Super Rugby: Blues vs. Crusaders in Auckland (01/03/2013)

[Dizzy]

Hey I never said the ref was the reason the Crusaders lost the Blues definitely deserved the win. But with all this happening the Crusaders would have been in better position to capitilize with more composure which would have lead to a VERY different game, it wouldn't have been the blow out we saw and I honestly believe the Crusaders would've kept peeling back the penalty goals to remain very close to winning because lets face it, they didn't look like scoring much tries. I still believe the Blues deserved the win just that the Crusaders shouldn't have been blown off the way they are being without taking into consideration the mental affect that crucial and constant bad decisions has on a team that is chasing the game . All I said was that the Crusaders were very harshly done by Pollock and that we would have had a VERY different game had the game been reffed better.

Bro, maybe its just me, But I pick up on ALL the poor decisions referees make and express my opinions on here. It seems like, the more the referees keep trying to enforce these new laws they're forgetting the simple ones that still apply and cant keep up with all the changes

 

[Darwin]

Another great NZ game to watch... Crusaders looked just as lame on attack, am I the only one who think's they're just too white?

You are just saying that as they have four White-locks

As Nick mentioned, being too white hasn't hindered them in the past, and I don't think it was a big issue with match. Their failure to get on top was more to do with their inability to gain ascendancy up front, their lack of creativity in the backline, and the fact that the Blues just played better! I think is far too soon to write of the Crusaders after one loss (as some seem to be!). They are often very slow starters - I expect they will be a very different side in a few weeks time!

The Crusaders attack was very disappointing, as it was very lateral - in many ways it reminded me of the Highlanders attack of 2012. The actually found a bit of space on the outside, but didn't have the personal to exploit this space. I feel they should have attacked a lot closer to the breakdown and attempt to exploit Weepu's slower lateral defense, and Noakes general lack of ability to tackle. I know Zac Guildford isn't very popular in some circles, but I felt the Crusaders really missed him tonight. He normally spends a lot of time lurking off Carters shoulder - this gave the Crusader another attacking option, and drew the opposition defenders in-field, hence creating more space on the outside. I feel Dagg must go back to fullback next week (as he looked lost on the wing), and I would play Tom Marshall on one wing - he too is better as fullback, but does have experience on the wing. Hopefully McNicholl will be back from injury next week, as they really need his pace.

There were few standout performances for the Crusaders. I was very impressed with Dom Bird when he came on - he is incredibly tall, but I was really impressed with his physicality too. Matt Todd had a good game - I really like it when he carries the ball, while Read played pretty well too. The backline were in general very disappointing - the only player who really looked dangerous was Tom Marshall when he came.

In contrast there were plenty of standouts for the Blues. Faumuina was good, while Tom McCartney also impressed at prop, holding his own against Owen Franks (as well as being quite dynamic around the field). Ali Williams looked pretty good again, and Luatua was a real standout for a second week in a row. I thought Luke Braid was probably the pick of the forwards however, making a lot of ground with ball in hand and doing a pile of work on defense.

Noakes played well again, though he still has major issues in defense. Saili did his job, while Ranger was very good. Not only was he dangerous with ball in hand and solid on defense, but he also forced numerous turn-overs at the breakdown. The back three all had strong games, and will score a lot of tries this season if the Blues continue to play the way they are!

 

[Dizzy]

It just seems a bit ridiculous that after that performance you write a massive post having a go at the referee. Not saying he was good or bad but he wasn't the difference out there. The Crusaders backs had absolutely nothing on attack. Dagg is a fullback and Taylor isn't.

I have a go at the referees of every game I watch bro. They may not have had anything on attack, BUT, had these penalties gone the Crusaders way within kicking range, the Saders would have put on points there.

 

[Sam Owen]

I have a go at the referees of every game I watch bro. They may not have had anything on attack, BUT, had these penalties gone the Crusaders way within kicking range, the Saders would have put on points there.

Dizz I dont think I'd be delusional as many of us here saw the game, and I dont think anyone brought up the reff till now. Obviously the reff makes mistakes but I never ever blame a reff (read all my post history, you wont find one moaning about the reff). As a very good punter (ah-hem I gamble on these games a lot) I betted on the Blues to win 12+ but I thought we'd win really convincingly which really wasnt the case. Some people are shocked because they just thought the Saders will win...

