Drama: The Hurricanes left it late
Related links
Teams
Also see
The Hurricanes needed a controversial try after the final hooter to claim a crucial 28-25 victory over the Chiefs in a pulsating clash at Westpac Stadium on Friday.
The result means that the Hurricanes can still make the play-offs while the Chiefs' second consecutive loss leaves the door open for the Stormers to finish the regular season at the summit of the overall standings.
If the South African side can beat the Rebels on Saturday, they will claim the top spot and with it a potential home final.
The game ended in dramatic fashion as Dane Coles crashed over with the last play of the game and television match official Mike Fraser decided to award the try despite a lack of clear evidence that the hooker had grounded the ball correctly in the middle of a pile of bodies.
It's a decision that will have massive repercussions for the play-offs as the 'Canes provisionally climb to fourth in the overall standings ahead of Saturday's six fixtures.
But perhaps it was a fitting end to a thrilling six-try fixture that deserved a big finish.
The dry conditions were ideal for running rugby but the strong, swirling wind made goal kicking a nightmare and both place kickers struggled at the tee.
Two tries from Julian Savea had helped the Hurricanes to a 18-15 lead at half time but an intercept try from Aaron Cruden around the hour mark looked to have snatched victory for the visitors.
Tawera Kerr-Barlow gave the Chiefs the early lead in controversial circumstances, darting over from five metres out, much to the dismay of the Hurricanes, who felt referee Jonathan Kaplan had obstructed Jason Eaton from tackling the scrum-half.
It didn't take long for the 'Canes to reply though and Savea rounded off a flowing team effort in the corner after Beauden Barrett had put the hosts on the scoreboard with a penalty. Conrad Smith was at the heart of the move, making the initial break before providing the perfect pass a few phases later.
Barrett's conversion attempt was off target but Savea was on hand to score the Hurricanes' second try on 22 minutes from close range. Barrett found the mark this time to give the men in yellow a 15-7 lead.
But the home side hit a major hurdle when Kaplan handed Ben May a yellow card for a late hit on Sonny Bill Williams.
Cruden pulled three points back before Ben Tameifuna bashed his way over the whitewash to level the scores at 15-all following a driving maul with just seconds left on May's sin-bin period.
Cruden was also struggling with the wind and couldn't slot the conversion but Barrett could split the uprights from long range after the hooter to give the hosts a three-point head start at the interval.
It took 17 minutes for the first points to be scored in the second period and they came in unexpected fashion as Cruden intercepted an inside pass from Barrett to cruise home under the sticks and leave himself a simple conversion.
Barrett needed two attempts to add three more points and narrow the gap to just one at 22-21 going into the final quarter but Cruden restored the lead with 15 minutes left to play.
And so it remained in the closing stages with the Hurricanes throwing the kitchen sink at the Chiefs defence in a desperate attempt to keep their season alive.
With time up, Coles dove into the carnage on the edge of the tryline. The debate is set to rage on for many moons over whether he grounded the ball or did so with an illegal second movement...
The 'Canes now face an anxious wait as the Crusaders, Bulls, Sharks and Reds can all still finish above them.
The scorers:
For Hurricanes:
Tries: Savea 2, Coles
Cons: Barrett 2
Pens: Barrett 3
For Chiefs:
Tries: Kerr-Barlow, Tameifuna, Cruden
Cons: Cruden 2
Pens: Cruden
Yellow card: May (Hurricanes - 28th min - late tackle)
Hurricanes: 15 Andre Taylor, 14 Cory Jane, 13 Conrad Smith (c), 12 Tim Bateman, 11 Julian Savea, 10 Beauden Barrett, 9 Chris Eaton, 8 Victor Vito, 7 Jack Lam, 6 Faifili Levave, 5 Jason Eaton, 4 Jeremy Thrush, 3 Ben May, 2 Dane Coles, 1 Reg Goodes.
Replacements: 16 Motu Matu'u, 17 Jeffery Toomaga-Allen, 18 James Broadhurst, 19 Brad Shields, 20 Frae Wilson, 21 Tusi Pisi, 22 Jayden Hayward.
