Crusaders v British & Irish Lions, 10 June

First topic message reminder :

Crusaders v British & Irish Lions
10 June 2017
KO: 19:35 NZST (8.35am BST)
Rugby League Park, Christchurch

Live on Sky Sports, Sky Sports HD and SkyGo

Referee: Mathieu Raynal (France)
Touch judges: [tbc]
TMO: [tbc]

A. FORM:

2 June 1993: Canterbury 10 - 28 British & Irish Lions

28 June 1983: Canterbury 22 - 20 British & Irish Lions

25 June 1977: Canterbury 13 - 14 British & Irish Lions

B. TEAMS:

Crusaders
I Dagg, S Tamanivalu, J Goodhue, D Havili, G Bridge, R Mo'unga, B Hall, J Moody, C Taylor, O Franks, L Romano, S Whitelock (capt), H Bedwell-Curtis, M Todd, J Taufua.

Replacements: B Funnell, W Crockett, M Alaalatoa, Q Strange, J Brown, M Drummond, M Hunt, T Bateman.

British & Irish Lions
S Hogg; G North, J Davies; B Te'o, L Williams; O Farrell; C Murray; M Vunipola, J George, T Furlong; AW Jones (capt), G Kruis; P O'Mahony, S O'Brien, T Faletau

Replacements: K Owens, J McGrath, D Cole, M Itoje, CJ Stander, R Webb, J Sexton, A Watson

C. PREVIEW

No 7&1/2 wrote:Surely it was a bit of a step aside from warren ball once Sexton came on? It offered that variety and a bit more unpredictability.

Yes it did and in this sort of setup attacking success is always likely to take the longest. So if he can get Warrenball ++ by working in some subtlety on attack in the next two games then we could have a 2013, 2009 type series.

Things just got very exciting!

The Lions should have had a player in the bin for repeat cynical infringements and professional fouls. The referee let them off the hook there. DaveM, agree with you that the Crusaders were disappointing.

Creativity means nothing if you lose, where was the creativity today Taylorman? Really only in your attempts to devalue the win. I am just celebrating you squirming.

Gatland may be super predictable but if so why didn't the CC predict what he was going to do and combat it? I mean according to you its super easy to deal with right? But not for a team that by their own admission they only feed of scraps.

Gwlad please stop. This is embarrassing now.

Cyril wrote:Gwlad please stop. This is embarrassing now.

What's embarrassing is the NZ excuses being wheeled out, it was the ref, sore tummies, we won the scrum, they didn't play our game, our mistakes kept them in the game.

Embarrassing barely covers it.

The obvious has happened IT WAS THE REF's fault hahahaha typical bad kiwi losers. Some things never change.

rainbow-warrior wrote:The obvious has happened IT WAS THE REF's fault hahahaha typical bad kiwi losers.  Some things never change.

No one but no one I have seen or heard has said the Ref was the reason the Saders lost. But some just love to jump on that fact. All that has surfaced is the Refs interpretations were confusing and in some cases probably incorrect.

It is not common for the side having an advantage in the scrum, evidenced by the Saders on at least two occasions bowling the Lions scrum over, to be on a very lopsided penalty count, so there were queries out there. He was poor, but he wasn't the reason for the loss.

It has been universally accepted from what I have seen that the Lions were way to good for the Saders on the night, played at an intensity that the Saders couldn't live with.

Taylorman wrote:...It is not common for the side having an advantage in the scrum, evidenced by the Saders on at least two occasions bowling the Lions scrum over, to be on a very lopsided penalty count...

Used to happen a lot to Northern hemisphere sides when playing Australia, especially the Eddie Jones era Wallabies. The 2003 World Cup final was a stand-out example.

rainbow-warrior wrote:The obvious has happened IT WAS THE REF's fault hahahaha typical bad kiwi losers.  Some things never change.

Gwlad wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:The obvious has happened IT WAS THE REF's fault hahahaha typical bad kiwi losers.  Some things never change.

Yes thought you two were close

Taylorman wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:The obvious has happened IT WAS THE REF's fault hahahaha typical bad kiwi losers.  Some things never change.

Yes thought you two were close

do you do a haka before every post?

An excellent game by both sides if you ignored the one eyed commentary
by Barnes.You`d note the following the Lineouts went one each against
the throw.Long throws to centre field by Crusaders a planned move twice
the receiver slipped in possession.A lineout well won off the top was spoiled
by a poor attempted peel.
Brilliant defence by both sides and it shows when in Scrum/breakdown/
maul situations.Areas where the Ref can either side for multiple offences
at every one.
Playing the territory game where penalties/cards can make the difference
truth was had Crusaders.Opted to kick for goal they could of at worst
obtained a draw.
You win games by playing to your strengths the Lions did just that well
done to them.

