Aaron Cruden's jiggly knees vs The Laws of the Game of Rugby.

locum-motion

{Dear Mods: I realise that this should possibly go straight into the Match Day thread, but given that there's over 1,500 posts in there already, and that this thread is intended to discuss just one specific thing, could I ask that this be left on its own for a while to see how it develops? Thanks.}


I've just spent the last few minutes reviewing Cruden's conversions on the RTE Player. This is what I found:

For the conversion after Franks' try, Cruden placed the ball and stepped back from it.
When the match clock said 65:04 (RTE Player's Broadcast clock 2:13:52), he stopped and stood still.
At 65:17 (2:14:04 on RTE Player), he jiggled his knees and the Irish players started charging.
At 65:22 (2:14:09 on the Player), he kicked.

That is, a 12-13 second pause before he moves his knees, and then he pauses briefly again before finally actually kicking it a further 5 seconds later.

You can quite clearly see the point when the Irish chargers sort of stop, and say "WTF?" to themselves "Is he running up or not?"

On live viewing, I hadn't actually seen his legs moving, but I basically assumed that he must have moved, because there is no way that 3-4 Irish players would have made the exact same mistake at the exact same time.

So, after Crotty's try, when the same thing happened again, I decided to keep a very close eye on his kicking style for the re-taken kick, and that was the first time that I noticed his tendency to jiggle the knees.

Looking at the missed conversion attempt on RTE Player, this is what you see:

Cruden places and steps back from the ball.
At 81:47 (2:34:24 on the Player clock), he stops and stands still.
At 82:00 (2:34:36), he moves and the Irish charge begins.
(At this point in time, it's a very wide angle shot, but you can clearly see the white strapping on his right knee move relative to Nigel Owens' dark hair, as well has his whole upper body tilt slightly to the left.)


So, the next question is: What do the Laws of the Game have to say on the subject?

The relevant Law is "Law 9.B - Conversion kick"

This Law is divided into
9.B.1 Taking a conversion kick
9.B.2 The kicker's team
9.B.3 The opposing team


9.B.3(a) says: (My emphasis)

All players of the opposing team must retire to their goal line and must not overstep that line until the kicker begins the approach to kick or starts to kick. When the kicker does this, they may charge or jump to prevent a goal but must not be physically supported by other players in these actions.

This has always been interpreted to mean that, once the kicker stands still, as soon as he moves again the opposition are free to charge.

Not only that, but, 9.B.2(b) says:

Neither the kicker nor a placer must do anything to mislead their opponents into charging too soon.

The sanction for which is:

Sanction: (a)-(c) If the kicker’s team infringes, the kick is disallowed.

Even if (and it's a massive IF) the interpretation of Law 9.B.3(a) has changed, it is very clear that Cruden's little jiggle that he seems to regularly perform about 5 seconds before he actually intends to kick is illegal.

Therefore, our boys were perfectly entitled to charge the kick, it should not have been retaken, and the result of the game should have been 22-22.

The ONLY mistake the Irish lads made, in my opinion, was actually in stopping their charge. When they stopped, it was like as if they were saying "Oh, 5hit, did I make a mistake? Maybe he didnt' move after all. I thought he did, though." If they had continued to charge, and had run right up to the ball and stopped a metre in front of it, the statement that would have made would have been "I am fully confident that I am in the right. The man started moving." In this situation, perhaps Owens would have asked the TMO "Did he move?" before awarding the re-take. By stopping, the Irish guys were showing some doubt in their own minds. (Also, given that it had already happened after the previous try, PO'C should have spoken to the ref about it, and asked him to watch for it. Maybe he did, but I doubt it. If he didn't, then it was a serious failure on PO'C's part)

I know there is a process whereby Unions can ask the IRB's Lawmaking department for clarifications on this sort of thing, and I think the IRFU should ask for a clarification. It wouldn't change the result that entered the history books, of course, but it would provide some sort of vindication for the 3-4 lads who charged the kick in good faith, and who are probably feeling pretty 5hitty right around now.

jamiedav2011

Know it isn't the real point of your post (which is a great one), but I basically stopped caring after I saw the try replayed and was going to be given.

