Posts by Geoff Willmott

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Speaker: ReEntry,

    I will read this blog with interest. Ending the 'prevarication' was probably the biggest and hardest decisions I have ever made, but I don't regret it a bit. I was away for 8 years and returned three years ago - some 15 years after RB, but this still struck a chord:

    I anticipated that there would be great work to do, and little or no money for doing it -- which is exactly how it turned out.

    There are various things that make the work 'great' (or at least 'good'), compared to working overseas. Being able to make a difference (smaller pond) and 'giving back' would be high on the list.

    In a non-professional sense, the lifestyle is obviously great; socially, I miss certain people, but they are so spread out that it would be impossible not to. I sometimes struggle to relate to NZers who have not traveled much, or are boastful of travel, or who view the OE as some kind of status symbol. So I probably have a kind of dismissive view as someone who has been lucky enough to have 'been there, done that'.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 15 posts Report Reply

  • Up Front: The Classics Are Rubbish Too,

    Stephen Fleming's "book" ... bad even for a sports autobiography.

    Donna Tart's "The Secret History"; which is divided into two parts but contains just one event.

    Movie: "The Core" nudges out "The Day After Tomorrow"

    So much easier than favourites.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 15 posts Report Reply

  • Field Theory: The Undertaker is Hamlet,

    rugby, although have set pieces, has great scope for creative actions in open running play.

    There is arguably just as much scope for creativity at the lineout or in the front row of a scrum; certainly, there is more scope for creativity at the breakdown.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 15 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Conditioning for Conditioning…,

    In defence of the report (not the fact that it was carried out, but its findings) ...

    The headline finding (RWC overemphasized) is a good one because it was the most important aspect of what happened last year; we sacrificed too much for only incremental gains in our chances of winning the RWC.

    Also this:

    The report's reflection on the lack of a drop goal somewhat bizarrely concludes that the players were "unaware of a vital piece of information- that the All Blacks had not been given a penalty in the second half and were therefore probably unlikely to get one notwithstanding their pressure, possession and territory Eh? I am pretty sure the players on the field would have had a vague idea that they had not had a penalty, but perhaps they thought that the laws of the game were still in place, and a penalty remained a possibility.

    Not so bizarre to me. Your last sentence there is the most important one. You can only say that the drop goal was obviously the best choice given that there was no penalty coming. Therefore I'm not sure that the report's claim that the ABs did not take the decisions which gave them the best chance of winning the game at the time is correct ... even if they knew about the penalty count to that point.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 15 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Not so much evil as stupid ...,

    I find the line about "putting confusion in referees' minds" quite bizarre. The mark of a confident referee is that he will listen to a touch judge and if he disagrees, simply say so and carry on.

    No this is one of the saner things Paddy has said over the past couple of days. When refereeing, lines of communication and the question of who is in charge require a deceptively difficult balancing act. The referee has to have dominant 'management' of the game, and this can be undermined by incessant calls by the touch judge. Likewise, when refereeing you are doing multiple things at once, so TJ calls need to be clear and most of all the TJ needs to be certain about them. Sometimes (eg with inexperienced referees, or no/dodgy communications gear) you need to manage the expectations of the teams down a level or two.

    So what Paddy said today (as opposed to yesterday) makes sense, although using the word 'liar' is a bit strong, and who knows what was actually said at the briefing.

    None of which exonerates the IRB referees from making the appointment (NB I don't think Paddy was on the appointments committee), and if we believe what Paddy says today, then there was a serious failing of communication between the three officials, given that they are at the elite end. Paddy telling NZers to 'grow up' seems fairly hypocritical, looking at what his organization contributed to the game.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 15 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 Older→ First