Crusaders vs Reds: Super Rugby live scores

Misha, the whole point here is about what is accurate and logical. And I have seen precious little of it in the highlanders last two games in SA - another one last weekend of a SA visiting team getting caned by a NZ ref pandering to the mob, and then finally the force farce in SA and then Bryce only seeing fit for one front row to be penalized for 'popping'. The whole local referee thing is a sad joke. And it is doing rugby no favours. And to all the boneheads who like to ridicule these sentiments with 'sour grapes' jibes, what the highlanders and SA travellers copped was no less confounding to this observer than the force's and reds' experience. Regarding Justin Marshall. I could not notice anything unbalanced in his comments. Something that could not be said about his critics here.

But I like to argue...

Red Kev, give it up. When you argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience ;)

McCaw was fine to run that line. If you want the ref to whistle those things the game will never get going. I like the way Mc Caw ends up standing at halfback for the opposition so many times. Very All Black.

Mishia has a point. Marshall jumps the gun all the time.

Bluerose. I agree. I can not for the life of me work out how those decisions were made.

my bad, meant to say that in the 2nd half reds never looked like scoring.

i apologise redkev if i came across conceited and gruff. it puzzles me with the scrums when teams dont take advantage of the situation. it particularly p's me off when a prop is boring in and the opposite is letting him. whenever a prop tried to bore into me it gave me the advantage of pushing straight thru him and collasping his side of the scrum. he was at an angle whereas iwas going straight thru him. hand on the ground tho is illegal because it makes it unstable. franks shouldnt have gotten away with it but to be able to recover and dominate was impressive. when ever my hand went to ground i had to absolutely stop and restabilise myself and i couldnt push until i was sure i had my balance else i would crumble.

From my view. I saw the Crusaders prop getting popped sometimes and the Reds getting popped sometimes, but the penalties did not always go to the popper or the poppie. I do not debate whether the penalties were deserved or that the referee made the correct calls. I am interested in hearing and seeing what the ref saw. Personally I thought neither team deserved to be penalised as the ball was playable at the time the whistle blew, "play on".

Gee I thought they did cross the saders line? Must have been watching something else ;)

Welll yes to the first, I was a much better hooker but got fatter and so got moved sideways :D I do not doubt that Franks is a better prop or that on balance the Crusaders scrum was stronger, but a penalty on half.time in kickable range was a big deal. The.Reds probably woukd not have won, the last 15 was all Crusaders, but it was a big momentum changing call.

So we know better than an ex AB's opinion on refereeing against his own countrymen do we ? The point has been clearly made and regardless of which side of the dutch you're on, that was a hopelessly flawed performance by Lawrence who should never have been given the gme in the first place. McCaw did change his line to impede but that was minor anyway compared to some of the other glaring errors, particularly at scrum time. Lets just agree that Bryce's use by date has come and gone.

redkev - well u must have sucked as a prop. anytime i see an oppostie with his hand on the ground is the time to attack and pressure and make sure he doesnt have time to recover. he's unstable so thats the perfect time to apply pressure. your rant of the advantages of putting your hand on the ground is only valid if the other prop is just standing there waiting , doing nothing. but then that is the problems with aus front rows. no inititive. your continuing on the line that this made a difference to the end result is funny. reds lost because they suck. they were holding onto the a slim lead for most of the game but never dominated. they may have been able to close it out but failed. when they lost the lead they never looked like getting it back or have any ideas on how tproactively get it back

Puttung your hand on the ground instead of eating grass gives you several advantages: - first and foremost it puts the line of any subsequent drive below that achieveable in normal circumstances - each time a hand goes down you get to relauch upwards which is the aim of a prop as you point out above - the steadying hand on the ground does exactly that, it steadies you when you have lost the ability to.compete with you opposite, it allows you to reset your hips and legs to push and steady the scrum instead of collapsing it (which is why I believe it should not be a penalty offence, but anytime you put your hand on the ground you should lose the rights to win a penalty or even dominance in the scrum, you should be restricted to holding status quo). Maybe you are such an awesome prop you have never had to use the ground to do these things, but as a guy who has, let me tell you, you can turn it into an advantage.

i wont carry on arguing with u as u have it in your head that hand on ground is an advantage. interesting though wrong

The fact you think that a hand on the ground in that situation is a disadvantage shows that you have never done it. I say again, IT IS EASY TO DOMINATE WHEN YOU USE ILLEGAL PLAY. Using illegal play does show "awesome technique" it shows you are a cheat.

redkev - no read slower. i'm saying despite franks losing the initiative and the hit and being initially unstable he still managed to dominate his man. yeah he should've been penalised (i've said this several times now but you keep ignoring it)for hand on the ground but reds also should've capitilised on his instability. franks with his hand on the ground was at the disadvantage and reds had the advantage but didnt do anything with it. your line "The only reason they stood up was because Franks kept putting his hand on the ground". this is wrong.reds had the advantage. his hand being on the ground means he shouldnt of been able to recover and pop his man. reds should driven through and not let him recover, but he did and popped his man. it didnt happen because of his hand on the ground, it hapened despite that. again, i'm not saying it was legal, i'm saying that despite such a mis time franks showed awesome technique to turn it around and dominate anyway.

So your argument is that if you make a mistake and are able to rectify.it by illegal play then that is right and proper? Reread your post, that is exactly what you said.

As soon as you put your hand on the ground you lose all rights to win a penalty. You admit Franks was at fault, missing the hit and illegally propping himself off the ground so how do you justify the penalty being given to the Crusaders? You can't. He turned it into dominance by illegal play, that is easy to do. Reread your last sentence and hopefully you will realise how wrong your statement is. It is easy to win if you don't play by the rules.

so u agree he missed the hit but still managed to pop his opposite? sure it was illegal but the reds didnt take the opportunity to dominate. the hand on the ground means the scrum is initially unstable on the crusaders side. franks stabilised his side and then went on to pop his opposite. hand on groundwas definately illegal but the advantage at that stage was to the reds who couldnt capatilise. dont lecture me about scrums. i know scrums intimately. I'm not arguing that the hand on ground was illegal. i'm pointing out that despite franks missing the hit and being disadvantaged he still turned it into dominance. getting lower and beign able to push up on the opposite is what every front rower aims for. it gives them the leverage advantage being lower to the ground. duh