Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
Super Rugby: Chiefs - Crusaders in Hamilton (6/7/2012)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Darwin" data-source="post: 515878" data-attributes="member: 24910"><p>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 <em>why</em> it wasn't a try. Here is the clip (from about 50 seconds on):</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcFPU7vnJS0" target="_blank">[media=youtube]FcFPU7vnJS0[/media]</a></p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcFPU7vnJS0" target="_blank"></a></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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....</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Darwin, post: 515878, member: 24910"] 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 [I]why[/I] it wasn't a try. Here is the clip (from about 50 seconds on): [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcFPU7vnJS0"][media=youtube]FcFPU7vnJS0[/media] [/URL] 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
Super Rugby: Chiefs - Crusaders in Hamilton (6/7/2012)
Top