Northern Edition
Select Edition
Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

'You take the shot at goal': Hurricanes late game management under the microscope

(Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

The Hurricanes late game decision-making has come under scrutiny following the side’s 24-21 Super Rugby Pacific defeat to the Crusaders on Saturday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Wellington-based franchise turned down a would-be three points with time up on the clock at Sky Stadium two days ago, instead opting to kick for touch for a lineout maul from a penalty rather than attempting to take the game into extra-time.

The team was in a long huddle deliberating the decision before assistant coach Cory Jane ran onto the field to communicate with captain Ardie Savea about the decision, presumably having been instructed to do so by those in the Hurricanes coaches box.

Video Spacer

Le French Rugby Podcast | Episode 24

The guests keep getting bigger, literally, as big Will Skelton joins us to talk Ronan O’Gara v Christophe Urios, the slap, the trilogy against Bordeaux, how he hasn’t heard from the Wallabies despite reports he isn’t being considered for the series against England, life in La Rochelle, who the team jokers are and wait for it… how he’s the smallest of three brothers! Plus, we look ahead to all of the Champions Cup Round of 16 ties and we pick our MEATER Moment of the Week…
Use the code FRENCHPOD10 at checkout for 10% off any full price item at Meater.com

Video Spacer

Le French Rugby Podcast | Episode 24

The guests keep getting bigger, literally, as big Will Skelton joins us to talk Ronan O’Gara v Christophe Urios, the slap, the trilogy against Bordeaux, how he hasn’t heard from the Wallabies despite reports he isn’t being considered for the series against England, life in La Rochelle, who the team jokers are and wait for it… how he’s the smallest of three brothers! Plus, we look ahead to all of the Champions Cup Round of 16 ties and we pick our MEATER Moment of the Week…
Use the code FRENCHPOD10 at checkout for 10% off any full price item at Meater.com

As such, the Hurricanes kicked to the corner and attempted a driving maul to win the game then and there, but the Crusaders contested the throw, with Scott Barrett competing with Savea for the ball in mid-air.

Both players took the ball to the ground before it became unplayable among a pile of bodies, leaving referee Brendon Pickerill to bring the game to an end.

Such a decision was surrounded by controversy, with Savea and Jordie Barrett both visibly distraught at Pickerill’s call as they felt a penalty should have been awarded for their side due to Scott Barrett’s involvement at the lineout.

However, former All Blacks wing Jeff Wilson believes the Hurricanes should never have put themselves in that position as he told The Breakdown in the wake of that match that they should have taken the shot at goal when given the chance.

ADVERTISEMENT

Wilson argued that by taking the match to extra-time, the Hurricanes would have given themselves multiple opportunities to win the match, rather than relying on one play to score a match-winning against a Crusaders side renowned for their lineout defence.

“You take the shot at goal and give yourself multiple chances to win the game, not just one,” Wilson said as he referenced the Warriors and their extra-time heroics against the Cowboys in the NRL last Friday.

“Ask Shaun Johnson [of the Warriors]. It took them four goes [at a match-winning drop goal] on the weekend. Kick the goal, get to golden point and then all of a sudden you will get more than one opportunity to win.

“By making that decision [to kick for touch], for one play, it was against one of the best defensive lineouts in the competition. They got up and competed and made it incredibly difficult to succeed.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I understand [the need to kick for touch] if there is no other option, but for me, this wasn’t the right one in this game.”

Related

All Blacks centurion Mils Muliaina agreed with Wilson’s sentiments, noting his surprise that the coaches called for the kick to the corner.

“It’s not so much what you would’ve done if you are a player, I think it’s would you would have done as a coach,” Muliaina told The Breakdown.

“They’ve got the benefit of looking at the situation from upstairs. You haven’t got the hype, you can make a really calm decision.

“It’s usually the coaches that sit down and say, ‘Okay, what do we do here’, without the emotion.

“I would’ve thought they would’ve gone for a shot [at goal], and say, ‘Let’s reset and go again’, and, also, against a team that has not conceded a driving maul try, I would’ve taken the shot.

“I was really surprised the wanted to go for the sideline. That’s my point. As the coach, you get the opportunity to say, ‘Where’s the game at’, without the emotion.

“Obviously Ardie was sitting there with his players wanting to go to goal. When they sit down on Monday to talk that over, because they will, I’m sure there will be some honest words from both sides.”

Ex-All Blacks wing Sir John Kirwan was the lone panelist in favour of the Hurricanes’ decision, but instead questioned the officiating of the lineout, which saw Savea sacked and turned after a questionable contest by Barrett in the air.

Barrett grabbed onto the ball while Savea was in the air, leaving both players to tumble and spin downward.

By latching onto the ball and falling on the wrong side, Barrett prevented the Hurricanes maul from forming properly. The collapsed maul resulted in the Pickerill calling a scrum which ended the game.

“They tried to win it, they tried to win it,” Kirwan told The Breakdown.

Related

“They had confidence in themselves. I would’ve kicked to the corner. I thought it was a great decision. However, the next thing is, was it the right decision from the referee when the player gets attacked in the air?”

Wilson said Pickerill’s decision could have fallen either way due to the ambiguity of the laws as he believed that Barrett contested the ball fairly, but noted that it could just as easily be argued that he played at Savea in the air.

“This one here was the most difficult for a referee to adjudicate. If you went to the law, and you looked at all the angles, you could possibly find a reason either way,” Wilson said.

“JK, you are saying he took him in the air, I think Scott Barrett goes for the ball at the same time Ardie Savea does. They are both holding the ball.