Draw or loss in that game was basically the same thing for me.

errlloyd

I'd agree with the above. IIRC stringer was allowed to charge at JOC from the point he moved his arm! He didn't even move his feet, that is why I felt Luke was entitled to charge Cruden.

But as Joe said, a draw was a loss.

DG7

locum-motion wrote: »

So, the next question is: What do the Laws of the Game have to say on the subject?

The relevant Law is "Law 9.B - Conversion kick"

This Law is divided into
9.B.1 Taking a conversion kick
9.B.2 The kicker's team
9.B.3 The opposing team


9.B.3(a) says: (My emphasis)

"until the kicker begins the approach to kick or starts to kick"

This has always been interpreted to mean that, once the kicker stands still, as soon as he moves again the opposition are free to charge.

Not only that, but, 9.B.2(b) says:



The sanction for which is:




Even if (and it's a massive IF) the interpretation of Law 9.B.3(a) has changed, it is very clear that Cruden's little jiggle that he seems to regularly perform about 5 seconds before he actually intends to kick is illegal.

Therefore, our boys were perfectly entitled to charge the kick, it should not have been retaken, and the result of the game should have been 22-22.
.

Does the kicker not have to move his one of his feet towards the ball to be deemed to approach the kick. You move your knees/arms/head/shoulders whatever way you want but you are not approaching the ball. Surely approaching the kick only happens when the player begins to take a step towards the ball? He hadn't moved his feet towards the ball at the time the Irish lads charged.

Here is the definition of approach from the Collins dictionary "to come nearer in position, time, quality, character, etc, to (someone or something)"

He needs to move his feet nearer to the ball to be deemed to begin the approach.

locum-motion

When you quote a post that includes a quote, the quoted bit doesn't appear.

Yes, the Law says "approach", but that's why I included the bit about how that Law has always been interpreted. However, 9.B.2(b) is very clear and unambiguous.

DG7

What you say it's always been interpreted as, and what it actually says, contradict each other. Who has always interpreted it as that? Referees/players or is it that fans have thought that was the interpretation.

Regarding 9.B.2(b)

We can't be sure he deliberately did it to mislead the other team.

locum-motion

Actually, the law says "begin to approach".
The beginning if the approach is when the kicker moves.

Also, the law doesn't say anything about deliberately misleading the opposition. It just says "mislead". The Irish guys charged. Cruden had either started his approach or he hadn't. If he had, then they're allowed charge. If he hadn't, then he had (deliberately or not) done something that made them think he'd begun his approach. Either way, no retake.

Chucky the tree

Certainly a case for being upset about it happening the first time but their no excuse for the Irish players to have charged the second time. That kind of stupidity just highlights how poor our players decision making is when it matters.

RoyalCelt

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Certainly a case for being upset about it happening the first time but their no excuse for the Irish players to have charged the second time. That kind of stupidity just highlights how poor our players decision making is when it matters.

exactly. i was going nuts when they charged the second time. basically giving him a free shot on goal because if the first went over the ref would have just given it.

neilmulvey

jamiedav2011 wrote: »

Know it isn't the real point of your post (which is a great one), but I basically stopped caring after I saw the try replayed and was going to be given.

Draw or loss in that game was basically the same thing for me.

aside from the draw/loss thing, the ranking points would be important

Colonialboy

locum-motion wrote: »

So, after Crotty's try, when the same thing happened again, I decided to keep a very close eye on his kicking style for the re-taken kick, and that was the first time that I noticed his tendency to jiggle the knees.

Looking at the missed conversion attempt on RTE Player, this is what you see:

Cruden places and steps back from the ball.
At 81:47 (2:34:24 on the Player clock), he stops and stands still.
At 82:00 (2:34:36), he moves and the Irish charge begins.
(At this point in time, it's a very wide angle shot, but you can clearly see the white strapping on his right knee move relative to Nigel Owens' dark hair, as well has his whole upper body tilt slightly to the left.)