 

[UilamOsa]

Dizz I dont think I'd be delusional as many of us here saw the game, and I dont think anyone brought up the reff till now. Obviously the reff makes mistakes but I never ever blame a reff (read all my post history, you wont find one moaning about the reff). As a very good punter (ah-hem I gamble on these games a lot) I betted on the Blues to win 12+ but I thought we'd win really convincingly which really wasnt the case. Some people are shocked because they just thought the Saders will win...

I'd thought it'd be a lot closer 12- to the Blues, but DC was off. Saders attack was too lateral which was easy pickings for a rush defense. (is it just me but the whole passing/running behind players is bordering on illegal?) Blues deserved to win, but they weren't tested enough. Not too sure what Dagg was doing on the Wing but when he finally came in from the back (which coincidentally when saders more ball) he looked like he wanted to attack. Marshall(?) seemed to be like the only penetrative crusader.

Braid is a beast. I think he was the best forward on the park and Ranger is already in 2 games better than he was than the whole season last year. It's early days, and the crusaders didn't play very smart. But they are the slowest of starters in good seasons.

I've paid much attention to Noakes but if he can kick half way better than Weepu, then he needs to put on his kicking boots asap. Points differential could come into play.

 

[Amobokoboko]

Massive win by the Blues.

 

[Aedaphon]

I think this adequately sums up the game.

 

[FlukeArtist]

Crusaders just had NOTHING on attack.

As I stated earlier, you have to question Blackadder's coaching ability. He had a team consisting of 10 All Blacks last night, and couldn't get them to complete any decent attacking rugby really.
Although some credit does have to go to the Blues defence (take a bow Sir Graham), I have to say that I saw nothing in the Crusaders backline that would worry most team's defensive analysts. It was just straight passing to the wing each time.

You know who the Crusaders reminded me last night of?
The Blues under Pat Lam

 

[austingtir]

Crusaders just had NOTHING on attack.

As I stated earlier, you have to question Blackadder's coaching ability. He had a team consisting of 10 All Blacks last night, and couldn't get them to complete any decent attacking rugby really.
Although some credit does have to go to the Blues defence (take a bow Sir Graham), I have to say that I saw nothing in the Crusaders backline that would worry most team's defensive analysts. It was just straight passing to the wing each time.

You know who the Crusaders reminded me last night of?
The Blues under Pat Lam

Exactly it makes you wonder if Lam is lurking around in the backrooms with coaching staff from the crusaders and horrorcanes.

It will be intresting to see if henry sticks around for more than one year and the difference it makes if he leaves.

 

[William18]

Crusaders just had NOTHING on attack.

As I stated earlier, you have to question Blackadder's coaching ability. He had a team consisting of 10 All Blacks last night, and couldn't get them to complete any decent attacking rugby really.
Although some credit does have to go to the Blues defence (take a bow Sir Graham), I have to say that I saw nothing in the Crusaders backline that would worry most team's defensive analysts. It was just straight passing to the wing each time.

You know who the Crusaders reminded me last night of?
The Blues under Pat Lam

Sure Blackadder has All Black's but not out wide. I don't see why you would expect a team with Tom Taylor and Adam Whitelock in the back three to show any attacking threat. You could have a go at Blackadder for poor recruiting and playing Dagg on the wing but that team will always struggle to attack.

 

[Darwin]

As I have already mentioned, it was the Crusaders first game of the season. Personally I would wait until a bit further into the season before I started writing their obituary.....

In terms of the Dagg non-try, I think the TMO was 100% correct with his ruling. Dagg is clearly tackled by Ranger, then gets to his feet again without releasing the ball. Therefore he was correctly penalised. It was very crucial point in the game, as if the Crusaders had been awarded the try it could have been a very tense last 10 minutes!

 

[nickdnz]

As I have already mentioned, it was the Crusaders first game of the season. Personally I would wait until a bit further into the season before I started writing their obituary.....