Chiefs: 15 Andrew Horrell, 14 Lelia Masaga, 13 Jackson Willison, 12 Sonny Bill Williams, 11 Robbie Robinson, 10 Aaron Cruden, 9 Tawera Kerr-Barlow, 8 Kane Thompson, 7 Tanerau Latimer, 6 Liam Messam, 5 Brodie Retallick, 4 Craig Clarke (c), 3 Ben Tameifuna, 2 Hika Elliot, 1 Toby Smith.
Replacements: 16 Mahonri Schwalger, 17 Sona Taumalolo, 18 Michael Fitzgerald, 19 Sam Cane, 20 Brendon Leonard, 21 Asaeli Tikoirotuma, 22 Tim Nanai-Williams.
Referee: Jonathan Kaplan (South Africa)
Comments
new_j4a says...
@kitch, my sincere apologies. Reading your last few posts, I realize that a much more gentle approach would have been appropriate. Good luck with your rugby education. I hope you become a ref one day. And lastly you are absolutely right: this is a great rugby site.....and no, I NOT in anyway connected with the editorial staff.
Posted 10:29 18th July 2012
kitch says...
appologies ED but i am surprised you allowed such abuse to be posted and deleted mine which in no way matched newjs!!, and in fact had everything to do with previuos posts.. will try to refrain to reacting to bullyboy posters in future.. great rugby site!
Posted 19:38 17th July 2012
kitch says...
maybe bc you got abusive rather than sticking to the topic!... how do you know it was deleted??.. are you part of the editorial team!
Posted 19:32 17th July 2012
new_j4a says...
The editor says.... ENOUGH! Your comment has been deleted because it has nothing to do with rugby.
Posted 12:55 17th July 2012
kitch says...
with the taste of victory i say as robin hood "parting is such sweet sorrow"
Posted 12:33 17th July 2012
new_j4a says...
@kitch, who says "let me repeat.. the ref must FIRST determine that a player IS offside THEN he watches for any advantage..if none then penalty." You are right! FINALLY! Except that you are missing one step. You have come so far. See if you can understand this last little piece:
1. The ref determines that a player id offside <--you got it. your mother must be so proud
2.. The ref decides whether that fact materially affects play...i.e what would have happened<--try now....focus...this is the last bit to squeeze into your tiny brain!! Have you done it? Oh God, she'll be disappointed, but never mind we'll try again later. For those brighter than kitch (most of the world?) and able to understand this slight complexity, please note that this only applies to some offenses like offside and not to others like a knock on.
3. If the answer to 2 is yes, the ref signals the offense and plays advantage....OR he might coach....but don't worry about this....that is only for the much brighter boys who are capable of more than the fundamentals,<--you got some of this before but I am aware of how flimsy your mental grasp is.
4. If there is no advantage, then the ref brings the play back and awards the penalty.
Please note that I am not arguing with you about what happen or should have happened, but about the ref's role. You are far too stupid and almost completely ignorant of the Laws of the game although this last is improving at a glacial pace.
The editor says.... Ok guys, enough. Let's move on.
Posted 08:28 17th July 2012
kitch says...
oh newj...must be hard to accept you are wrong when you appear so intelligent!
let me repeat.. the ref must FIRST determine that a player IS offside THEN he watches for any advantage..if none then penalty.. if so advantage over!!!!...dont think about it tooo hard bc it is really that simple! Its just basic logic..and the laws do back me up too so thankyou for pointing that out..."A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does.." do you see it now!! .. an infringement must first happen and THEN the ref waits to see what happens as a result. How can "the ref first determine whether the offside player materially affected play" ..without first deciding that the player was offside in the first place??.. maybe you should stop trying to read too much into the laws! What should i be asking kaplan?.. what comes first.. the infringement or the ref determining what would have happened?.. i really dont mind asking as im certainly not deluded by my own intelligence!
did you happen to note law 8.3 when the advantage law is not applied.. i think this is where me and my mate justin are wrong as it says only when the ball carrier touches the ref.. it is not the refs responsibility here to wait to decide "what wouldve happened"!
anyway, i tip my hat to you, however,for coming around to my "ill informed" opinion.. conceeding that the ref possibly did get it wrong with the chiefs try... however arent you being hypocritical bc you have said (statement of fact) that bc the ref has soooo much experience then his opinion must be right not mine... or does that mean that you possibly have more experience than the ref!!..WOW.. and if i am potentially correct here then couldnt i potentially be right in saying the ref first decides that a player is offside then waits for any advantage??