100% spot on .
That was the first thing I did with the old sky player rewind , whilst everyone had their head in their hands, I was rewinding and could clearly see Crudden did a little jiggle .

I think a draw would have been important, we would have denied them an dubious obtained 100% record, small, very small but some consolation for the great performance , plus the ranking points .

The players should have been allowed to continue running, would have blocked down the kick , the ball would still have been in play (?) and Heaslip would have run to the end line to score a try and win the match .

Dave_The_Sheep

Colonialboy wrote: »

the ball would still have been in play (?)

I think the game restarts with a drop from the half way, same as always. I may be wrong though.

'Tis a pleasant fantasy all the same.

gramar

Look at Johnny Sexton's missed kick. First he stands directly behind the ball for a good few seconds before he moves to his left to give himself a kicking angle.
When did the run-up of instigation of the kick begin? Should the kiwis have started charging after he moved the first time?

There is a big difference to 'approaching' the ball to kick it and adjusting position/posture, scratching your head etc before the kick.

iamjenko

gramar wrote: »

Look at Johnny Sexton's missed kick. First he stands directly behind the ball for a good few seconds before he moves to his left to give himself a kicking angle.
When did the run-up of instigation of the kick begin? Should the kiwis have started charging after he moved the first time?

There is a big difference to 'approaching' the ball to kick it and adjusting position/posture, scratching your head etc before the kick.

You can't charge a penalty, only a conversion

eyescreamcone

The Irish lads when they charged the first conversion should have kept going to the ball.
The worst that could have happened was that they would have been ordered back for a retake.
Cruden would then have only had one shot instead of two.

gramar

I didn't know that -thanks.

In any case a run up or approach should be and obvious attempt and not a knee jiggle or something similar. The Irish boys were too anxious to charge it down. That said I've never seen a conversion retaken for a premature charge-down. Very harsh and a bitter bill to swallow with it being the last kick of the game.

locum-motion

There's a very big difference between what Sexton does (step back, pause very briefly, step left, a proper pause, and then run up and kick) and what Cruden does (step back and left, pause for 13 seconds, jiggle, very brief pause, run up and kick)

Larbre34

So Aaron Cruden is the Brucey Grobellaar of Rugby. So what, big deal. We all follow teams that have been on both sides of a bit of gamesmanship or a 50/50 call by a ref. Its part of the game.

To be clear, we didnt lose the game, or even draw it because of an ambiguous rule, or a refs call or even through missing a couple of kicks. We lost it because it took every bit of energy our team had to operate at 120% of power for 25 minutes of the first half and work up a lead like that. We lost it because we failed to score for 48 minutes of an 80 minute game. We lost it because New Zealand have a depth of reserves and resources to decide to switch on and play any time they damn well like, and they did. Even when we were marauding around early on, New Zealand were stalking us, tweaking their gameplan to strike when the time was right. Half time gave them their few minutes to rehearse the necessary and then they just went and did it, no messing, no fussing, just boot on the throat like they consistently do.

Theres no shame in yesterday, just frustrating and heartache, no point adding to it by disecting the last 75 seconds.

locum-motion

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Certainly a case for being upset about it happening the first time but their no excuse for the Irish players to have charged the second time. That kind of stupidity just highlights how poor our players decision making is when it matters.

RoyalCelt wrote: »

exactly. i was going nuts when they charged the second time. basically giving him a free shot on goal because if the first went over the ref would have just given it.

What? Did you guys even READ the Law that I posted? You are both 100% wrong. What you are both saying is that, because Cruden got away with a breach of 9.B.2(b) after Franks' try, the Irish should just have said "Ara, sure we won't bother with the whole charging thing at all at all, so". Completely wrong. What an idiotic thing to say!

What should have happened was a word from the captain to the ref.

locum-motion

gramar wrote: »

I didn't know that -thanks.

In any case a run up or approach should be and obvious attempt and not a knee jiggle or something similar. The Irish boys were too anxious to charge it down. That said I've never seen a conversion retaken for a premature charge-down. Very harsh and a bitter bill to swallow with it being the last kick of the game.