“It’s one of those issues where it gets complicated. All of a sudden it goes to ground, Scott Barrett then falls on the far side and then it becomes unplayable.”

Muliaina sided with Kirwan and disagreed that both players had the ball, stating Savea had secured the lineout throw before Barrett got involved before calling on the referees to make public comment about the situation.

“I disagree that both players have the ball in their hands, I think Ardie has clearly got that and got to ground first,” Muliaina told The Breakdown.

“Then Scott Barrett has come over the top of that. Yes, they are fighting for the ball, but Ardie’s clearly won that, so what is the referee looking at then?

“The disappointing part is he’s frustrated. I hope the referees come out and say something about it.”

ADVERTISEMENT
LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

1 Comment
T
TD 1189 days ago

I don't understand this conversation at all. Canes were the underdogs, had Crusaders managed to kick their goals the game would have been over earlier. They took the decision to go for the win rather than gamble that they could hold out a better opponent in extra time. You can disagree but I think it's quite logical.


The lineout itself is a separate problem. And for my mind, Barrett clearly has his arm on Savea before the ball arrives and is draped all over him as they go to the ground. It's not a grey area, it was a missed call. Which is fine, it happens, and it also cost the Canes the game.

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 13 minutes ago
Beauden Barrett weighs in on controversial yellow card

It’s an interesting question because a normal diberate knock on is just a penalty offense, an normal infringement like any other, so that’s deemed where the was not a reasonable chance to catch the ball.


But it’s a ruling that can also be upgraded to a foul, and by association, a yellow card, when it’s it was also deliberately trying to deny the ball to another player. For instance, that is why they are just given penalties up the field, because the player has just made a bad decision (one where he had no reasonable chance) and he doesn’t really care if the pass had gone to hand for his opponents or not (he was just thinking about being a hero etc).


So the way the refs have been asked to apply the law is to basically just determine whether there was an overlap (and not to try and guess what the player was actually thinking) or not, as to whether it’s a penalty or a YC.


This is the part Barrett doesn’t like, he’s essentially saying “but I had no idea whether they were likely to score or not (whether there was an unmarked man), so how can you tell me I was deliberately trying to prevent it going to someone, it could have been a blind pass to no one”.


It’s WR trying to make it clear cut for fans and refs, if at the players expense.

But yes, also you must think it entirely possible given both were foul plays that they could both go to the bench. Much the same as we see regularly when even though the play scores a try, they have started sending the player off still.


And while I agree Narawa didn’t knock it on, I think the ball did go forward, just off the shoulder. As his hands were up in the air, above the ball, basically like a basketball hope over his right shoulder, I guess you’re right in that if it did make contact with his hands it would have had to be deflected backwards onto his shoulder etc. Looking at the replay, Le Garrec clearly lost control of the ball forward too, but because Barrett was deemed to have committed a deliberate act, that overrides the knockon from 9.


I just don’t understand how they can consider it a deliberate attempt to block a pass when he actually lost the ball forward!

44 Go to comments
H
Hellhound 2 hours ago
Bok rule-benders are changing the game. They deserve respect

You want a lot of things that will never happen. You describe rugby League. You should go and watch that then. Rugby is supposed to be competitive. It's the opposition team that should figure out how to defend and turn it into an attack on the fly. The Boks play within the rules. Everyone says that kick off should have been a penalty. The law state that from a kick off it's a scrum. It's confusing as with mauls and rucks, the player has to be behind the kicker. The same does not hold true for kick offs. That law they can change, because the same rule should apply across the board for players to be behind the kicker. It's not the first time that the infield lineout has been used, only the first time in an international match. If I remember correctly, the Barbarians used it against England in 2021 or 2022 (under correction). It's also been used in SR during the 2000’s. There is just this big hoo haw because the Boks did it. If it was another team like the Irish or England or the French or someone, it would be innovative, genius and brilliant. The dummy the AB's did where a player broke to the right, acting like he had the ball, meanwhile the scrumhalfs ran down the sideline and scored. I don't hear you cry about that. That can be seen as cynical play and there is even a case for unsportsmanlike behaviour and at a minimum a yellow card. Yet there is silence from you about that. I on the other hand thought that was a great tactic. It's also not a new invention, but an old one. You only love rugby when it suits you. I don't care what new tactics teams use, or whoever the team is that is doing it. Every new invention or tactic or play that the coaches comes up with is great for rugby. It keeps it interesting. There is no law that prevents other coaches using the same tactics or create their own. It's up to coaches to come up with defense strategies to cut that down, and even retaliate against it. The game is never boring. It keeps evolving. People keep talking about rugby and all these things is what draw new fans. They don't want boring. They want innovative and fun. They want to hear the crash of bodies. They want to see the strength of the scrums. They want to see the speed, agility and flair of the players. The amazing passes and jukes or side steps. The only reason you are so up in arms is because the Boks did it and now you want it banned. The same rhyme over and over. Matt Williams wannabe. Nah, you don't love rugby or else you would enjoy the most exciting era yet in this lovely sport. Stars in so many national teams has never been more abundant nor was there so many teams that could beat each other on any given day. Not to even mention watching an era of the most controversial but most innovative and clever coach ever. A dynasty that's to last for a very long time even after he retires. Like him or hate him, his genius is undeniable and he is recognised world wide as the best coach in most countries by fans and pundits alike, even if they don't like him. Stop the hate and rather enjoy what's to come.

39 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING My British & Irish Lions team for the first Test – Andy Goode My Lions team for the first Test – Andy Goode