly an undeserved rigged finals route. They did well to beat the Hurricanes but, played junk more than twice than anyone from the NZ 'conference' and were able to secure an undeserved home final. It's not their fault though, you can only beat what is in front of you and SANZAR rigged the competition in favour of the top SA team getting a pretty easy path to the final.

As for the red card, 100% red card. Jaco Peyper sounded like he was about to break down in tears being forced to send him off.

Good effort from the Lions later in the 2nd half, didn't give up but, the Crusaders deservedly win the competition. Credit to Scott Robertson, he's really turned them around.

I hope next season we will see a far better competition and all the crap cut.

 

[Ground We Won]

Its unfortunate that the South African national coaches have shown no intent to play like the Lions do... Although, i havent seen them play this season. I feel if SA played like the Lions, we'd see them return to rugby power. But as always in SA rugby, there is more than simply just that going on.

They were pretty good in that 3 test series vs France. Played similar to this and picked the Lions players.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Carrying on from Saulan and Smart Cooky, I agree that jumping should be pulled out of the game. The number of knocks and yellow/red cards that are coming from that scenario is becoming increasingly unpalatable in regards to player welfare.
The tackles on the ground are plenty strong enough when players are hitting each other in the collision, at pace.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Its unfortunate that the South African national coaches have shown no intent to play like the Lions do... Although, i havent seen them play this season. I feel if SA played like the Lions, we'd see them return to rugby power. But as always in SA rugby, there is more than simply just that going on.

The Boks will be back.
It's just a matter of time.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Its unfortunate that the South African national coaches have shown no intent to play like the Lions do... Although, i havent seen them play this season. I feel if SA played like the Lions, we'd see them return to rugby power. But as always in SA rugby, there is more than simply just that going on.

Prepare to be surprised. They will be unrecognisable of you from last year, ironically in terms of this thread, because AC has been forced to abandon his obsession with box kicks and kicking away early phase ball. Which leads me onto...

I think a genuine factor in the red card yesterday is how rarely the Lions box kick and the fact their halfbacks can't generally kick them for toffee (Jantjies and Faf were publicly called out about it by AC last summer, which I considered poor form as Ackerman simply never got them to do it as he is obsessed with keeping ball in hand). I'd imagine that could be the first time Kwagga has been so close to the receiver of a box kick all year!

It is much more common as a tactic up north, and we seem to have less issues with red cards generally.

The high tackle laws that were so controversial at first have bedded in nicely and seem a lot less contentious. Players just need to be instructed properly on how to handle an aerial player to avoid these situations.

I did like the suggestion above of changing a red card to meaning 10mins off the field and you can't be replaced. Then leave it to the citing commission.

 

[Nubiwan]

Well, I mean... In some ways I guess you called it. He did have a significant impact on the match, and you didn't specify that he would be taking them home with the win

Indeed - from hero to goat.

 

[Nubiwan]

I think where the players actions deserve a red card then a red card should be handed out but where a red card is handed out simply to follow the letter of the law without taking into account the circumstances is wrong.
I believe that injury to a player who jumps at full speed into oncoming players is just as guilty of reckless play as anyone else.

I find myself nodding with this. It was a harsh red in my opinion, and served only to show just how fair peyper was willing to show himself to be. Not saying he was wrong, but had he given a yellow, then it would have probably saved a decent match for everyone. Not that the match wasn't close anyway. In the end, just a bridge too far for the lions, who must be left wondering - what if? Their own daft fault in the end.

Another in this season's bizarre rugby moments were refs have been in a position to use a bit of common sense for the sake of the game. But rather nailed the outcome themselves. Either by doing it right or wrong.

I personally might have looked at the incident as smith being somewhat wreckless, but without malicious intent. Clearly attempted to back off once he knew he had cocked it up. The player landing awkward, and it was dangerous, but he got up, none worse for wear, I assume. Yellow card under the circumstances - and rather in hindsight, would have been acceptable.

Can I just ask, if the player had landed on his arse, that is, not his head or neck, then assume correct call would have been yellow. Is that right?

What's happening in rugby now is the opposition running about waving arms like footballers every time a player gets hit in the conk. Yes players need protecting, and going to be difficult to measure the extent of the injury from each collision, but if no damage done, some of the Reds appear too harsh to me. Some clear cut, others silly.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Congratualtions to the Crusaders on their 8th (is it?) ***le. Cherry on the cake of a fantastic season. Lions also showed some pride to make a comeback of sorts but at the end were just too inaccurate under pressure in just about every facet of the game whilst I could count the unforced Crusaders errors on one hand. That's the difference really.

I have no issue with the red whatsoever. Sure it spoiled to an extent an otherwise entertaining match but it is nothing new; totally in line with the trends internationally. While I don't believe Smith had any intent of putting Havili in danger he did and should have known better; positioning-wise. If I have any gripe it was that I felt that the scrum was poorly refereed overall and something of a lottery seemingly.

 

[Penne Rara]

I can't see any realistic way to resolve the issue of players being taken out when jumping for the ball, short of some drastic changes to the Law. Some of these might involve completely removing the competition in the air for the ball, e.g.


► Outlaw jumping to catch a ball in open play
Not my first choice, because it would remove a spectacular element of the game.


► A player cannot jump to catch the ball if it was last played by a team-mate.
This would mean kick chasers would not be allowed jump for the ball. It would also mean that a player would not be allowed to jump to catch a pass from a team-mate... this would at least solve the Faumuina-Sinkler scenario.