I played rugby for 25 yrs (from about 9-34). In all that time there was not one conversion taken against me that I didn't attempt to charge down. (I never actually succeeded in getting one, though)
When you're on the line, waiting for the kicker to move, you watch his knees. They are the first part he moves. Knees move = go. Therefore a knee jiggle and then stop again = doing something to mislead opponents into charging too soon.
I've never seen a retake for early charging ordered in international rugby, but I have seen it in lower levels. Never happened to me, though, AFAIR.
Wondering about why bother to charge down? Does it ever work? Well, Stephen Larkham and Donncha O'Callaghan have both succeeded in charging down conversions in international rugby matches, and Strings did it for the BaaBaas as mentioned above. In that case, the conversion was in first half injury time. When James O'Connor moved, Strings charged. O'Connor stopped again. Strings kept running, picked the ball right up, and ran straight across the pitch and down the tunnel with it.
All three of those examples, and others, can be seen on YouTube.

Chucky the tree

locum-motion wrote: »

What? Did you guys even READ the Law that I posted? You are both 100% wrong. What you are both saying is that, because Cruden got away with a breach of 9.B.2(b) after Franks' try, the Irish should just have said "Ara, sure we won't bother with the whole charging thing at all at all, so". Completely wrong. What an idiotic thing to say!

What should have happened was a word from the captain to the ref.

The ref penalised for charging them because Cruden moved his knees in the first kick. What exactly did they expect to happen when they charged a second time at exactly the same time? It's about as stupid as you can get from the players involved in the second conversion.

drkpower

I can't see how what cruden does with his knees could be considered to be 'approaching' the ball. Also, As it seems to be part of his standard kicking routine, it is hard to argue that it is misleading. If it were a once off, I could understand the argument but not when this is his well established kicking routine.

Mind you, I Have seen other players charge too early against cruden kicks so maybe the law needs clarifying.

Of course, a little bit of prior video analysis of his kicking routine might have avoided this.

sydthebeat

drkpower wrote: »

I can't see how what cruden does with his knees could be considered to be 'approaching' the ball. .

no, but personally i think it could be interpreted as 'starting a kick'.

if his procedure includes this shuffle after he has set himself, then in effect he has started his kicking action.
Similarly to gopperth who has this 'chest out straightening' motion before he runs. Its the beginning of his motion to kick so i think so in these cases i think it should be fair game.

i dont like comparing with other codes but to me that shuffle cruden does before running is akin to a penalty taker in soccer stopping before kicking the ball... which is against the rules in soccer and rightly so.

neilmulvey

drkpower wrote: »

Of course, a little bit of prior video analysis of his kicking routine might have avoided this.

maybe the analysis was that once his knees jiggle he has begun his process

locum-motion

Chucky the tree wrote: »

The ref penalised for charging them because Cruden moved his knees in the first kick. What exactly did they expect to happen when they charged a second time at exactly the same time? It's about as stupid as you can get from the players involved in the second conversion.

What????

Nobody was penalised for doing anything at the first kick!

(In this thread, we have been talking about three kicks that Cruden took in the match. The "first" of these was his conversion of Franks' try. The "second" and "third" were the two conversions attempts following Crotty's try - the one that missed and the re-taken one.)

Ireland were penalised for prematurely charging the "second" of these kicks. The argument is whether or not they should have been penalised for this. The penalty imposed is that the kick was retaken (the "third" kick), and no charge is permitted.

Which kicks are you talking about?


(ps for clarification: there were also two other kicks by NZ: their 1st half conversion and their penalty. Neither of these two kicks has been mentioned at all so far in this thread. Personally, I didn't see the first conversion as I stepped out of the room briefly, and the penalty is irrelevant coz you can't charge anyway. I am aware thet the kicks I have labelled "first", "second" and "third" were not NZ's 1st, 2nd or 3rd kicks in the match, but they ARE the first, second and third of the ones we're referring to here.)

drkpower

sydthebeat wrote: »

no, but personally i think it could be interpreted as 'starting a kick'.

if his procedure includes this shuffle after he has set himself, then in effect he has started his kicking action.
Similarly to gopperth who has this 'chest out straightening' motion before he runs. Its the beginning of his motion to kick so i think so in these cases i think it should be fair game.

i dont like comparing with other codes but to me that shuffle cruden does before running is akin to a penalty taker in soccer stopping before kicking the ball... which is against the rules in soccer and rightly so.