In terms of the Dagg non-try, I think the TMO was 100% correct with his ruling. Dagg is clearly tackled by Ranger, then gets to his feet again without releasing the ball. Therefore he was correctly penalised. It was very crucial point in the game, as if the Crusaders had been awarded the try it could have been a very tense last 10 minutes!

You have to release and place the ball when you are held in the tackle. Dagg was not held, therefore he didn't have to release the ball before he played at it. You don't have to release the ball when ancle tapped do you? No. So just because Ranger did tackle him, he didn't hold onto him and Dagg could continue. Think the TMO messed up monumentally.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Well, Ranger had his hands on him.

 

[Darwin]

You have to release and place the ball when you are held in the tackle. Dagg was not held, therefore he didn't have to release the ball before he played at it. You don't have to release the ball when ancle tapped do you? No. So just because Ranger did tackle him, he didn't hold onto him and Dagg could continue. Think the TMO messed up monumentally.

I think this is where many people get confused. Nowhere in the laws does it mention you need to 'hold' the player after the tackle (indeed this is a penalizable offense!).

Law 15 simply states: A tackle occurs when the ball-carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.

If you watch the replay Dagg is clearly held by Ranger and brought to ground. Therefore Ranger has tackled Dagg. If it was an ankle tap it would not count as a tackle (as you mention), but this was quite clearly a tackle (see about 8:50 in):


By the letter of the law the TMO made the right decision.....

 

[nickdnz]

I think this is where many people get confused. Nowhere in the laws does it mention you need to 'hold' the player after the tackle (indeed this is a penalizable offense!).

Law 15 simply states: A tackle occurs when the ball-carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.

If you watch the replay Dagg is clearly held by Ranger and brought to ground. Therefore Ranger has tackled Dagg. If it was an ankle tap it would not count as a tackle (as you mention), but this was quite clearly a tackle (see about 8:50 in):


By the letter of the law the TMO made the right decision.....

But my point was I didn't think he was held when he was brought to ground. There looked like there was clearly seperation. From that particular view though, I can't see seperation although fom memory there did look like there was clear seperation from when Ranger first attempted a tackle and when he went in for a second time.

 

[Darwin]

But my point was I didn't think he was held when he was brought to ground. There looked like there was clearly seperation. From that particular view though, I can't see seperation although fom memory there did look like there was clear seperation from when Ranger first attempted a tackle and when he went in for a second time.

So you are saying the TMO was right

 

[nickdnz]

So you are saying the TMO was right

Haha, from that angle. From many of the other angles it looks like the tackle wasn't completed as Ranger did not remain in contact with Dagg as he hit ground - so in other words he released before the tackle was completed.

 

[Darwin]

Haha, from that angle. From many of the other angles it looks like the tackle wasn't completed as Ranger did not remain in contact with Dagg as he hit ground - so in other words he released before the tackle was completed.

I will have to look closely at the other angles (once I see a full replay), but I didn't notice that at all. From this video though it looks pretty clear that Ranger completed the tackle (at 9:01 both players are on the ground, with Ranger lying on Dagg!) - indeed Ranger looks like he still has his arm on Dagg while Dagg is getting back to his feet....

 

[nickdnz]

I will have to look closely at the other angles (once I see a full replay), but I didn't notice that at all. From this video though it looks pretty clear that Ranger completed the tackle (at 9:01 both players are on the ground, with Ranger lying on Dagg!) - indeed Ranger looks like he still has his arm on Dagg while Dagg is getting back to his feet....

Haha, by that logic you could say Ranger should be penalised for not releasing.

 

[Darwin]

Haha, by that logic you could say Ranger should be penalised for not releasing.

Perhaps, but I think that is grasping at straws a bit

Ranger did appear to release Dagg (from my perspective) - Ranger only remained in contact with Dagg as Dagg bounced back to his feet straight at Ranger (who likewise got straight back to his feet). To me this is releasing a player, but I suppose this is debatable.

In any case I'm not quite sure we are debating this correctly. I'm a fan of the Crusaders and was backing them to win. You are a fan of Rene Ranger (I think). Surely our positions should be reversed? I hate it when logical debates get in the way of good old provincialism