Super Rugby: Chiefs - Crusaders in Hamilton (6/7/2012)

[Darwin]

wasn't sonny's best work and he was obviously livid with himself for it. But in his defense he has scored two tries in similar situations in recent games, one in that game.

interesting game, It really could have gone either way. I thought overall the chiefs were the better team but their really bad start cost them the match just as much as some poor officiating and an absolute shocker from the TMO

Personally I didn't think the Chiefs were the better team. The Crusaders had an obvious edge up front with Chiefs perhaps having a slight edge in the backs - I thought the final score was a pretty accurate reflection of the match. You are going to have to explain to me what the "absolute shocker" from the TMO was. I assume you are referring to the Ellis try - the commentators and everyone in the media seemed to be adamant that it was not a try, but I haven't heard a single person give a good explanation as to why it wasn't a try. Here is the clip (from about 50 seconds on):



The Ellis is tackled short of the line, and Kerr-Barlow clearly slides in and wraps up the ball to prevent Ellis from releasing the ball. This is definitely a penalty offense, and given Ellis would almost certainly have scored had Kerr-Barlow not done this the ref probably could/should have awarded a penalty try. At worst this should be 'advantage Crusaders'. The next thing that happens in Sam Whitelock comes in and drives Ellis, Kerr-Barlow (and the ball!), over the line. The commentators/media seem to think Ellis should somehow have been penalized for this, but I have no idea what they think he did wrong - he couldn't release the ball as Kerr-Barlow still (illegally) has his arms around the ball. The ball is then clearly grounded over the line: TRY Crusaders. The only thing you could possibly argue is that Sam Whitelock left his feet at the breakdown (but I haven't heard a single person mention this as a reason why the try should have been disallowed), but again the first offense was Kerr-Barlow preventing Ellis from releasing, which is a penalty at the very least, but more realistically should have been a penalty try.

in the end I'm happy with the result, crusaders needed the points, chiefs could spare them but now need to beat the Canes with a bonus point to get overall top spot which goes most of the way to actually deciding the ***le. Stormers seem to have a great deal of trouble scoring a 4 try bonus point but they have the rebels last so by all rights they should. Doesn't seem to matter though yes they win most games but they don't seem to out away the bottom feeders with regularity.

I think Renee has been waiting too late to bring his impact players on. Leonard and Masanga made a big difference and an extra 10min from them I think would have been enough to get the points. barlow has been brilliant but Leonard is also having one of his best seasons ever and deserves more time and even starts.

Leonard was good when he came on, but I thought Kerr-Barlow was outstanding again - clearly his time in the AB's camp has improved his game. I'd still take Ellis over him for the AB's, but Kerr-Barlow would be next in line for me behind Smith and Ellis (now that Perenara is out injured).

Masaga should be starting, as he is clearly the best wing in the Chiefs in my opinion. Personally my 1st choice backline would be 9. Kerr-Barlow, 10. Cruden, 11. Nanai-Williams, 12. SBW, 13. Willison, 14. Masaga, 15. Horrell (Leonard, Robinson, and Tikoirotima on the bench). It is probably a little harsh on Tikoirotuma who has been very good this season, and I would seriously consider playing Horrell at centre, Nanai-Williams at fullback, with Tikoirotuma on the wing....

Barlow and Retalick were good, I also thought Horrell was very very impressive, man he is good... Seriously I don't think he would look out of place in an Al Black squad. He just has such great hands and defenders always seem to have problems putting him down and stopping him from offloading but he's not massive. He just seems to hit gaps and keep defenders guessing. And he well and truely kept Robbie Fruen in check on defense.

I thought Messam had a very big game as well. He obviously painted a target on McCaw which was interesting. He Smashed McCaw a number of times I think twice resulting in turnovers and a couple other times McCaw was verrry slow getting up.

I agree, Horrell was again very impressive - he has been an outstanding signing for the Chiefs. He doesn't seem that powerful or elusive, but he always seems to hit the gaps, and always seems to make the correct decision. I wouldn't look at him for the AB's yet - mainly as I'm not sure what his best position is!

