Speaker: It's the recrimination I don't need …
230 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 10 Newer→ Last
-
Robinson's deficiencies were hidden by the fact that Ali had an absolute blinder (pretty sure he was responsible for all the steals). Robinson didn't play badly as such; he just wasn't as influential as you'd want from a lock in a knockout game.
But I will admit it was strange that Jack did the seagull bit once he came on; especially since we'd given up moving it more than a couple of metres from the maul by that stage.
-
I will say it again. Stephen Jones is right. It might be for the wrong reasons, but this time he is right. We arrogantly turn up and think that if the referee will just give us a fair suck of the sav we'll demolish all comers by 40 points, playing like the Harlem Globetrotters with a great forward pack.
Need a drill to drop a goal with five minutes to go? Nah - we are to good for that - we'll win by scoring heaps of thrilling tries!
We don't need a George Gregan chipping away at the referee and a coach with cunning tactics and a team full of sly buggers milking penalties to sneak victory. The All Blacks are above that sort of filthy stuff because they are bigger, faster, better, more athletic, Aryans of the rugby world are we, here to teach everyone about the game.
When it comes to rugby New Zealanders are far too arrogant and superior in their attitude and once again we've come crashing to earth at the world cup.
Its not the players - they gave everything playing a game plan based on a flawed cultural assumption of superiority.
As a Hawke's Bay fan I've got a pretty cynical view on the institutional aspect of professionalism in this country, we have the all our top players selected from carefully age group competitions then playing the same style of professional rugby for the same (basically) 3-4 teams, all with the same rugby culture from coaches and physios and sundry hangers on who have all been through the same courses at Massey. Its all become a very chummy cartel for the benefit of a few professional franchises.
We've lost five world cups now using exactly the same imperatives in our corporate decision-making at the top. Rather than stopping to think that maybe our whole system stinks, we just try and do the same thing, only better next time.
Once upon a time we would have had a first five who would have calmly dropped a goal to win the game and remarked afterwards that the pressure was worse when kicking the winning goal in the face of 50,000 screaming Cantabrians in a nail biting Ranfuly shield challenge.
No wonder our guys choked when the pressure came on - they have come through a system which has rolled out the red carpet for them and they've walked along it - they only hit the brick wall of pressure in games like Sunday's, and by then its to late for them to learn how to cope.
-
Exactly right. It was the ref who stopped us scoring tries despite our glut of posession. It was the ref who decided ...
And on and on. Yes, the All Blacks lacked composure when things went wobbly, and yes there were failures of leadership and selection. But why can't you acknowledge that the referee's performance also had a significant impact on the result?
And in the case of this caught-on-camera offside-entering-from-the-side-hands-in-the-ruck escapade in the French tryline with five minutes to go, the referee quite possibly did stop the All Blacks scoring a try.
I presume you feel some virtue in poo-pooing it all, and good luck to you, but in a very tight match, a lot of points scored against the ABs had to do with poor decisions. And, unfortunately, they weren't able to score loadsa more points like we'd all like them to.
Barnes was in his sixth ever test match, and lost the plot. But don't take my word for it: I was on the radio with Fergie McCormick today, and he said so ...
-
Except he had his backed turned to him is a decent sized exception.
Even backhanded I cannot see Luke McAlisatiar with his arm across the chest.The thing that might have given pause to a more experienced referee than Barnes was Jauzion's Olympic-class dive. If you look at the clip (and lord knows I have) there clearly isn't any impact of that nature. The French deserved three points under the advantage, but the yellow card was sheerl n00b panic.
-
I refuse to blame to referee.
I blame the person who appointed him to officiate a game he clearly was not capable of refereeing.
And is not a kiwi, Paddy O'Brien, the IRB refereeing supremo?
-
Yes, the All Blacks lacked composure when things went wobbly, and yes there were failures of leadership and selection. But why can't you acknowledge that the referee's performance also had a significant impact on the result?
I don't think anybody is saying that the referee had a great day, and it's pretty obvious that in a two point game you don't need many calls to go against the losing team in order to say that the referee had a significant impact on the result. Hell, the correct call on the forward pass alone makes that score a pretty big mountain to climb for the French. But I think it was you who quoted the Haka message of support to the ABs which blamed the whole thing on the ref, and I'd say that it's not what it's about; that refereeing mistakes are part of high pressure games (low pressure ones too), let alone against the tournament hosts; that in hardly any game the score actually starts at nil-nil, in that regard. You ride your luck and luck wasn't on the AB's side, but to say that the best team didn't win on the day (quoting the guy from Haka here) still seems counter to the culture somehow. It's more of a soccer thing, and believe me I grew up among that rubbish - I'd rather it weren't part of the discourse at all than on the few occasions when it makes a certain amount of sense.