Taylorman wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:The obvious has happened IT WAS THE REF's fault hahahaha typical bad kiwi losers.  Some things never change.

No one but no one I have seen or heard has said the Ref was the reason the Saders lost. But some just love to jump on that fact. All that has surfaced is the Refs interpretations were confusing and in some cases probably incorrect.

It is not common for the side having an advantage in the scrum, evidenced by the Saders on at least two occasions bowling the Lions scrum over, to be on a very lopsided penalty count, so there were queries out there. He was poor, but he wasn't the reason for the loss.

It has been universally accepted from what I have seen that the Lions were way to good for the Saders on the night, played at an intensity that the Saders couldn't live with.

No but what I did notice was the ref was endlessly mentioned by Kiwi commentators during the game, with constant suggestions that their "interpretation" favoured the Lions. Possibly a fair point, but there was an almost pathological inability to consider the Lions' efforts were a factor.

Stuart Hogg to see a specialist tomorrow. Doesn't sound good.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Stuart Hogg to see a specialist tomorrow. Doesn't sound good.

Would love to see the specialist's business card:
'ElbowInTheMushOlogist'.

Has Connor Murray been cited yet for reckless play?

The Great Aukster wrote:Has Connor Murray been cited yet for reckless play?

No, but Graham Henry has said he is probably the best scrum half in the world.

“Conor Murray was outstanding,” said Henry. “He’s a very composed player, he knows the game and he never gets rattled. He’s probably the best number nine in the world.

The Great Aukster wrote:Has Connor Murray been cited yet for reckless play?

It was mildly amusing to hear the crowd chanting "Off, Off, Off" when they say the relay on the big street.

Sin é wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Has Connor Murray been cited yet for reckless play?

No, but Graham Henry has said he is probably the best scrum half in the world.

“Conor Murray was outstanding,” said Henry. “He’s a very composed player, he knows the game and he never gets rattled. He’s probably the best number nine in the world.

What would Henry know! He didn't think there was anything wrong with the Umaga/Mealamu spear on BOD so his critical analysis might be somewhat lacking.

LondonTiger wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Has Connor Murray been cited yet for reckless play?

It was mildly amusing to hear the crowd chanting "Off, Off, Off" when they say the relay on the big street.

If it had been a Crusaders elbow there would have been a red card and a subsequent citing for what was a complete accident. If World Rugby are serious about making the game safer then Murray should be cited. They're not of course because that would be ridiculous, so they should stop citing opponents for accidental contact and calling it reckless play.

Sin é wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Has Connor Murray been cited yet for reckless play?

No, but Graham Henry has said he is probably the best scrum half in the world.

“Conor Murray was outstanding,” said Henry. “He’s a very composed player, he knows the game and he never gets rattled. He’s probably the best number nine in the world.

Yes he was awesome, really epitomised the Lions intent and is truly going to be a handful this series. Bryn Hall and Mouaga were completely out of their depth against the Lions inside backs and thankfully we have a much better quartet to offset them in the tests.

None of this matters, one thing we have learned from press and fans after this game is that no matter what, even if we win each test by 20 points, it will be the ref's fault and his 'interpretation' of the rules. So even if NZ get beaten they won't accept defeat, there always has to be an excuse that implies they were discriminated against.

NZ love the siege mentality, it's why they don't get humour.

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ love the siege mentality, it's why they don't get humour.

They're worse than North Americans.

The Great Aukster wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Has Connor Murray been cited yet for reckless play?

It was mildly amusing to hear the crowd chanting "Off, Off, Off" when they say the relay on the big street.

If it had been a Crusaders elbow there would have been a red card and a subsequent citing for what was a complete accident. If World Rugby are serious about making the game safer then Murray should be cited. They're not of course because that would be ridiculous, so they should stop citing opponents for accidental contact and calling it reckless play.

I have absolutely no idea if you are being serious or if you are fishing...

Sin é wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Has Connor Murray been cited yet for reckless play?

No, but Graham Henry has said he is probably the best scrum half in the world.

“Conor Murray was outstanding,” said Henry. “He’s a very composed player, he knows the game and he never gets rattled. He’s probably the best number nine in the world.

He was absolutely superb yesterday. Pin point kicks providing the Lions with relentless pressure on the Crusaders. It was one of the main facets of the game that stopped the Crusaders attacking play.

eirebilly wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Has Connor Murray been cited yet for reckless play?

It was mildly amusing to hear the crowd chanting "Off, Off, Off" when they say the relay on the big street.