Chiefs were better in most areas but the Crusaders had a good advantage in the scrums and a massive advantage in the lineouts. Obviously Clarke was missed big time, I think if the chiefs had just managed an average game at the lineout they would have won fairly easily. They will need to take a serious look at their Scrum and Lineout before the finals though in that area the Crusaders are the benchmark with I think the best tight 5 in the comp and maybe even the best loose forward Trio mostly off the back of Kieran Read being maybe the best player on the planet right now.

Cruden has been a bit rusty lately, missed some kicks he should have got, missed touch on some penalties that have really hurt the chiefs. Playing every minute of every game for the chiefs may be taking it's toll on Cruden. I know Cruden is Renee's golden child. Interestingly he's the only chief to have taken a shot at goal this season. He's been great but to me he looks like he's slowing down, starting to make mistakes. And recently he's crept into the top missed tackle list as the only chief on that list.

overall great game by the players, finals intensity. Pitty the refs could not keep up.

Cruden is playing with an Achilles injury at the moment, which I think is his main issue. He is a bit hesitant about taking on the line at the moment, but is still playing pretty solidly. I'd almost be tempted to give him the week off this week (against the Canes) if I thought that would help him recover quicker, as the Chiefs need him back to 100% for the playoffs.

 

[nickdnz]

Personally I didn't think the Chiefs were the better team. The Crusaders had an obvious edge up front with Chiefs perhaps having a slight edge in the backs - I thought the final score was a pretty accurate reflection of the match. You are going to have to explain to me what the "absolute shocker" from the TMO was. I assume you are referring to the Ellis try - the commentators and everyone in the media seemed to be adamant that it was not a try, but I haven't heard a single person give a good explanation as to why it wasn't a try. Here is the clip (from about 50 seconds on):

The reason I think is double movement, which is a fair call. He fell short of the line but within an arms length of the line, which if he placed it forward it would have been a try. He needed to place the ball backwards. Whitelock driving hom from where he was initially is a double movement?

 

[Darwin]

The reason I think is double movement, which is a fair call. He fell short of the line but within an arms length of the line, which if he placed it forward it would have been a try. He needed to place the ball backwards. Whitelock driving hom from where he was initially is a double movement?

The point is Ellis couldn't place the ball anywhere, as Kerr-Barlow illegally dives directly on the ball preventing him from releasing the ball. It is blatantly obvious on replay, yet I seem to be the only person who sees it... perhaps I need my eyes checked! Ellis is perfectly entitled to immediately place the ball in any direction once he has been tackled (including forwards over the try line), but he is clearly prevented from doing that by Kerr-Barlow - there is a pretty clear case for a penalty try if ever I've seen one!

In any case there technically is no such things as 'double movement' in Rugby Union - once Ellis is tackled he needs to release the ball immediately. He is prevented from doing so by Kerr-Barlow, then driven over the line by a supporting player - I don't know of any law that states you can't be driven forwards while you are on the ground.....

 

[Larksea]

With Elis 2nd try it was clearly not a matter of him "placing" the ball over the line it was a 2nd shove that pushed him over from initially a stationary position short of the line. It looked like text book double movement to me. To score legally from the position he was in he would have had to lift the ball up stretch his arms forward and place it on/over the line

also though Romano's try was questionable, initially looked clearly off side but I don't think the camera angles could confirm it either way. Just looking at it it's hard to see how he would have been on side, he started way off side and I dont think Elis went far enough to get him on.

End of the day, the crusaders pack will put fear into any team they come up against in the playoffs and they will be way too good for the force this weekend. Even though they wont go into the playoffs as one of the top qualifiers they will be looked at as the team to beat. Of all the sides they know how to win playoff games away from home.

For the chiefs getting home playoff games is critical, but for the crusaders it seems like they will take it where ever. They have a great history of winning playoff games away from home and causing upsets.

Chiefs slow start needs to be a one off though, they need to come out firing from now on.

That run from Taumalolo was pretty special, I do think the chiefs will be better off in the scrums and around the field with Toby Smith though. Will be interesting to see what happens there.

 

[donmcdazzle]

Also in Romano's try, he was always advancing towards the ball, whereas I thought you had to retreat until you were onside?