Posted 21:41 16th July 2012
new_j4a says...
@kitch, who says "and i was blindly repeating what he said. " Indeed, that is basically your problem: "blindly repeating." By the way, it's the guy with the whistle that is the authority on the Laws not the players or ex-players
Posted 10:56 16th July 2012
APV1 says...
Now had the chance to see the match and, despite some interesting decisions, it was a cracker!
We can debate the why's and wherefore's until the cows come home, but it won't change the result.
Sandal - just google CAMRA...
Posted 10:52 16th July 2012
new_j4a says...
@kitch, who says "This also applies to the offside rule to which im afraid to say you are dead wrong ..how many times do we see..." I am reluctant to argue the Laws of Rugby with someone who gets his knowledge by watching games (with an incomplete understanding of the Laws) and extrapolating the Laws from what he thinks he sees and what he thinks the decisions were and then supplements this misunderstanding by listening to the commentators. As a matter of fact, it is you who "are dead wrong" with respect to the refs responsibility and the offside Law. I suggest that, as soon as you have improved your literacy (see first post for guidance), you google "materiality" along with "advantage rugby" and also find your way to http://www.irb.com/lawregulations/index.html and be sure to take a couple of the tests before going onto several of the rugby ref websites to further improve your understanding of the Laws. I suggest you end up at this site http://www.sareferees.com/ where you will be able to ask Kaplan himself for advice. By the way, it is entirely possible that he will agree that the first try should have been a scrum to the chiefs. I certainly think there is a very good case to be made.
Please let us know how you get on. There is certainly a LONG way to go.
Posted 10:47 16th July 2012
new_j4a says...
This comment is addressed to kitch who says "and for your reference "who says" is a question has always been a question since adam went to pre school, and will always be a question." Since English appears not to be your first language (that or perhaps you need to write a letter to your high school and request a refund?), may I refer you to your local library where you will find definitive texts on the use of the relative pronoun and also on the punctuation mark used to signify that a question has been asked and (except in the case of the rhetorical question) a response expected. Feel free to finish LOL before you set off to improve your literacy. Now back to rugby? <--that's rhetorical!
Posted 10:23 16th July 2012
kitch says...
newj.. youve done it again asking d4 a QUESTION.. "who says"! LOL!!! ..again clearly a "question of fact" as you YOURSELF have put it , not a statement of fact.. if you wish it to be a statement of fact, then say.."you said"..simple!
do you get it?? youve asked him where he got that idea from (ie "who says") then asked him to back it up with the specific law and to check the gym feed!!.. me thinks you need to check something... LMAO!!
Posted 01:47 16th July 2012
kitch says...
newj.. youve done it again asking d4 a QUESTION.. "who says"! LOL!!! ..again clearly a "question of fact" as you YOURSELF have put it , not a statement of fact.. if you wish it to be a statement of fact, then say.."you said"..simple!
do you get it?? youve asked him where he got that idea from (ie "who says") then asked him to back it up with the specific law and to check the gym feed!!.. me thinks you need to check something... LMAO!!
Posted 01:47 16th July 2012
kitch says...
symantics the refs role is both for different situations.. as i said before. This also applies to the offside rule to which im afraid to say you are dead wrong ..how many times do we see someone in the backline being penalised when they are no where near the ruck !!.. how many times do we see a player on the fringe of a ruck who is in front of the hind foot of the ruck, and even before the ball comes out, the ref signals advantage! Consequently the half back often picks the ball up kicks it out and the ref comes back for the penalty! Clearly he first asks" was the player offside" then signals advantage and at that point he sometimes waits to see what happens.... you said.. "the ref first determines whether the offside player materially affects play " (i think thats called advantage!)..now think about it...how can you first give advantage unless you have first determined that the player was offside???.. then he waits to see what happens (advantage)!!.. surely an intelligent ex ref as you can even see that!!
good to see you know how to use a computer to get the stats on the ref!!..however its a bit precious to suggest that just bc the ref has sooo much expeience, then he must be right on all occasions!..and therefore how dare anyone question his decisions whether player/coach/media or fan..except maybe when you say so??
and for your reference "who says" is a question has always been a question since adam went to pre school, and will always be a question.. it invites a response therefore is a question!.. and you are the one who brought it up so whose the sensitive one..lol!!.."I was taking issue with your incorrect assertions re the refs role".. i presume youll be writing to justin marshall next since, as i said, he was the one that said that and i was blindly repeating what he said.