-
merc,
I heard the Fergie quote (great show BTW, it was riveting radio) about the game now being pro and the need for accountability from refs. He is right, but there is no transparency for refs and now with the money at stake, maybe they (the refs) are going to have to open up to scrutiny?
-
I refuse to blame to referee.
'nuff said
the referee had a significant impact on the result.
Who had a bigger impact?
-
Of course the ref had an big impact. I have been watching rugby in the UK and NZ for nearly thirty years and I have never, ever seen a full half go by without at least one penalty being awarded to each side.
The fact that the French, in desperate defense mode, didn't have a single penalty against them in the second half speaks volumes for his capability.
I also think the ABs could have won this despite that but they lacked confidence at the breakdown. And good on the French. They played a very cunning game and played it bravely. I hope and pray that this time they have more than one good game in them.
-
Of course the ref had an big impact
Who had a bigger impact on the result? Answer that honestly and then we can all continue with the age old discussion about the mythical perfect game the AB’s are supposed to play.
It’s not about the French. They brought the best game in them. Good luck to them.
It is just grossly disingenuous to pick apart the AB’s performance while ignoring that a 17 point swing and a rewrite of the offside laws had a far bigger impact to the final result.
-
You ride your luck and luck wasn't on the AB's side, but to say that the best team didn't win on the day (quoting the guy from Haka here) still seems counter to the culture somehow. It's more of a soccer thing, and believe me I grew up among that rubbish - I'd rather it weren't part of the discourse at all than on the few occasions when it makes a certain amount of sense.
Uh huh.
It appears you fail to see the totally soccer-style hollywood that predicated McAlister's erroneous sin binning.
</irony>
I'll take the All Blacks results under Henry (circa 42/48) or our historical results against France 34/46 (yes, I just watched Campbell) any day over a RWC quarter final presided over by a n00b, out-of-his-depth referee any day.
-
Slightly off topic:
The lead story on the Herald's webpage included these two sentences:"Angry All Black fans have struck out hard on the internet, posting on a site dedicated to the "hatred" of referee Wayne Barnes.
A page on the social networking site Bebo is dedicated to criticism of Mr Barnes."My (admittedly unscientific and hastily done) search reveals about 60 articles since June last year where Bebo is referenced as a source for a story. Including this gem "Some pages on Bebo reference gang culture"
WTF?
Do these people just sit there monitoring Bebo for possible stories?
-
In many ways this match reminded me of the 2000 Super 12 final, with the French as the Crusaders and the ABs as the Brumbies. On that occasion the teams with no possession and no territory also beat the team with one tactic.
-
Oh and also slightly off topic, but am I the only person who was shocked to see tears in Dan Carter's eyes when he came off? I know its all very metrosexual and snaggy for guys to cry and stuff, and I am all for expressing how you feel, and I thought it was brilliant that the first ad after we lost was the family violence one.
But rugby is about strong male values, and blubbing (in public while the game is still on) isn't what I expect from test match hardened All Blacks.
For better or for worse, honestly my immediate, instinctive reaction was to think "For God's sake stop grizzling like schoolboy and start acting like man."
-
But rugby is about strong male values, and blubbing (in public while the game is still on) isn't what I expect from test match hardened All Blacks.
I am so glad your anally retentive, hopelessly retarded, minimalist emotional palette is rejected by rugby heroes such as Dan Carter. Boys need emotionally capable men to look up to, not the throwsback of yesteryear.
I agree that rugby espouses many masculine values. But those values don't include being a sniping prick. Then again, given your coprolitic emotional rhetoric, I suspect you will disagree.
-
I for one am shocked, nay, horrified, that a man chosen above all others for the supreme honour of representing our country in the hallowed black jersey could sink as low as to feel any kind of dismay at the culmination of years of training ending in such an unexpexted fashion. Imagine him having the temerity to even consider feeling upset at the outcome of a game of such importance.
I ain't into the rugger enough to shed a tear over us not winning the cup (again) but the thought of another generation being expected to clam up and endure everything with utter stoicism could bring a tear to my eye.
While you were applauding the family violence ad, did you spare a thought for JK and his plea to not just harden up? -
"But those values don't include being a sniping prick."
Twisting it a little - but a mouthy git/sniping prick is exactly who we needed on the field - a Mashall or Weepu - not a porn star - shud've known we were fked then.
-
I refuse to blame to referee.
I blame the person who appointed him to officiate a game he clearly was not capable of refereeing.
And is not a kiwi, Paddy O'Brien, the IRB refereeing supremo?I just checked Barnes' record. It's much worse than I thought.