The Ellis one, I can see your point Darwin, but it would seem a very weird thing to see a guy stretching for the line and not be able to grab the ball to stop him from scoring or to be penalised for doing so. When someone is over the line people always latch on to hold them up without letting go so it seems like a similar scenario - if he didn't do that Ellis would have reached out and scored.

 

[Shovenose]

Personally I didn't think the Chiefs were the better team. The Crusaders had an obvious edge up front with Chiefs perhaps having a slight edge in the backs - I thought the final score was a pretty accurate reflection of the match. You are going to have to explain to me what the "absolute shocker" from the TMO was. I assume you are referring to the Ellis try - the commentators and everyone in the media seemed to be adamant that it was not a try, but I haven't heard a single person give a good explanation as to why it wasn't a try. Here is the clip (from about 50 seconds on):



The Ellis is tackled short of the line, and Kerr-Barlow clearly slides in and wraps up the ball to prevent Ellis from releasing the ball. This is definitely a penalty offense, and given Ellis would almost certainly have scored had Kerr-Barlow not done this the ref probably could/should have awarded a penalty try. At worst this should be 'advantage Crusaders'. The next thing that happens in Sam Whitelock comes in and drives Ellis, Kerr-Barlow (and the ball!), over the line. The commentators/media seem to think Ellis should somehow have been penalized for this, but I have no idea what they think he did wrong - he couldn't release the ball as Kerr-Barlow still (illegally) has his arms around the ball. The ball is then clearly grounded over the line: TRY Crusaders. The only thing you could possibly argue is that Sam Whitelock left his feet at the breakdown (but I haven't heard a single person mention this as a reason why the try should have been disallowed), but again the first offense was Kerr-Barlow preventing Ellis from releasing, which is a penalty at the very least, but more realistically should have been a penalty try.


Leonard was good when he came on, but I thought Kerr-Barlow was outstanding again - clearly his time in the AB's camp has improved his game. I'd still take Ellis over him for the AB's, but Kerr-Barlow would be next in line for me behind Smith and Ellis (now that Perenara is out injured).

Masaga should be starting, as he is clearly the best wing in the Chiefs in my opinion. Personally my 1st choice backline would be 9. Kerr-Barlow, 10. Cruden, 11. Nanai-Williams, 12. SBW, 13. Willison, 14. Masaga, 15. Horrell (Leonard, Robinson, and Tikoirotima on the bench). It is probably a little harsh on Tikoirotuma who has been very good this season, and I would seriously consider playing Horrell at centre, Nanai-Williams at fullback, with Tikoirotuma on the wing....



I agree, Horrell was again very impressive - he has been an outstanding signing for the Chiefs. He doesn't seem that powerful or elusive, but he always seems to hit the gaps, and always seems to make the correct decision. I wouldn't look at him for the AB's yet - mainly as I'm not sure what his best position is!



Cruden is playing with an Achilles injury at the moment, which I think is his main issue. He is a bit hesitant about taking on the line at the moment, but is still playing pretty solidly. I'd almost be tempted to give him the week off this week (against the Canes) if I thought that would help him recover quicker, as the Chiefs need him back to 100% for the playoffs.

It was a TMO decision so what happen before the line is irrelevant.

 

[Darwin]

With Elis 2nd try it was clearly not a matter of him "placing" the ball over the line it was a 2nd shove that pushed him over from initially a stationary position short of the line. It looked like text book double movement to me. To score legally from the position he was in he would have had to lift the ball up stretch his arms forward and place it on/over the line

Are you just conveniently ignoring Kerr-Barlow's* illegal play or is he invisible to everyone but me

Again, there is no such thing as a double movement in the laws of Rugby Union - it only exists in League.

* I bolded his name to make him less invisible....

Also in Romano's try, he was always advancing towards the ball, whereas I thought you had to retreat until you were onside?

The Ellis one, I can see your point Darwin, but it would seem a very weird thing to see a guy stretching for the line and not be able to grab the ball to stop him from scoring or to be penalised for doing so. When someone is over the line people always latch on to hold them up without letting go so it seems like a similar scenario - if he didn't do that Ellis would have reached out and scored.