If it had been a Crusaders elbow there would have been a red card and a subsequent citing for what was a complete accident. If World Rugby are serious about making the game safer then Murray should be cited. They're not of course because that would be ridiculous, so they should stop citing opponents for accidental contact and calling it reckless play.

I have absolutely no idea if you are being serious or if you are fishing...

Eh? , it is hypocritical of World Rugby to cite a player for say taking an opponent out in the air, yet if it was caused by a teammate that's fine. The trend in the Laws is to penalise more and more accidental collisions as though that in some way will make the game better. If a collision is accidental then it shouldn't be penalised irrespective of the colours of the shirts involved.

BTW some people take fishing seriously

A fair point but it depends if the laws state the words 'opposition player' anywhere. i.e. thou shalt not strike an opposition player, but strike the gobshoite in your own team by all means.

Didn't see this game as I was flying, so I might just miss the rest of them now

If nothing else, it has stopped a few people like Hersh chirping on certain sites. At least until Tuesday anyway.

The Great Aukster wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Has Connor Murray been cited yet for reckless play?

It was mildly amusing to hear the crowd chanting "Off, Off, Off" when they say the relay on the big street.

If it had been a Crusaders elbow there would have been a red card and a subsequent citing for what was a complete accident. If World Rugby are serious about making the game safer then Murray should be cited. They're not of course because that would be ridiculous, so they should stop citing opponents for accidental contact and calling it reckless play.

I have absolutely no idea if you are being serious or if you are fishing...

Eh? , it is hypocritical of World Rugby to cite a player for say taking an opponent out in the air, yet if it was caused by a teammate that's fine. The trend in the Laws is to penalise more and more accidental collisions as though that in some way will make the game better. If a collision is accidental then it shouldn't be penalised irrespective of the colours of the shirts involved.

BTW some people take fishing seriously

Totally different situations entirely and I cannot believe that you seriously believe this but having read some of your posts recently I can understand why you would post something like this.

Attacking the ball whilst in the air is so much different than than accidently running into an elbow. Players clash all the time when chasing a long kick, not all are intentional.

I bet you walk into signposts and then try to claim from it...

Gwlad wrote:None of this matters, one thing we have learned from press and fans after this game is that no matter what, even if we win each test by 20 points, it will be the ref's fault and his 'interpretation' of the rules. So even if NZ get beaten they won't accept defeat, there always has to be an excuse that implies they were discriminated against.

Yes have to agree with you there, and that's because we shouldn't lose by 20, so there has to be another reason. Good to see we can agree sometimes.

On the matter of scrum officiating, it does sound like the Crusaders hadn't done any work on what the referee might expect. That seems odd, since he was the man in charge when New Zealand played Ireland in Chicago.

I'd like to know whether Raynal operated any differently, or if the message just hadn't got through. Gatland suggested his team had prepared for both the legal stipulation, and the looser Southern Hemisphere interpretation. I would have expected the Crusaders to do the same.

Being a NZ side it was probably the ref's responsibility to acquaint himself with how the CC play i.e. #CreativeRugby, and make more accommodations to ensure their way of playing receives the enormous deference it is due.

I can see now an obvious and alarming pattern if Raynal was officiating in Chicago; clearly the NZRFU will have to do something about him pdq to ensure he can't officiate any more games involving NZ clubs or New Zealand's national side, perhaps until he has done a #RefereeingCreativeRugby course at his local Poly in between woodwork and home economics.

Perhaps there should be a cadre of pre-approved and trained referees who the NZ teams have to officiate #CreativeRugby and they would have to do monthly accreditation exams to ensure they are up to scratch. They could add value by marking the interminable hakas on creativity and costumes.

It appeared to me as though cynical professional fouls and offside play are tolerated a lot more in the NH given the way the French referee handled the game. I'm sure NZ teams will adapt.

The Great Aukster wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Has Connor Murray been cited yet for reckless play?

It was mildly amusing to hear the crowd chanting "Off, Off, Off" when they say the relay on the big street.

If it had been a Crusaders elbow there would have been a red card and a subsequent citing for what was a complete accident. If World Rugby are serious about making the game safer then Murray should be cited. They're not of course because that would be ridiculous, so they should stop citing opponents for accidental contact and calling it reckless play.

I have absolutely no idea if you are being serious or if you are fishing...

Eh? , it is hypocritical of World Rugby to cite a player for say taking an opponent out in the air, yet if it was caused by a teammate that's fine. The trend in the Laws is to penalise more and more accidental collisions as though that in some way will make the game better. If a collision is accidental then it shouldn't be penalised irrespective of the colours of the shirts involved.

BTW some people take fishing seriously

Particularly fishermen.

mikey_dragon wrote:A fair point but it depends if the laws state the words 'opposition player' anywhere. i.e. thou shalt not strike an opposition player, but strike the gobshoite in your own team by all means.