It would require a fairly broad interpretation of 'starting a kick' though. Kickers have a variety of little ticks and peculiarities and if what cruden does is 'starting a kick' I would be concerned that you would chip away into what other kickers do. Personally I think the be refit of the doubt should be given to the kickers in these scenarios.

I think though that what cruden does is close to the line. And I think it might benefit from some clarity being brought to the rule.

drkpower

neilmulvey wrote: »

maybe the analysis was that once his knees jiggle he has begun his process

If he has been pinged for it before, then yes, that would have been reasonable. If not, I'm not sure if it was the smartest interpretation to take.

Chucky the tree

sydthebeat wrote: »

no, but personally i think it could be interpreted as 'starting a kick'.

if his procedure includes this shuffle after he has set himself, then in effect he has started his kicking action.
Similarly to gopperth who has this 'chest out straightening' motion before he runs. Its the beginning of his motion to kick so i think so in these cases i think it should be fair game.

i dont like comparing with other codes but to me that shuffle cruden does before running is akin to a penalty taker in soccer stopping before kicking the ball... which is against the rules in soccer and rightly so.

It's nothing like the penalty situation in soccer. Cruden jiggles his knees, then remains still for another 2-3 seconds and then starts his run up. A slight bit of cop on should is all the Irish players needed to figure out when they should start their charge.

locum-motion wrote: »

What????

Nobody was penalised for doing anything at the first kick!

(In this thread, we have been talking about three kicks that Cruden took in the match. The "first" of these was his conversion of Franks' try. The "second" and "third" were the two conversions attempts following Crotty's try - the one that missed and the re-taken one.)

Ireland were penalised for prematurely charging the "second" of these kicks. The argument is whether or not they should have been penalised for this. The penalty imposed is that the kick was retaken (the "third" kick), and no charge is permitted.

Which kicks are you talking about?


(ps for clarification: there were also two other kicks by NZ: their 1st half conversion and their penalty. Neither of these two kicks has been mentioned at all so far in this thread. Personally, I didn't see the first conversion as I stepped out of the room briefly, and the penalty is irrelevant coz you can't charge anyway. I am aware thet the kicks I have labelled "first", "second" and "third" were not NZ's 1st, 2nd or 3rd kicks in the match, but they ARE the first, second and third of the ones we're referring to here.)

The Irish players tried to charge the conversation for the Frank's try. Owens told them to stop, why they did it at the exact same moment on the conversion for Crottys try I have no idea. Did they expect Owen's to change his mind or something?

.ak

Chucky the tree wrote: »

It's nothing like the penalty situation in soccer. Cruden jiggles his knees, then remains still for another 2-3 seconds and then starts his run up. A slight bit of cop on should is all the Irish players needed to figure out when they should start their charge.




The Irish players tried to charge the conversation for the Frank's try. Owens told them to stop, why they did it at the exact same moment on the conversion for Crottys try I have no idea. Did they expect Owen's to change his mind or something?

They did it cuz from afair it looks like Cruden is taking a step forward. Simple mistake to make.

Chucky the tree

.ak wrote: »

They did it cuz from afair it looks like Cruden is taking a step forward. Simple mistake to make.

I can see why they'd make the mistake the first time, but to do it twice is just stupid. Second they know he moves his knees, pauses then starts his run up. Should be pretty simple for them to wait for the knee to move, realise he's then going to pause, and then get ready to charge the kick down.

.ak

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I can see why they'd make the mistake the first time, but to do it twice is just stupid. Second they know he moves his knees, pauses then starts his run up. Should be pretty simple for them to wait for the knee to move, realise he's then going to pause, and then get ready to charge the kick down.