Wohoo. Someone apart from me can see Kerr-Barlow - I'm not going crazy

Kerr-Barlow would certainly be entitled to grab at the ball if Ellis had been over the try line (and the ball was still in the air) - however Ellis was still in the field of play and was already basically on the ground before Kerr-Barlow dived on the ball. Regardless of whether you are 20cm for the line or 20m from the tryline you can't just dive onto a player with the ball and prevent them from releasing it! The opposition must allow the tackled player to release the ball - as you say Ellis could have just reached out and scored the try, which he is perfectly entitled to do. I can see why Kerr-Barlow did what he did, but his actions were clearly illegal and stopped a certain try - I think a penalty try would have been warranted had Ellis not gone on to score the try himself.

 

[nickdnz]

The point is Ellis couldn't place the ball anywhere, as Kerr-Barlow illegally dives directly on the ball preventing him from releasing the ball. It is blatantly obvious on replay, yet I seem to be the only person who sees it... perhaps I need my eyes checked! Ellis is perfectly entitled to immediately place the ball in any direction once he has been tackled (including forwards over the try line), but he is clearly prevented from doing that by Kerr-Barlow - there is a pretty clear case for a penalty try if ever I've seen one!

In any case there technically is no such things as 'double movement' in Rugby Union - once Ellis is tackled he needs to release the ball immediately. He is prevented from doing so by Kerr-Barlow, then driven over the line by a supporting player - I don't know of any law that states you can't be driven forwards while you are on the ground.....

22.9 DEFENDING PLAYER IN IN-GOAL(a) A defending player who has part of one foot in in-goal is considered to have both feet in in-goal.

Kerr-Barlow cearly has one if not both feet in goal at the time of the breakdown, so he is deemed to be in goal.

22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOALWhen a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.

15.5 (G)
(g) If a player is tackled near the goal line, that player may immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line to score a try or make a touch down.

So I see your line of thought. The only thing that I'd suggest is that because Kerr-Barlow's feet were both in goal (which is importent, not if Ellis is in the goal line), it's allowed to be held up and not released.

 

[donmcdazzle]

Are you just conveniently ignoring Kerr-Barlow's* illegal play or is he invisible to everyone but me

Again, there is no such thing as a double movement in the laws of Rugby Union - it only exists in League.

* I bolded his name to make him less invisible....




Wohoo. Someone apart from me can see Kerr-Barlow - I'm not going crazy

Kerr-Barlow would certainly be entitled to grab at the ball if Ellis had been over the try line (and the ball was still in the air) - however Ellis was still in the field of play and was already basically on the ground before Kerr-Barlow dived on the ball. Regardless of whether you are 20cm for the line or 20m from the tryline you can't just dive onto a player with the ball and prevent them from releasing it! The opposition must allow the tackled player to release the ball - as you say Ellis could have just reached out and scored the try, which he is perfectly entitled to do. I can see why Kerr-Barlow did what he did, but his actions were clearly illegal and stopped a certain try - I think a penalty try would have been warranted had Ellis not gone on to score the try himself.

Thankfully Nickdnz highlighted the proper laws for me above regarding Kerr-Barlow, but I will just add that players definitely jump on guys/slide in to prevent them from reaching out and scoring while they're still in the field of play, it would be bizarre if you had to let a player stretch out unimpeded. I've never seen a ref ping someone for it, and I don't think they ever would.

 

[Darwin]

Kerr-Barlow cearly has one if not both feet in goal at the time of the breakdown, so he is deemed to be in goal. So I see your line of thought. The only thing that I'd suggest is that because Kerr-Barlow's feet were both in goal (which is importent, not if Ellis is in the goal line), it's allowed to be held up and not released.

I don't think law 22.9 is relevant here though - I think it is taken out of context. It has more to do with a defending player receiving the ball within the field of player with their feet behind the goal-line - see 22.9b:

22.9 (b) If a player with one or both feet on or behind the goal line, picks up the ball, which was stationary within the field of play, that player has picked up the ball in the field of play and thereby that player has taken the ball into in-goal.

