Hurricanes vs Crusaders Round 8
- Thread starter Reddy!
- Start date
- Status
Jethro Tah
Bob Loudon (25)
Entertaining last 20 minutes. Fair try for mind but justice served with D Carter missing the kick as Crusaders did not deserve to win and certainly don't deserve to make the finals now. Nonu and Donald had good games.
The best possible result for the oz sides?
The best possible result for the oz sides?
Jethro Tah
Bob Loudon (25)
OopsParis Tah said:
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Good game; exciting finish.
On the "Is there any reason why I can't award a try?" request: it is not the first time that Kaplan has been perverse. If any team infringes time after time as the Canes did in the final minutes, including the times not mentioned by him, he has a tendency to impose himself in favour of the non-offending team. It's not the worst thing a referee can do I suppose.
It's of no use to complain to Paddy O'Brien because he was one of the worst when he was in an angry mood.
So; the Hurricanes may have been their own worst enemies at the end of the game, but earlier Kaplan and the AR made a blunder with the the quick lineout from which the Crusaders scored a try.
The Canes were unlucky then in the final washup. They made a commendable comeback and were dudded once and arguably, twice.
There will be a bit of angst over the ditch about the officials, and unfortunately, the fact that it was a cracking match will be overlooked.
On the "Is there any reason why I can't award a try?" request: it is not the first time that Kaplan has been perverse. If any team infringes time after time as the Canes did in the final minutes, including the times not mentioned by him, he has a tendency to impose himself in favour of the non-offending team. It's not the worst thing a referee can do I suppose.
It's of no use to complain to Paddy O'Brien because he was one of the worst when he was in an angry mood.
So; the Hurricanes may have been their own worst enemies at the end of the game, but earlier Kaplan and the AR made a blunder with the the quick lineout from which the Crusaders scored a try.
The Canes were unlucky then in the final washup. They made a commendable comeback and were dudded once and arguably, twice.
There will be a bit of angst over the ditch about the officials, and unfortunately, the fact that it was a cracking match will be overlooked.
L
Lachlan
Guest
Agreed. This game had me baffled a lot through the first half. The Crusaders, to my eyes, were infringing at the breakdown continually. Tacklers not rolling, first man diving in off his feet (almost every single time!).fatprop said:
Dissapointing ending, I was really hoping the 'canes would get over the line. Still, quite an entertaining match.
C
chief
Guest
Lee I agree with some of the things you say. I think that Kaplan should have awarded a try (which he did), I get the feeling Kaplan referred the matter to the TMO to find out if there were any reasons that he couldn't award a try. I think he saw the ball graze the line in a split second, but you can't guess and check. I think it was ballsy, but Matt Goddard I remember when reffing Argies v Italy a few years back did the best thing, there were bodies covering the ball, saw it on the line and awarded the try, the evidence turned out to be inconclusive, so I think Kaplan did the correct thing, and must applaud him.
C
CanadianRugby
Guest
NTA said:
Agreed. I feel very strongly about this.
spectator
Bob Davidson (42)
I thought the try off the quick lineout was a massive blunder. Not sure how anyone could have awarded that try at the end either. Heroic comeback by the Canes, and an entertaining game that they deserved to win.Lee Grant said:
Conrad Smith just confirmed to me why he is my favourite 13 at the moment. Does everything well. And I like the look of Freuan. He'll be in a black jersey some time down the track.
the gambler
Dave Cowper (27)
The interview with Kaplan answers most of the questions. He said he saw the ball grounded but wanted to check whether he had gone off his feet or if there were any other reasons why a try shouldnt have been awarded. Im guessing he was covering himself there making sure he hadnt run into his own player or something similar. While I dont like him, he has made the right call here.
Was worth the price of foxtel just to listen to the Video Ref try to phrase his verdict. Nervous boy.
Was worth the price of foxtel just to listen to the Video Ref try to phrase his verdict. Nervous boy.
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
If the ref feels enough doubt that he has to go upstairs, there should only be one question "try or no try". If it comes back inconclusive as this one did, standard protocol should be to eith give benifit of the doubt to the attacking or defending team by matter of strict procedure.
There is too much latitude in the system for it to be effective.
There is too much latitude in the system for it to be effective.
the gambler
Dave Cowper (27)
Completely disagree. The ref was in no doubt as to the grounding. He knew that the camera angles would probably not give conclusive evidence on that, so took that matter out of the video refs hands. Had the footage shown that there was definately no grounding then the TMO could have overruled him. He couldnt so you have to go with what the Ref said he saw. Think this was actually well handled.
- Status