Posted 21:03 15th July 2012
new_j4a says...
@d4tress, who says "He was moving his whole body after he had stopped dead without releasing the ball. That is not allowed." Can you please reference the Law, particularly the "stopping dead" part. Also, on the question of fact, I just watched the replay several times in real time and in several slowmo speeds and there is continuous movement till the ball is over the line. I'd ask the gym to check their TV feed if I were you.
Posted 13:10 15th July 2012
new_j4a says...
@kitch, the phrase "who says" is a statement of fact not a question i.e the post in question is addressed to kitch in response to something he said.... are you always this sensitive?
Posted 13:02 15th July 2012
new_j4a says...
@kitch, I do encourage you to have a go. We desperately need refs (I did some--too old now) What I am discouraging is ill informed ref bashing which is one step removed from that idiot who ran onto the field at Loftus. I encourage you to ask questions about the Laws (not rules....there are Regulations that are completely separate from the Laws which govern the game on the field)
You are right when you say what would have happened is not "the refs sole responsibility" You will notice that I didn't say sole. You are right when you say the ref first decides questions of fact (what did happen) and then in some instances...what would have happened. You are wrong, however, with your example "As is the case with offsides.. "was the player offside"..if so then advantage. " While you are right that a knock on results in a scrum advantage, you make a common error in claiming the same is true for offside. For offside, the ref first determines whether the offside player materially affected play i.e. what would have happened if he had not been offside. Now on the question of the try, you say "the cheifs gained a massive advantage and i felt the canes defender was close enough to be given the benefit of doubt" Okay, no problem, that is your opinion (from some distance? with some built in bias due to loyalty?), but your opinion differs from the ref who first reffed a game in 1984 while in High School and who has not only reffed RWC matches, but has reffed nearly 300 first class matches and nearly 60 international tests and is standing within touching distance of the action. I am not taking issue with your opinion. You are welcome to it. I was taking issue with your incorrect assertions re refs role. In many instances (refer to the examples given) it is the refs responsibility not only to judge matters of fact, but also to judge what would have happened.
Posted 12:49 15th July 2012
D4tress says...
I know this is done to death here, but just to clarify. I understand about reaching out to score a try, but he wasn't extending his arms - that would clearly be okay.
He was moving his whole body after he had stopped dead without releasing the ball. That is not allowed.
@new_j4a - no it wasn't westwood as I;m not a member there. It was the gym in our office.
Posted 07:30 15th July 2012
RodValvoi says...
What a crock! 5 min into injury time? Funny how the clock always get stopped for injuries these days. The game had to go till the Chiefs lost for only one purpose. Congrats to the Stormers!!
Posted 22:24 14th July 2012
kitch says...
newj4a.. i knew justine marshall was full of it!!.. i was incorrectly parroting what he said during the commentary... the rules seem to be a bit narrow in this regard as they only say "if the ball or ball carrier touches the ref" and if either team gains an advantage then a scrum must be set. Clearly the same should apply to defending players especially since the cheifs gained a massive advantage and i felt the canes defender was close enough to be given the benefit of doubt... if you watch, the defender was moving in towards the ruck before barlow picked the ball up, but then the ref ran in front!!
with the risk of getting my head chopped off again, i dont think it is "exactly" the refs sole responsibility to "decide what would of happened"..rather firstly "what did happen" .. take your example of knock on.. did it happen , if so then advantage. As is the case with offsides.. "was the player offside"..if so then advantage. The case of a penalty try is a bit different i think.. in that case he does ask himself what would of happened.
maybe we should get you a whistle???.. at least the "barfly" is apparently doing something constructive and giving it a go...you??... its that sort of sideline sarcasm that stops people getting out to officiate junior games. As fans our judgements are often clouded by our allegiances
"who says".. geeze man, i didnt realise someone else needed to comment before i could say something!! My point to d4 was simply ..there were a number of questionable decisions apart from coles try.. woe betide anyone who crosses you!
Posted 22:08 14th July 2012