The position of Kerr-Barlow is not important here - the only thing that matters in the position of the ball (which is clearly not in the in-goal area). Kerr-Barlow would have been entitled to hold the ball up if it had it been in air, but it was clearly on the ground and he simply dived on it and prevented Ellis from releasing it.

 

[Larksea]

thanks nick for clearing that up.

the way I saw it it should have been a penalty to the chiefs for the Elis double movement.

you never know but 5 points would ahve been enough for the chiefs to win considering a penalty kick at goal would have been enough for a win considering all they would have needed was a penalty rather than a converted try. They turned down a number of kicks at goal going for the try.

Also a good point made above re: Romano's try.

I'm pretty comfortable as a chiefs supporter though, Chiefs forwards seemed to win a lot of the advantage line battle and the Lineout/scrum issues should be able to be fixed. Bit of Rustiness factor from the weeks off there as well with the bad start. The real concern is the drop in form/condition of Cruden

If I was Chiefs coach I'd think about resting Cruden for a game this weekend and starting Horrell. I think the team would be in safe hands I dont think Horrell has put a foot wrong all season. having Cruden fresh after a few weeks rest for the finals would be a big help.

 

[donmcdazzle]

I don't think law 22.9 is relevant here though - I think it is taken out of context. It has more to do with a defending player receiving the ball within the field of player with their feet behind the goal-line - see 22.9b:

The position of Ellis or Kerr-Barlow is not important here - the only thing that matters in the position of the ball (which is clearly no in the in-goal area). Kerr-Barlow would have been entitled to hold the ball up if it had it been in air, but it was clearly on the ground and he simply dived on it and prevented Ellis from releasing it.

In all my years of watching/playing rugby I've seen people do this a million times and it has never been penalised. Nor should it, otherwise you would just have to fall over close enough to the line and nobody could stop you stretching out to score.

 

[donmcdazzle]

thanks nick for clearing that up.

the way I saw it it should have been a penalty to the chiefs for the Elis double movement.

you never know but 5 points would ahve been enough for the chiefs to win considering a penalty kick at goal would have been enough for a win considering all they would have needed was a penalty rather than a converted try. They turned down a number of kicks at goal going for the try.

Also a good point made above re: Romano's try.

I'm pretty comfortable as a chiefs supporter though, Chiefs forwards seemed to win a lot of the advantage line battle and the Lineout/scrum issues should be able to be fixed. Bit of Rustiness factor from the weeks off there as well with the bad start. The real concern is the drop in form/condition of Cruden

If I was Chiefs coach I'd think about resting Cruden for a game this weekend and starting Horrell. I think the team would be in safe hands I dont think Horrell has put a foot wrong all season. having Cruden fresh after a few weeks rest for the finals would be a big help.

He hasn't exactly been bad though. It is also pretty hard for a 10 to play well when your forwards can't win a set piece to save themselves. Although Horrell I'm sure would do a job at 10, no real point creating a new combo running into the finals and having guys try to adjust. He missed touch from a penalty once, which is an unforced error but other than that was alright. The problem in this game was up front.

 

[admartian]

He hasn't exactly been bad though. It is also pretty hard for a 10 to play well when your forwards can't win a set piece to save themselves. Although Horrell I'm sure would do a job at 10, no real point creating a new combo running into the finals and having guys try to adjust. He missed touch from a penalty once, which is an unforced error but other than that was alright. The problem in this game was up front.

I agree - people are a tiny bit too hard on Cruden.

He's definitely not alone in regards to players/refs coming back and having an issue re-adjusting into Super rugby again. Yes he's making mistakes, but hasn't really done anything to warrant being dropped out of the starting XV.

 

[nickdnz]

I don't think law 22.9 is relevant here though - I think it is taken out of context. It has more to do with a defending player receiving the ball within the field of player with their feet behind the goal-line - see 22.9b:

I understand the context, I looked it up

However the law is true regardless of what application it is used in. If a defending player has one or more feet ingoal then the player himself is in fact ingoal, and you can't penalise someone for holding up the ball why he is indeed ingoal.