If a Law has to be changed, I would prefer the second one. I think it would change the type of kicking teams would do. We'd see more kicking to land/space and less box kicking, and I can't say I would object to that. It would also remove the scope for indecision from the kick chaser. No longer would he have to decide what to do... he simply times his run to tackle the catcher as soon as possible after the catcher's feet touch the ground.... he just has to make sure he doesn't get him early. IMO, the second one is worth trialing.

While I think it would be a shame to ban air contests, World Rugby should indeed do whatever's possible to prevent them from happening anymore, in order to ensure that the players' safety is well and truly respected.

But kicks that precede contests (up and unders, whether they're box kicks or come from regular plays, chip kicks, cross kicks) will still be allowed, won't they? Only the act of jumping to catch the ball won't be tolerated? I just can't wrap my head around the fact that the cross kick could be rendered invalid by that law when it proves to be such a lethal and clever weapon against tight defenses.

#BeaudenDisapprovesThisMeasure

 

[Caitlyn Jenner]

I think eliminating aerial contests would be a massive overreaction and is completely unnecessary. It's a key element of the game... just because it can be dangerous doesn't mean we should do away with it. Rugby is a physical sport ffs, if we got rid of every element of the game that had safety risks we wouldn't have a sport.

 

[bushytop]

Really good game, knew the Lions finished strongly during the semi but with a player down from just before half time and the Crusaders at their resolute yet clinical best, I was genuinely surprised by the South Africans.

Gloucester look to have acquired a great coach.

 

[mania]

richie mo'ung or sam whitelock MOTM for me. both were massive.

kRead and crotty with honourable mentions

gotta feel sorry for kwagga. not only did he manage to almost knock himself out he got red carded for it. but it was definately a red, just a shame it happened in a final

 

[Larksea]

It has been a very impressive season from the Crusaders. Its going to be interesting to see how the form of some of these players goes in terms of test selection.

First that comes to mind is seta tamanivalu who seemed to have dropped off the test radar for a while as he dropped down the midfield pecking order. But his performances on the wing combined with his ability to play midfield may see him recalled.

Another player who look interesting is Michael Alaalatoa. I've no idea what his situation in terms of eligibility is I know hes a Samoan Aussie who has been in NZ for a few years now playing for Manawatu and the Crusaders? His Brother is a Wallabie... Would have to think he's easily good enough to be a Wallabie too... In interesting to see how that unfolds.

RMo's stocks have surely risen further, with Cruden gone and Sopoaga under a bit of pressure it wouldn't be surprising to see him involved.

Matt Todd continues to be brilliant. And will probably continue to be very unlucky.

 

[Zapphod]

I find myself nodding with this. It was a harsh red in my opinion, and served only to show just how fair peyper was willing to show himself to be. Not saying he was wrong, but had he given a yellow, then it would have probably saved a decent match for everyone. Not that the match wasn't close anyway. In the end, just a bridge too far for the lions, who must be left wondering - what if? Their own daft fault in the end.

Another in this season's bizarre rugby moments were refs have been in a position to use a bit of common sense for the sake of the game. But rather nailed the outcome themselves. Either by doing it right or wrong.

I personally might have looked at the incident as smith being somewhat wreckless, but without malicious intent. Clearly attempted to back off once he knew he had cocked it up. The player landing awkward, and it was dangerous, but he got up, none worse for wear, I assume. Yellow card under the circumstances - and rather in hindsight, would have been acceptable.

Can I just ask, if the player had landed on his arse, that is, not his head or neck, then assume correct call would have been yellow. Is that right?

What's happening in rugby now is the opposition running about waving arms like footballers every time a player gets hit in the conk. Yes players need protecting, and going to be difficult to measure the extent of the injury from each collision, but if no damage done, some of the Reds appear too harsh to me. Some clear cut, others silly.

For Peyper the game was always going to be a hospital pass though, anything controversial and he was going to cop it, either he was proving the "he will be biased to a home team" or "he was bias to the opposition to prove he was unbiased" arguments were going to rise, personally I think he handled it well and in the end fanatics will always find a reason to be unhappy.

I find the whole idea that Smith was reckless to be rather bizarre as he was going for the ball (as he should be) and when he saw what was happening he clearly tried to avoid contact (as he is supposed to do) to the point that he lost his footing, surely the reckless player in the whole incident was Havili, he was the one who put himself in danger.

► A player cannot jump to catch the ball if it was last played by a team-mate.
This would mean kick chasers would not be allowed jump for the ball. It would also mean that a player would not be allowed to jump to catch a pass from a team-mate... this would at least solve the Faumuina-Sinkler scenario.

Isnt the point to a box kick to put the ball into a position where your team can recover the ball?

How would things like chip kicks or grubber kicks that bounce up be handled
How about rather than banning jumping for the ball they simply switch the onus of safety to the individuals themselves and card anyone that makes contact while in the air.

 

[mania]

I find the whole idea that Smith was reckless to be rather bizarre as he was going for the ball (as he should be) and when he saw what was happening he clearly tried to avoid contact (as he is supposed to do) to the point that he lost his footing, surely the reckless player in the whole incident was Havili, he was the one who put himself in danger.

How about rather than banning jumping for the ball they simply switch the onus of safety to the individuals themselves and card anyone that makes contact while in the air.

mr Beeblebrox - im confused. your all for smith saying it wasnt really his fault and havili is at fault for jumping and putting himself in danger, but then , you say dont ban jumping, just penalise the person that makes contact with the jumper in the air.

huh?