Super Rugby-TT: Rd 4 Crusaders v Western Force, June 4th, Cchurch - 3:05 pm AWST
- Thread starter ForceFan
- Start date
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
I think that's called winning the battle but losing the war.
Dan54
Tim Horan (67)
Man you should be proud of them, all you can ever ask is they play with everything they got, and don't accept other team is better!! And they never once didn't look like they didn't think they had a shot at winning!
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
They put in for the full 80 and with a bit more polish a few more wins may happen in the future. I feel like we're building, albeit slowly.
Equalizer
Phil Hardcastle (33)
That's the Force team I know and love. Guts and determination Sure we made some bad errors which resulted in points against us. But, in this game I could see that the commitment was there and as a fan that's all I can ask. We are still lacking some top end talent and I've said we are still a year or two off. But feel a hell of a lot happier with that performance which has set us up to take down the Blues next week.
Equalizer
Phil Hardcastle (33)
Force have always matched up well with the Crusaders. Rugby isn't all about attack, you have to give credit for defence and play that can nullify an opposition.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
I am getting pissed off at what I believe is an obvious infringement that isn't being called by any of the refs that I've seen. At about 45.45 minutes the Crusaders were in possession and a tackle was made (the ball carrier was prone on the ground). The Force No 7 was over the ball when the Saders No 7 cleaned him out from directly sideways.
On one hand it could be said that a ruck had formed - I think there was a Crusader also over the ball or at least lying on top of the tackled player trying to protect the ball, in which case surely the Crusader No 7 came in from the side to clean out. Otherwise, it might have been simply a tackle situation but even then surely the Crusader No 7 was offside. In both cases I believe there should have been a penalty to the Force but iirc the Crusaders went on to score a try shortly thereafter.
And on the subject of lying on the tackled player for the sole purpose of stopping the opposition winning a turnover, since when has that become a legal activity?
On one hand it could be said that a ruck had formed - I think there was a Crusader also over the ball or at least lying on top of the tackled player trying to protect the ball, in which case surely the Crusader No 7 came in from the side to clean out. Otherwise, it might have been simply a tackle situation but even then surely the Crusader No 7 was offside. In both cases I believe there should have been a penalty to the Force but iirc the Crusaders went on to score a try shortly thereafter.
And on the subject of lying on the tackled player for the sole purpose of stopping the opposition winning a turnover, since when has that become a legal activity?
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
To deny a kiwi side a bonus point and potential risk of not making the final is next best satisfying moment if not the win. Just pleased to see the force fight to the end.
Given this is only the second season back in super rugby the Force are heading in the right direction.
waiopehu oldboy
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Highlights
Full credit to WF but the bonus point was in the bag, a 22-point win wasn't going to achieve anything a 15-point wouldn't have so in that situation you CLOSE. THE. GAME. OUT. Razor rightly filthy in post-match. Oh well, guess we've gotta rely on Reds and/ or Brums to trip up Loss Bleus and/ or 'canes now........
Full credit to WF but the bonus point was in the bag, a 22-point win wasn't going to achieve anything a 15-point wouldn't have so in that situation you CLOSE. THE. GAME. OUT. Razor rightly filthy in post-match. Oh well, guess we've gotta rely on Reds and/ or Brums to trip up Loss Bleus and/ or 'canes now........