 

[Shovenose]

I understand the context, I looked it up

However the law is true regardless of what application it is used in. If a defending player has one or more feet ingoal then the player himself is in fact ingoal, and you can't penalise someone for holding up the ball why he is indeed ingoal.

Again. It was a TMO decision so all that is irrelevant. What is relevant and what you should look at is the TMO protocol and its scope.

Golden rule of refereeing is not to guess. If you did not see it then do not guess and making a call on players reactions. The referee was unsighted hence why he asked the TMO. According to protocol from the IRB a referee is not allowed to respond to any additional information from the TMO which does not relate to his original question. What was the original question?

 

[donmcdazzle]

Again. It was a TMO decision so all that is irrelevant. What is relevant and what you should look at is the TMO protocol and its scope.

Golden rule of refereeing is not to guess. If you did not see it then do not guess and making a call on players reactions. The referee was unsighted hence why he asked the TMO. According to protocol from the IRB a referee is not allowed to respond to any additional information from the TMO which does not relate to his original question. What was the original question?

He asked try or no try. So like you're hinting at all he is allowed to look at is grounding (as all other activity was before the goal-line), all he could do was to say try since the ball was grounded. Whether there were illegilities leading up to it is beside the point as the TMO can't look at any of that. Seems counter-intuitive doesn't it. Although those protocols don't seem to apply to TMO's in South Africa against the AB's!

 

[Shovenose]

He asked try or no try. So like you're hinting at all he is allowed to look at is grounding (as all other activity was before the goal-line), all he could do was to say try since the ball was grounded. Whether there were illegilities leading up to it is beside the point as the TMO can't look at any of that. Seems counter-intuitive doesn't it. Although those protocols don't seem to apply to TMO's in South Africa against the AB's!

That is correct. He can not give anything more than what he is asked. So if the ball was grounded its a try. He can not give more info otherwise he would have been in hot water. That is why they are expanding the TMO duties. But only apply from August 2012 in the north and January 2013 in the south.

 

[Darwin]

thanks nick for clearing that up. the way I saw it it should have been a penalty to the chiefs for the Elis double movement.

No it shouldn't have been. THERE IS NO SUCH THIS AS A DOUBLE MOVEMENT IN RUGBY UNION! How many times do I have to repeat this Ellis didn't move himself again once he was on the ground anyway - he couldn't, as Kerr-Barlow had his hands all over the ball!

I understand the context, I looked it up However the law is true regardless of what application it is used in. If a defending player has one or more feet ingoal then the player himself is in fact ingoal, and you can't penalise someone for holding up the ball why he is indeed ingoal.

(a) Ellis was not in the in goal area - the law you quoted clearly states:

22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.

Let me make this simple. Ellis was the player carrying the ball. Ellis was not in the in-goal area. The position of Kerr-Barlow is irrelevant here. Case closed

In any case Kerr-Barlow wasn't simply ' holding up the ball' - he clearly dived on a player on the ground and prevented him from releasing the ball. Unless you can find a law that states that a defending player who has their feet in the in goal area is entitled to dive on a player tacked in the field of play and prevent them from releasing the ball I still see this as a very obvious case for a penalty try!

 

[donmcdazzle]

No it shouldn't have been. THERE IS NO SUCH THIS AS A DOUBLE MOVEMENT IN RUGBY UNION! How many times do I have to repeat this Ellis didn't move himself again once he was on the ground anyway - he couldn't, as Kerr-Barlow had his hands all over the ball! (a) Ellis was not in the in goal area - the law you quoted clearly states: Let me make this simple. Ellis was the player carrying the ball. Ellis was not in the in-goal area. The position of Kerr-Barlow is irrelevant here. Case closed Unless you can find a law that states that a defending player, who has their feet in the in goal area, is entitled to dive on a player tacked in the field of play and prevent them from releasing the ball I still see this as a very obvious case for a penalty try!

I'll repeat my above point: In all my years of watching/playing rugby I've seen people do this a million times and it has never been penalised. Nor should it, otherwise you would just have to fall over close enough to the line and nobody could stop you stretching out to score.