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

[dasNdanger]

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.....

Correct me if I'm wrong (the old memory isn't what it used to be), but didn't the Crusaders start off slow last year, peak mid-season, then choke? Or am I thinking of someone else?


das

 

[Darwin]

Correct me if I'm wrong (the old memory isn't what it used to be), but didn't the Crusaders start off slow last year, peak mid-season, then choke? Or am I thinking of someone else?


das

I don't know if I would say the Crusaders choked last season, but they did start the season slowly. Traditionally they are very slow starters and build as the season goes on - this is the main reason I wouldn't be that worried if I was a Crusaders supporter...

 

[dasNdanger]

I don't know if I would say the Crusaders choked last season, but they did start the season slowly. Traditionally they are very slow starters and build as the season goes on - this is the main reason I wouldn't be that worried if I was a Crusaders supporter...

I thought towards the end there they started losing what should have been winnable...winable...games they should have won. I thought they were starting to look tired by season's end, but I may be remembering things wrong. I should probably just shut up and look up last year's stats...if I wasn't really tired and off to bed!

das

 

[ZeFrenchy]

I came here after watching the highlights to see if there was any discussion on the TMO's decision.
I agree 100% with Darwin: the tackle was completed as Ranger held Dagg and brought him to ground. Ranger released him, and that is when Dagg sholud have released the ball.

 

[William18]

Saying the Crusaders choked is a bit tough. They were simply beaten by the better team in the semis. They also did beat the Chiefs a few weeks before that. They finished the season quite strongly.

 

[dasNdanger]

Saying the Crusaders choked is a bit tough. They were simply beaten by the better team in the semis. They also did beat the Chiefs a few weeks before that. They finished the season quite strongly.

No, you're right. I just went back and looked over last year's results, and the Crusaders did have a good season. Like I said in another post, I wasn't quite sure I was remembering things correctly, and obviously I wasn't. Since I tend to follow the sport as a whole and not just one team, sometimes everything starts to blur together and I must've been thinking of another team, or another year.




das

 

[Shaggy]

Well, there's no way the Crusaders deserved to win, so congrats to the Blues, they are looking quite good at the moment ... I guess if the Dagg try had been awarded, it may have altered the game, but the dominant team won on the day, and, hopefully the Crusaders will play better from here on in

 

[Amobokoboko]

Will watch the game this afternoon.

 

[Larksea]

great game, and a fantastic result for the blues. Clearly the better team. Within the first 5min of the game I said to my girl friend "wow the blues are going to win this game". They just had more intensity and were still very accurate

the Dagg no try was an interesting call. I think looking at it you can argue both ways, yeah Dagg was tackled and maybe yeah there may have been a sec where he was free on the ground and maybe had the right to keep going. What maybe more interesting than the call was the situation which is a tough one in rugby, one of those situations that is really open to interpretation and refs could call it either way. I mean the tackler has to release the player but if the tackled player is not held he can get up and keep going! So what is the correct call?

I tend to think that if the tackled players whole body hits the ground with a defenders hand on him he has to release the ball or you are in serious risk of being penalized and so it was a good call.

Many standout players for the blues, Moala, Halai, Williams, Luke Braid, Weepu, I really like the way Retalick is playing but the main talking point again is Ranger. He's been an absolute blockbuster, everyone knows the potential he has, he is so gifted physically - one of those rare players with the natural speed of a winger and the build of a loose forward. I think his fitness this year is a whole level above what we have seen in the past and that combined with the coaching of JK & Ted has taken his game to the next level. in this form and with Kahui and maybe Conrad Smith out for the AB's he would be a shoe in for test rugby. but most likely we wont see it, sounds like he's off to France.

Damn can you imagine a Nonu + Ranger midfield outside Dan Carter?

For the blues as a whole man this is massive, two wins in two games against the Canes and Crusaders!? two top sides! when it took them the whole regular season to get just 4 wins last year! Really like the balance in the side with Cool heads and x-factor in key positions and a definite gameplan that works to their strengths. Also pretty obvious that their fitness as a whole is at a high level. I think JK is doing a great job but I think the edge they have is coming from Ted, as I said pre-season he is their x-factor and the reason why. And I don't mean for this to sound racist, it's not so please don't see it that way. He is a master at coaching islanders. It's just an acknowledgement that people from different cultures are well different and need different things. Teds experience in this area at elite level I think is without equal. As I've said many times Grahame Henry is more than a rugby coach he is a people coach.

Time to find some blue face paint!