Before this tournament started, Barnes had controlled ONE game at the highest level: France vs Italy in last year's Six Nations
His three other tests were in last year's Pacific Five Nations.
WTF?
Barnes appears to be the new golden boy in English rugby, so presumably there was politics involved, but there's something badly wrong there.
-
The Carter kick was part of a period of play where we couldn't clear it from our line leading up to the first French points; HUGELY SIGNIFICANT in the balance of the match. That is discussing what happened on the field.
So that'd be the sort of "hugely significant" event where no one scored or was penalised or got injured and the ball didn't change hands?
Let it go, man ...
-
I’ve just heard former All Black coach Graham Henry say on TV the Luke sin-binning was significant because it occurred when the All Blacks were on top.
If we were so on top, why were we illegally obstructing players to stop a try being scored?
I presume he meant on top, as in, we were up 13-3 at that stage.
And if you follow the argument that that McAlister didn't illegally obstruct a player, just turned around and held his line... er, what was your point?
Ignoring what Tom said about Dan Carter, because I'd bet good money that all of the All Blacks shed some tears yesterday, and so what...One thing I wanted to know watching the game was what was going through Carter's head when that shot was taken of him sitting behind Oliver. He was clearly upset - did he see the writing on the wall? Was he upset about being taken off in a big game? Worried that his injury would put him out of the rest of the cup?
He's not a person we hear from a lot, and he's such a talented player who sees the game really well, I want someone to ask him what was in his head at that moment.
-
Twisting it a little - but a mouthy git/sniping prick is exactly who we needed on the field - a Mashall or Weepu - not a porn star - shud've known we were fked then.
If you mean Greganesque referee ear-chewing, then I'll concede that (sometimes incessant) direct communication is a masculine value, and has been used to some effect in test rugby.
However, I wouldn't classify it as sniping, which seems to be Tom's speciality.
-
Oh and also slightly off topic, but am I the only person who was shocked to see tears in Dan Carter's eyes when he came off?
Like Kyle says, I thought at the time that Dan was probably upset that his own tournament was over with his injury - it's fairly unusual to see All Blacks come off when the teams' a few points down and burst into tears.
Again with the football comparrisons, but when Gazza burst into tears at Italia '90 he became a national hero in England - Dan's tears have barely rated a mention here.
-
I just checked Barnes' record. It's much worse than I thought.
Answers a lot of questions. "Stitch up" doesn’t seem any less appropriate.
I just feel gutted for the All Blacks.
-
I just checked Barnes' record. It's much worse than I thought.
Before this tournament started, Barnes had controlled ONE game at the highest level: France vs Italy in last year's Six Nations
His three other tests were in last year's Pacific Five Nations.
WTF?
Barnes appears to be the new golden boy in English rugby, so presumably there was politics involved, but there's something badly wrong there.
You're shitting me! I'd have thought the four quarters would be reffed by the four top refs with whatever allowances for potential conflicts of interest - is this guy really one of England's top refs?
-
why can't you acknowledge that the referee's performance also had a significant impact on the result?
Look, I don't want for a minute to come off as a cheerleader for Wayne Barnes. Clearly some of his decisions were marginal at best (yellow card) or very liberal (offside? What's that?) but at least in the latter area he was consistent. I don't mind conceding that it wasn't a brilliant performance from him.
But referees ALWAYS have a significant outcome on the result. You'll recall that the game we are discussing is rugby union, a game with more laws than many developed nations, and even more possible interpretations. Sometimes the refs get it right, sometimes not so much. Arguments along the lines of "these are professional referees, paid to get it right" are just nonsense. How many other professionals do you know who don't make mistakes? You'll never take the human element out of the officiating unless you have the game refereed by robots. (Tangent: or PLAYED by robots too! Now that would be cool...)
My point, and I do have one, is that the ABs had only themselves (and a passionate french team) to blame for the loss. To blame Barnes for the final try is to excuse the weak tackling that allowed the pass to be made in the first place. To blame Barnes for not penalising the persistent French offending at the fringes of the ruck is to ignore the fact that the ABs never changed their tactics when it should have been obvious that the hit-ups weren't working.
I guess what annoys me most about the post-mortem of any major ABs defeat is that, miraculously, its almost NEVER the because they were out-thought or outplayed by a better team. If only the ref hadn't been blind/inexperienced/biased, then the All Blacks would have won. Well, bollocks. The French won and should be congratulated. Simple as that.
And Warwick, had the French been on the wrong end of a dodgy call that ultimately cost them the game, would you be here bleating about how they'd been stitched up? No of course not, because clearly, the "best team" would have won.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.