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

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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."

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.

"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."