 

[Darwin]

Good summary.

the Dagg no try was an interesting call. I think looking at it you can argue both ways, yeah Dagg was tackled and maybe yeah there may have been a sec where he was free on the ground and maybe had the right to keep going. What maybe more interesting than the call was the situation which is a tough one in rugby, one of those situations that is really open to interpretation and refs could call it either way. I mean the tackler has to release the player but if the tackled player is not held he can get up and keep going! So what is the correct call?

I tend to think that if the tackled players whole body hits the ground with a defenders hand on him he has to release the ball or you are in serious risk of being penalized and so it was a good call.

As I have already stated, nowhere in the laws does it mention you need to 'hold' the player after the tackle (indeed this is a penalizable offense!). There is a myth (perpetuated by commentators) that a tackled player can get up off the ground if they are "not held" on the ground, but this is not the case. If a tackle has been completed the tackled player must immediately release the ball. What constitutes a tackle is clearly defined too:
(Law 15): A tackle occurs when the ball-carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.

Therefore you are completely correct in saying that when the "tackled players whole body hits the ground with a defenders hand on him" he must immediately release the ball. Indeed the ball-carriers whole body doesn't even need to hit the ground - a single knee on the ground constitutes being tackled. The only things that don't constitute a completed tackle would be if the ball-carrier bounced off the defender and hit the ground, or if the ball carrier was ankle-tapped...

 

[Saint Matt]

If Dagg had done that on the half way line and not close to the goal line, nothing would have happened, no penalty, not even a second thought about it.I can see why the TMO gave the decision he did, but its not a great look when it happens so often in every game.

 

[Darwin]

If Dagg had done that on the half way line and not close to the goal line, nothing would have happened, no penalty, not even a second thought about it.I can see why the TMO gave the decision he did, but its not a great look when it happens so often in every game.

Yeah I agree.

Personally I'm not a fan of the new TMO powers that allow them to rule on the lead up to tries.

 

[Sam Owen]

I wonder what qualifications you need to be a TMO?..obviously you have to be able to see, I wouldnt mind it for a job. I'd be on TRF a lot posting 'what do you think guys, is it a try?' lol

 

[Saint Matt]

At full speed, Dagg was brought to ground but appeared not to be held, which is why he got up and continued his run. If the same events had happened on a seperate part of the field, it would have almost certainly have been play on. However, when you go back and watch it over half a dozen angles, you can come up with a technical infringement, and as I said earlier, the TMO made an error IMO.

In terms of the game itself, I think it was evident that Blackadder needs to take a look at his selection choices. The Crusaders have a great pack, as shown by their dominance in the set piece battle, but there is almost a sameness about their forwards IMO. Aside from Read they lack explosiveness, and a degree of mongrel I suppose. From what I have seen, George Whitelock is a good player, but I don't think the team is as balanced with him in it, especially when they bring Luke Whitelock in from the bench. I think someone like Jordan Taufua or Jimmy Tupou would take them to that next level, and would provide them with a little more balance at the very least.

 

[admartian]

In terms of the game itself, I think it was evident that Blackadder needs to take a look at his selection choices. The Crusaders have a great pack, as shown by their dominance in the set piece battle, but there is almost a sameness about their forwards IMO. Aside from Read they lack explosiveness, and a degree of mongrel I suppose. From what I have seen, George Whitelock is a good player, but I don't think the team is as balanced with him in it, especially when they bring Luke Whitelock in from the bench. I think someone like Jordan Taufua or Jimmy Tupou would take them to that next level, and would provide them with a little more balance at least.

The fact that he has Dagg on the wing to compensate for having a Whitelock on the wing is slightly concerning. I think Dagg can do as good (if not better) of a job that Tom Taylor does of clearing the ball at the back; and still provides that counter attacking ability (that Taylor doesn't have).

Until Blackadder stops succumbing to the pressure in Canterbury rugby circles and fans; and actually picks talent/performance instead of family bloodlines; then they're going to waste their potential.

 

[Darwin]

At full speed, Dagg was brought to ground but appeared not to be held, which is why he got up and continued his run. If the same events had happened on a seperate part of the field, it would have almost certainly have been play on. However, when you go back and watch it over half a dozen angles, you can come up with a technical infringement, and as I said earlier, the TMO made an error IMO.

While I definitely agree that if this incident had happened in another part of the field (and not lead to a try) it would be play on (as the ref had no issue with what he saw). However in slow motion I think it is pretty clear that Dagg should have been penalised, so I think the TMO got it right (despite this I still prefer it when the TMO could only adjudicate on what happened in the in-goal...).