Very easy for us to say.

sydthebeat

when your 30 meters away from someone and a split second is vital, a shuffling of knees can look very much like the beginning of a run.

In crudens cases, the shuffling is not in his process to "get set" he is set and then shuffles, thats why i compare it to the soccer penalty rule. To my eye the knee shuffle isnt part of his set up, its part of his finish.

Philo Beddoe

I took a brief look on youtube for a Cruden conversion to see what was meant by his 'jiggly knees'. The first clip that appears is the laser pointer incident in Buenos Aires. He was allowed retake that because of the obvious distraction by the wanker with the laser pointer, but sure enough during the kick one of the Pumas charged early and then stopped after misinterpreting is 'jiggly knees', just as the Irish players did yesterday!

I don't know if Cruden's little jig is any more of a beginning of his approach than Gopperth sticking his chest out, or James O'Connor putting his arm back, but he does lift his feet off the ground (or at least his heels) and it's obviously a recurring issue, so perhaps someone should have a word with him.

Chucky the tree

sydthebeat wrote: »

when your 30 meters away from someone and a split second is vital, a shuffling of knees can look very much like the beginning of a run.

In crudens cases, the shuffling is not in his process to "get set" he is set and then shuffles, thats why i compare it to the soccer penalty rule. To my eye the knee shuffle isnt part of his set up, its part of his finish.

As I said, no excuse to make the mistake a second time. They hardly could have forgotten what happened 20 minutes earlier.

Tox56

Chucky the tree wrote: »

As I said, no excuse to make the mistake a second time. They hardly could have forgotten what happened 20 minutes earlier.

They were hardly thinking as logically as we are in front of a computer screen 24 hours later after what had just happened. From a distance I'm not at all surprised they took that as a sign he was starting his run up

.ak

Chucky the tree wrote: »

As I said, no excuse to make the mistake a second time. They hardly could have forgotten what happened 20 minutes earlier.

As I said, easy for us to say. The players nerves would've been shot, they were ready to bolt, plus there was different players on at that stage, no? Likes of Fitzgerald etc.

Flange/Flanders

Im extremely furious about this, I had the draw at 50/1!

.ak

Flange/Flanders wrote: »

Im extremely furious about this, I had the draw at 50/1!

Sweet jesus. That's better odds than Ireland's out right win.

Sleepy

A question on the laws: if the first kick hadn't been a miss, would it have counted? Or would Cruden still have had to kick again?

Chucky the tree

Tox56 wrote: »

They were hardly thinking as logically as we are in front of a computer screen 24 hours later after what had just happened. From a distance I'm not at all surprised they took that as a sign he was starting his run up

.ak wrote: »

As I said, easy for us to say. The players nerves would've been shot, they were ready to bolt, plus there was different players on at that stage, no? Likes of Fitzgerald etc.

That's the problem. When the pressure is on we crumble. The great teams think logically in those situations and make the right decisions time and time again. We fail to do that time and time again.

.ak

Chucky the tree wrote: »

That's the problem. When the pressure is on we crumble. The great teams think logically in those situations and make the right decisions time and time again. We fail to do that time and time again.

I don't think that's true. I think we had some inexperience on our bench and some tired legs. That cost us. I think the ABs looked fitter. We certainly stood up to the pressure they applied to us a few times, turning them away from our line without any points to show for it more than once.

Anyway I don't think players confusing his run up cost us anything, but it's easy to understand why they did it.

hahashake

Seriously grasping at straws. Owens was standing right behind him as he took the kick and he is arguably the best ref in the world right now.

I could understand if he moved his foot or lurched forwards quickly as these could be misinterpreted as an approach but he did neither. Are we now saying kickers have to stand as still as statues?

At the end of the day they did the same thing twice and expected a different result. Put it down to nerves.

shuffol

It's very unlike Fitzgerald to time his run wrong.

DDC1990

From my point of view I couldn't care less whether the all went over or not.

A draw was as bad as a loss from the position we were in.

I was gutted as soon as the try went in regardless of the conversion.

On topic, I think Owens was right to give a re-take. Luke ran early for both conversions.