Reminds me of this story:

Ref: "Austin Healy says someone just punched him"

Martin Johnson: "It wasn't me, but I see 28 other likely suspects"

dummy_half wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:A fair point but it depends if the laws state the words 'opposition player' anywhere. i.e. thou shalt not strike an opposition player, but strike the gobshoite in your own team by all means.

Reminds me of this story:

Ref: "Austin Healy says someone just punched him"

Martin Johnson: "It wasn't me, but I see 28 other likely suspects"

Ha ha, using Auksters logic it could be 29, its possible Healy punched himself

There is some logic to what Aukster says, although I don't think it applies to the Hogg/Murray incident.

Players get penalized when a reckless action on the pitch harms an opposition player. As well as challenging in the air, it also includes smashing shoulder first into a ruck, or flyhacking at the ball with heads nearby.

Those last two actions in particular could just as easily harm a team mate. What Aukster says is that World Rugby often maintains the safety of players is paramount, so clumsy, reckless play must be penalized, even if there was no ill-intent. On that basis, you could argue that players should be punished regardless of who they hurt.

I think Brian Moore once raised a similar point, although he did so to illustrate how World Rugby's rationale was misguided.

marty2086 wrote:Goal kicking is the only thing Halfpenny offers so would have to be him

Absolute rubbish, his defense and positioning is some of the best in the world.

munkian wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Goal kicking is the only thing Halfpenny offers so would have to be him

Absolute rubbish, his defense and positioning is some of the best in the world.

Not really and it'll make not a bit of difference when Savea and the other monsters run over him

munkian wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Goal kicking is the only thing Halfpenny offers so would have to be him

Absolute rubbish, his defense and positioning is some of the best in the world.

And even better:

That's world class indeed

There's no context to still pics. For the top one, hadn't he made a tackle across the other side of the pitch?

RiscaGame wrote:There's no context to still pics. For the top one, hadn't he made a tackle across the other side of the pitch?

No he hadn't. Was stationary before a ruck and didn't get across. How would you explain the sun lounging pic?

Scottrf wrote:

RiscaGame wrote:There's no context to still pics. For the top one, hadn't he made a tackle across the other side of the pitch?

No he hadn't. Was stationary before a ruck and didn't get across. How would you explain the sun lounging pic?

The first pic, I was sure he also made a tackle on the other side of the pitch, will have to watch again. That try was not his fault positioning wise, it was Haskell who charged up out of the defensive line which left Nowell having to come in and cover Haskell's man which led to the overlap. You cannot blame him for Haskell's unexpected charge out of the defensive line.

Second pic, he actually had a very good position but missed tackles inform of him left him horribly exposed and that was some side step from the NZ player, not sure many could have done any better in that position.

Halfpenny is not my favourite 15 but I don't think he should be singled out like that.

eirebilly wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

RiscaGame wrote:There's no context to still pics. For the top one, hadn't he made a tackle across the other side of the pitch?

No he hadn't. Was stationary before a ruck and didn't get across. How would you explain the sun lounging pic?

The first pic, I was sure he also made a tackle on the other side of the pitch, will have to watch again. That try was not his fault positioning wise, it was Haskell who charged up out of the defensive line which left Nowell having to come in and cover Haskell's man which led to the overlap. You cannot blame him for Haskell's unexpected charge out of the defensive line.

Second pic, he actually had a very good position but missed tackles inform of him left him horribly exposed and that was some side step from the NZ player, not sure many could have done any better in that position.

Halfpenny is not my favourite 15 but I don't think he should be singled out like that.

He was singled out for praise by munkian and Scott countered that with the pics

eirebilly wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

RiscaGame wrote:There's no context to still pics. For the top one, hadn't he made a tackle across the other side of the pitch?

No he hadn't. Was stationary before a ruck and didn't get across. How would you explain the sun lounging pic?

The first pic, I was sure he also made a tackle on the other side of the pitch, will have to watch again.

Maybe he did, but if so it didn't affect his positioning because he was stationary for a few seconds while the ruck was ongoing. So if he wanted to be further towards that side he could have. Regardless I didn't say the try was his fault.

He was exposed for the excellent try but was left with a one on one and didn't even touch the player. I don't call that world class defending or positioning.

There are points for both I guess.

Anyways, we will see what Payne has to offer at 15 tomorrow. Just hope he doesn't have his standard 50min game before getting injured and have to go off.

eirebilly wrote:There are points for both I guess.

Anyways, we will see what Payne has to offer at 15 tomorrow. Just hope he doesn't have his standard 50min game before getting injured and have to go off.

How exactly is that his standard game?