In terms of the game itself, I think it was evident that Blackadder needs to take a look at his selection choices. The Crusaders have a great pack, as shown by their dominance in the set piece battle, but there is almost a sameness about their forwards IMO. Aside from Read they lack explosiveness, and a degree of mongrel I suppose. From what I have seen, George Whitelock is a good player, but I don't think the team is as balanced with him in it, especially when they bring Luke Whitelock in from the bench. I think someone like Jordan Taufua or Jimmy Tupou would take them to that next level, and would provide them with a little more balance at the very least.

This is certainly and interesting point - the lack of explosiveness in the Crusaders forwards has been a concern for me for some time. The forward pack generally does the basics right, but they are lacking powerful ball runners to create go-forward ball for the backs. Romano did a good job for them in this area last season, and I felt they missed him when he went off early against the Blues (Bird did a superb job, but lacks Romano's powerful ball carrying). McCaw was also used a lot as a ball carrier last season, so his absence hurt them in this regard too. I would like to see Owen Franks do a bit more ball carrying this year, as he has been very quiet in this regard over recent seasons. Tupou and Taufua are certainly intriguing prospects, but (unfortunately) I can't see them getting much game-time this season (as Blackadder is very conservative). Unfortunately adding Luke Whitelock to the starting 15 doesn't help the lack of explosiveness either (as you mention). Shane Christie is another option they have in the loose-forwards - he is a specialist 7, but is a real beast with ball in hand, so could be a handy option on the bench (as I can't see him surpassing Todd).

The fact that he has Dagg on the wing to compensate for having a Whitelock on the wing is slightly concerning. I think Dagg can do as good (if not better) of a job that Tom Taylor does of clearing the ball at the back; and still provides that counter attacking ability (that Taylor doesn't have).

Until Blackadder stops succumbing to the pressure in Canterbury rugby circles and fans; and actually picks talent/performance instead of family bloodlines; then they're going to waste their potential.

I don't think Dagg was on the wing to compensate for Whitelock. Dagg was on the wing to allow Taylor to play fullback, and because the Crusaders were short of wing options (with Guildford, McNicholl, and Baker all unavailable...). I certainly think Dagg should be back at fullback this weekend. I reckon a 11. McNicholl, 14. Marshall/Baker, 15. Dagg back three would actually be pretty handy, but it looks like it will be hard to remove A Whitelock from the wing with Blackadder in charge.

In terms of Blackadder 'succumbing to the pressure in Canterbury rugby circles and fans', I don't think this is the case. I think the reason he picks certain players has much more to do with the type/style of player he likes, rather than any pressure on him to pick these players. Blackadder seems to like players in a similar mold to himself - not the most talented players, but those with a massive work-ethic.

 

[admartian]

I don't think Dagg was on the wing to compensate for Whitelock. Dagg was on the wing to allow Taylor to play fullback, and because the Crusaders were short of wing options (with Guildford, McNicholl, and Baker all unavailable...). I certainly think Dagg should be back at fullback this weekend. I reckon a 11. McNicholl, 14. Marshall/Baker, 15. Dagg back three would actually be pretty handy, but it looks like it will be hard to remove A Whitelock from the wing with Blackadder in charge.

In terms of Blackadder 'succumbing to the pressure in Canterbury rugby circles and fans', I don't think this is the case. I think the reason he picks certain players has much more to do with the type/style of player he likes, rather than any pressure on him to pick these players. Blackadder seems to like players in a similar mold to himself - not the most talented players, but those with a massive work-ethic.

Haha fair enough. It still (imo) has that air about him, meeting in a dark room full of hooded figures of Canterbury rugby. :lol:

His selection has always baffled me though While I get the whole work ethic thing; rugby is still an athletic event and should still be picking players on that basis. Now if they prove to be a hindrance due to a poor work ethic; then absolutely change things up.

But historically and presently, the only guys that I think he plays with any star quality are All Blacks (in which case isn't really up to him as his hands are pretty much tied). Basically what I'm saying is, I wouldn't want him as an AB coach.

 

[tenpm]

The Dagg (non-)try reminded me of the Warburton red card from RWC. On one hand, it was a big call. On the other, the law says that it's illegal, and the decision was correct. Then you watch some games and you notice that the same offence often don't get the same call. And I guess it depends on your perspective whether you think it should be regulated strictly or leniently in important situations (i.e. knock-out stage, a try in an at-that-point close game).

Of course, one difference is that Warburton could've avoided that card but there wasn't much Dagg could do in his situation. In fact, I thought on first viewing that Dagg had released the ball after the tackle - and I was supporting the Blues!