EDIT: Just read jamiedav's post. Basically exactly what he was saying.

Rightwing

Flange/Flanders wrote: »

Im extremely furious about this, I had the draw at 50/1!

Bad luck. I saw it @ 9/1 with 10 mins to go and was tempted.

I think Owens should have left that kick go, no one would have mentioned it. Seemed rather petty, to what was a good overall performance from him.

Buer

The charge down, even if deemed illegal, is worth doing. Test level kickers are largely reliant on routine and visualisation in their kicking. If you break their concentration, their routine is broken and the pressure intensifies. They might still get it but they certainly would rather being able to hit it first time.

There's no sanction for repeatedly infringing in this manner.

[Jackass]

Nice point re 9.B.2(b) Locum. But I have to agree with Jamie, once they got the last try I couldn't have cared less about the conversion (in fact I never saw the conversion or re-take as once the try was awarded I just walked out of the room).

Chucky the tree

.ak wrote: »

I don't think that's true. I think we had some inexperience on our bench and some tired legs. That cost us. I think the ABs looked fitter. We certainly stood up to the pressure they applied to us a few times, turning them away from our line without any points to show for it more than once.

Anyway I don't think players confusing his run up cost us anything, but it's easy to understand why they did it.

We stood up to pressure because a lot of that is on instinct and doesn't rely on decision making. But what separates great players/teams is that when the pressure is on they perform the same and most importantly, they make good decisions. I thought our play and decision making in that second half was very poor.

Swiwi.

Just throwing this out there...but let's imagine NZ are leading 22-17 with time-up on the clock. Replacement centre Fitzgerald goes over for a try in the corner, score 22-22. Sexton lines up the match-winning kick, and jiggles his knees on the spot. Savea charges down and the kick misses. Owens blows full-time...

C'mon, all kickers have their routines, Cruden's includes jiggling his knees on the spot, he's been doing so ever since I've watched him play.

BUT, regardless of whether Fitzgerald was right to charge, the fact of the matter is that at the previous conversion after Franks' try, Owens had indicated he would consider this an early charge, so there was no point trying it on a second time.

former legend

Swiwi. wrote: »

Just throwing this out there...but let's imagine NZ are leading 22-17 with time-up on the clock. Replacement centre Fitzgerald goes over for a try in the corner, score 22-22. Sexton lines up the match-winning kick, and jiggles his knees on the spot. Savea charges down and the kick misses. Owens blows full-time..

The Ireland fans would have accepted it with the good grace for which we are known.

Swiwi. wrote: »

C'mon, all kickers have their routines, Cruden's includes jiggling his knees on the spot, he's been doing so ever since I've watched him play.

BUT, regardless of whether Fitzgerald was right to charge, the fact of the matter is that at the previous conversion after Franks' try, Owens had indicated he would consider this an early charge, so there was no point trying it on a second time.

Ah he had to charge him, there was nothing to lose at that stage.

But what everyone on this thread has missed is that even before Cruden struck the ball, Owens was gesturing to the Irish players to get back; it was quick thinking by Cruden to go ahead with the kick anyway.

Owens, by gesturing to the Irish runners, had acknowledged the early charge so when Cruden missed, Owens had no choice but to allow a re-take.

Bridge93

former legend wrote: »

The Ireland fans would have accepted it with the good grace for which we are known.



Ah he had to charge him, there was nothing to lose at that stage.

But what everyone on this thread has missed is that even before Cruden struck the ball, Owens was gesturing to the Irish players to get back; it was quick thinking by Cruden to go ahead with the kick anyway.

Owens, by gesturing to the Irish runners, had acknowledged the early charge so when Cruden missed, Owens had no choice but to allow a re-take.

I would highly doubt Cruden was aware at all that Owens was gesturing Ireland to stop. He would have been fully focused on the kick and wouldn't have been watching what Owens was doing. I'd believe he only realised after he took the kick.
Plus how was he to know with 100% certainty that he would he get another shot if he missed? He wouldn't disrupt his kicking routine just so he might get another shot I'm sure he'd rather fully concentrate on the kick he knew he had.