Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
He’d reffed more than one match Kyle (inc. 3 Pac Rim tests this year and our opening romp v Italy.
I was talking about when he was appointed as a world cup referee, which was before our game against Italy.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_IRB_Pacific_5_Nations\this page he refereed one test match at the Pacific 5 Nations in 2006. Fiji vs Samoa. He also refereed the Junior All Blacks vs Tonga, which isn't a test match. And the page doesn't say it, but he refereed the last match, Fiji vs Japan.
So 3 test matches. And became a professional referee in 2005. And, hadn't refereed a test match all year before the world cup. I think my point remains - four important games, shouldn't the four best referees have been appointed? Not someone who'd done it 3 times before, and never at anything even close to this level and pressure.
-
As opposed to all those other ratshit games that didn't matter at all, because the All Blacks weren't involved? Not picking a fight, RB, but I don't think anyone came to the World Cup to fuck around, do you?
I suspect the point was that there were a heap of games where two or three... or ten bad refereeing decisions wouldn't have affected the result at all. About 2/3 of the one-sided pool games fall into that category.
However all the quarter finals were close, and could have gone the other way based on one or two decisions. When it gets to the business end of the tournament, you want your top four referees in the middle, surely?
There were plenty of one-sided pool games for referees new to the international scene to get their experience.
The other thing I read a few weeks ago, is that they had additional linesmen here for the pool games, who have all been sent home. Only the top tier of referees were retained for the knockout stage, and all the touch judges in this section were referees in the pool stage.
Which means that Barnes is a top tier referee according to the IRB referee panel. After refereeing one international match!
-
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.
-
He himself admitted it wasn't, that he merely positioned himself and held his ground in the other guy's running lane - surely the definition of what obstruction is? You do that kind of stuff near the try line at your own peril I would have thought.
I'm not a rugby referee, but my understanding of the rule is that he's entitled to run a line a reasonable amount of time after the kick has been made. He has a second or so to stop and change his line.
And he's entirely justified in being in the other team's running lane. You're not required to get out of their way, that's their problem, they have to move around you.
It's obstruction is he moves into their lane when he could avoid it, or holds him back without the ball.
The question really is, was McAlister entitled to be at that place. If he's entitled to be at that spot on the field, that length of time after the kick, then the French player has just ran into him, and that's tough luck for the French guy.
-
And the Ottawa Senators are 3-0-0. It's early days, admittedly.
You don't often get to gloat in NZ, so I'll just say...
DUCKS! 4-1! The Stanley Cup! Haha!
Now returning you to your scheduled rugby misery.
-
As an amateur ice hockey referee, views on the performance of Mr Barnes over the weekend interest me. Rugby is a very complex game, and positioning and viewing the action is very crucial as a referee.
In ice hockey, we have one referee, and two linesmen, but the roles are quite different. The linesmen cannot interfere in the running of the actual game and call penalties, so if the referee misses it, it just gets missed. I'm always surprised when a linesman doesn't help the referee out in rugby. That's what your flag is for, surely?
The difference between winning yesterday, and losing yesterday, is pretty slim. Yes the referee probably is that difference, but that's not something you can control.
What I think the All Blacks have lacked for most of 10 years now, is leadership. After the 2003 World Cup, I wrote the following as part of a long web post:
The other problem I see in the team is leadership. Thorne has been the captain for a while now, and like Randall before him, I think he's only a good leader of a winning team. The England game earlier this year was a fine example of this. The English team, two players down, played about five minutes of superb rugby, holding the ball, controlling it, well-led, and knowing exactly what to do... Against Australia, New Zealand had spent all their time in possession battering the Australian line, never once did Spencer chip over the top. Maybe the fault is with Spencer, but clearly the game plan set out before the game wasn't working, at some stage the captain has to make a decision to change the plan - that's why you have a captain on the field as well as a coach off it.
For me the defining moment of the game was a little earlier. The All Blacks had been pick-and-going for about 8 or 10 phases, crawling their way down the left side towards the French line. Everything was working well, a crash over try was looking likely. And Kelleher passes the ball left to So'oialo, who wasn't expecting it, and drops it. The tactics changed and the opportunity was lost.
So for me yesterday, the same as 1999 and 2003 was about a failure of leadership. Decisions were made (or possibly not made), and they didn't work out. We tend to lose these close matches when the pressure is really on. I think that's what we need to fix.
Also, I don't think #7 is the right position for a captain. Too often, by the nature of the position, he's buried at the bottom of a ruck. Halfback and first-five.
-
Myanmar a fascist shithole run by psychotic uniformed thugs - which it so obviously is.
Psychotic uniformed thugs is 100% correct. Burma (it should never, ever be called Myanmar, language is so important) is however a wonderful country filled with culture, and history, and largely wonderful people desiring only to be free. The military does not make the country at all.
-
That Allez Les Noirs links to a version of Ka Mate, broadcast on French TV.
The French translated the haka, which seems weird. I can't imagine most NZers could give a reasonable translation of Ka Mate, indeed a fair number couldn't tell you anything about what it means and its history.
My entry for the whiskey:
Party like it's (no longer) 1999! Whiskey Galore.
I'm not making an entry for the ABs losing. What sort of jinx is that to put on the team? C'mon! No pie for you lot.
-
I’ll give you Calamity McDonald is next.
That's a bit harsh. McDonald isn't a massive linebreaker, but he's very reliable, defends very well, and has vision, and kicks well. Sets up his outside man when he hits the line. Very good under the high ball, and I think he hardly ever misses tackles when the other team gets through.
I think Mils is better, but McDonald is pretty good and the current positions are the best option, as I don't think Smith or Toeava are up to the play at centre.
-
That French team: They're going to play a conservative game against us, by shifting a 2nd-5 to fullback and playing a 21yo in his first season of international rugby at 1st-5, on the basis of his game against, um, Georgia. Exxxcellent ...
I don't understand the French selection. Surely the only way they're going to beat is us a repeat of 1999 - brilliant, erratic French play, running it at us and disrupting our pattern. Playing like England, they'll never beat us, they All Blacks will defend too well from a structured game, and have too much attacking firepower to think we won't score back. Shouldn't Michelac ("erratic but dangerous") be the first five, and a fullback that will run it back?
indeed. you can imagine my surprise to leave a windless wellington morning to arrive in hailstorm in chch.
Flights were stuffed to Wellington yesterday morning because of wind worries. My 9 year old son, travelling as an unaccompanied minor to visit his grandparents and aunty and uncle almost got diverted to Palmy and put on a bus to Wellington. No stress there, honest!