Live scores, blog: Reds vs Crusaders

Only just seen this - Care to be specific as to where I'm boasting, mate?

The television director cut from one camera angle to the other on the pass. The point where the images overlap each other is a type of fade transition from one picture to another. Anyway, you can see that Wall-Nut is wrong because Ward caught the ball before the 22 and what he thinks is Ward catching it in front of the 22 is simply Ward catching the ball over his head and bringing it downwards at pace.

There's another factor you haven't considered - your eyes. Maybe you are cross-eyed....'fade transition' - are you serious?

There's another factor you haven't considered - you eyes. Maybe you are cross-eyed....'fade transition' - are you serious?

I'm absolutely stunned by that headline - how exactly was this an epic victory?

Hey, don't make sweeping generalisations out of the back of a single S15 match. As a Blues supporter, I couldn't give two shits what happened to the Crusaders on Sunday afternoon, the better team won on the day. Stu Dickinson's performance was no more and no less controversial than any other three matches this competition. WRT to POB, Paddy O'Brien is also the same head of the IRB who went in swinging against the NZRFU and New Zealand public after the abysmal refereeing performance by one certain Wayne Barnes during the RWC. And Dickinson's performance against Italy was absolutely fucking awful; hoodwinked by the very forwards that Robbie Deans then bleated about less than a month later. Don't forget - Kaplan is a South African ref, and Aussie teams do NOT like him. He's too precise; that gives McCaw the boundaries he needs.

Saying 'he reffed well at the breakdown" isn't accurate IMO. He may have pinged the Crusaders for some genuine infringements, but he ignored the Reds coming in from the side all day when on attack, and seemed very inconsistent with his standards for releasing the tackled player.

"Let’s just say that perhaps kiwis are not as good at losing because they are less experienced at it." So what's the Wallaby fan's excuse then?

Much the same as you then Pal Do you not see the irony in your posts you are making? One try off a massive forward pass that everyone saw including the tryscorer but Dickinson. The better team did not win. Like I said in an earlier post. The Crusaders were still missing , Dagg, Maitland, Ellis, Fotuali'i and the Whitelock brothers were playing in Brisbane against a Reds side at near full strength and lost the match on one point on the back of a very dubious penalty. Don't for a second think that the Reds will be slapping each other on the back because they will know just as any true rugby fan will know is that they got home on a very contentious call and many of their points came from unheralded poor reffing even by Dickinson s standards.

No my team is the worst in the NZ division I am not ashamed to say it, and so I hear this morning on the way to work are now $450K in the Red due to the cancellation of the Crusaders match in February. Strangely the Cantabs will be in the Black and they don't even have a home base. But yes the Reds were so good they couldn't even beat the poorest team in NZ right now. That's my claim to glory. Whilst the Canes are rather poor let's be honest here. They were still good enough to beat the table toppers.

Ah think you'll find if Richie actually spoke his mind Damo he would get fined as refs are nigh untouchable. So stop trying to twist actual facts. Richie CANNOT say what he really thinks and it doesn't take a genius to work that out.

Just like Ritchies cheating at the ruck epidemic ;) Crusaders lucky not to have men in the bin with those pro penalties in their half.

Probably because we spend half our lives - at work, in the pub or even trying to watch a QUEENSLAND home game at SUNCORP - surrounded by thousands of Kiwis telling us how awesome New Zealand and the All Blacks are... Seriously, I sat in the crowd last night, and the crowd booed Quade - that's how many Kiwis were there... So everyone now and again, when we win, it's nice to rub it in a little*.... *Relax I'm sure the Crusaders and the All Blacks will win everything again soon geez...

Actually I think it's a fair call that the saders didn't get over the advantage line consistently. The QLD defence was about all they did well. Nothing to do witth ref, just big hits.

A couple of further comments; - Slow (and/or inaccurate) service from half-back hamstrung the Canterbury backs to a certain extent - This wasn't helped by some poor passing skills once it got out into the backline - I thought they needed to adjust their alignment so that it was a little deeper - but they didn't - so were easy marks for the Red's rushing defence - Fruean was hampered by the above, but I'm not sure that he hasn't "plateaued". He looked great early season, but as the games have tightened up, so of his option-taking, and his basic skills have let him down in my view. He seems to die a lot with the ball now, or turn it over. He's certainly not the AB #13 at the moment!

Nice post, Brad. I agree that the Crusaders' backs weren't very organised in attack. The only play seemed to be Carter kicking for Guildford. SBW seemed preoccupied with his fight, and I have no idea why they don't try to run more ball through Robbie Fruean.

It was thrown before the 22 and if you look at the image on the fade transition between camera angles he catches it before the 22. If it had been forward, he wouldn't have been catching it over his head.

Record crowd witness Reds’ epic victory over Crusaders http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/05/30/record-crowd-witness-reds-epic-victory-over-crusaders/

I think you'r'e grasping at straws with your interpretation there. Momentun, hands going back etc in that situation (Crusader's try) is very different from the Red's one which was deliberately thrown forward. The distance of players from each other and angle make it pretty clear. Maybe watching it on the net distorts your view...

Just finished watching the game on Fox after being at the ground to see the game live. It's interesting - I was up in the top deck - around the 10-mtr line, and had a good view of the whole park. My impression of the game "live" was much different than what the tele coverage suggested. At the game, I thought the Saders were struggling to make much progress through the backs. Their backs' alignment was pretty flat, and the Red's rush defence was nailing them. Most of the time it seemed that the Saders backs were getting the ball flat-footed, and with no forward motion. They were easy targets to be picked up by the Reds defenders. And, their cause was not helped by some pretty ordinary basic passing skills - the ball was often slow, high and/or behind the receiver. Willie Heinz did not have a good game in my opinion - too slow, poor options, & poor passing (and that's not counting the try he butchered in the 1st half with unmarked runners both sides of him). I think the forwards lost confidence in the backs too - as evidenced by their refusal to let the ball out in the last 10 minutes when they camped under the Reds sticks. Sure, they got two penalties, but a try would have won the game for them. On the other hand, the Reds looked good. Swift, accurate and decisive passing - and it seemed they had a better sense of what they were trying to achieve. At the ground, I thought the Reds looked much the better team, and deserved their win (& I was there supporting the Saders!) On the TV, you couldn't see the big picture and alignment, and it looked the other way around - the Saders seemed to be all over the Reds. But - not what I saw at the ground.