Is controversy always required to sell a good book- Graham Henry

First topic message reminder :

Henry has his lates book out this week and I've already pre-ordered.

Tonight on 'Sunday' lord ted comes out with the 2007 debacle presumably the same as in this article:

http://www.worldcupweb.com/rugby/news/viewarticle.asp?id=36036

We've heard all this before- the forty unawarded penalties. I'm glad he didn't pursue it at the time as it would have got him nowhere and its credit to the man that he didnt.

Just wonder if rehashed controversy is always necessary to kickstart a book sale as it always seems to happen.

For sure, what'd be the best SA paper to check out biltong?

If you want an honest opinion from a rugby scribe that is not biased then Dan Retief is the man.

http://www.danretief.com/

I find him to be knowledgeable and mostly unbiased. He also does some good articles about SA rugby behind the scenes.

He writes for the Sunday times as well.

I do enjoy the Keo site Biltong. I think you guys are a bit more effusive in your praise of opposition teams than guys like Tony Johnson. I don't read the posts though they are full of bile and I'd rather post on a straight forum such as this. Some of the posts on certain NZ Herald articles frankly embarrassed me and made me hope that those posters were still in NZ with no access to passports.

I don't like to read Keo, he has allterior motives, especially with the whole Kings thing, he likes to be coontroversial and thrive on the bile in his columns.

Thanks biltong, will bookmark it

Dan Retef's take on our RWC QF exit.

Dan Retief.

nganboy wrote:I think its a bit rough that Henry writes something and I get called arrogant as a result.

I wasn't in either Europe or Australasia, didn't/haven't seen the game and have never commented on it other than to say that I was disappointed when I heard the result.

How does that make me arrogant Mowgli?

you are a kiwi who hasn't seen the game yet you were disappointed...how arrogant is that!!!!!

whocares wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:I think Graham Henry make these comments at the right time.

And he has the point! That unless rugby has some formal way of review and determine if some courruption or severe incompetence take place then all we can do is speculate and arguing about it.

There should be a process to have enquiry into very unusual results. There is some limited number of them in history so is not such a big thing. Otherwise will always be Holly Wilaboobie-for-tat calling "arrogant" and "sore loser" and then some outrage and anger

blah blah blah

Enquiry on what exactly? the referee life? bank account? mystery call girl paid by some spook? get real for a second and ask yourself who will conduct such investigation (the police, the new zealand secret service, inspector clouzeau?) , basis on which juridiction/law ?

am pretty sure any pro refs gets debriefed after such type of game and that should be enough.

also, to enquire whether he is masquerading AS Inspector Clousaeu on a rugby forum

disneychilly wrote:Maybe Mowgli's trying to be the NH AWOP.

We think we're the best side in the world and have the best record Mowgli. Is it wrong to say that if it's not misplaced? We did in 07 too as we'd won 19 of the last 20 before the cup. I don't think that's arrogant as the stats back it up. We've already discussed the reasons other than Barnes why we weren't good enough to win on here so I'm wondering how you come to that conclusion yourself. Have you seen any gloating on these boards from a NZ supporter? Even about the 2011 cup?

It's annoying other countries with a chip on their shoulder stoop to calling NZ arrogant just because they have the best record. We're humble enough to know that test rugby is a game of inches and that we can be caught up any time-it's why our coaches are so good as they have to keep innovating. It's a hell of an effort to stay on top of the tree as much as we have for those 120 years-same with South Africa.

Oh stop being so oversensitive

i do not have a chip on my shoulder or anywhere else. All countries have fans/players/wives/wives tennis partners who are arrogant about their side at some point and this time it is Henry's turn supported by that element of Kiwi fan that bangs on about how Barnes lost them the game.

It is arrogance personified to do what Henry is doing, to suggest that there must be something fishy because NZ lost a game of rugby in which they had the ball alot but did bigger all with it. That is arrogant plain and simple. I am not saying NZ are arrogant because they are good, but because in this case they believe that they didn't fail, that someone else did.

Three posts in a row? You are having conversation with yourself Mowgli! How arrogant of you.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

mowgli wrote:Love the Kiwi arrogance, he considers it 'bizarre' that his team might have lost and in doing so effectively accuses Barnes, the barrister, of corruption. Clearly NZ did have an attitude problem reflected by their coach but its old news, although this will inevitably be the story

Oh so "The Barrister" save him because there's never any incompetent or corrupt barristers are there?

was your edit to add some eastern european twang?

Yes unfortunately my allusion to Barnes the barrister was more complex than your grey matter has been able to consider, you simply go for the easy sledge. Of course there is corruption in all walks of public and private life, including sport. If one can read between the lines one ought to consider this; would an officer of the court take such a risk as to throw a game of rugby in an RWC when he has only been top flight for one year? Is it not much more likely that said ref, because he is a barrister, will follow the letter of the law and attempt to referee the game by displaying complete impartiality and not giving NZ what apparently is their deserved quota of penalties if said ref does not believe said penalties are forthcoming and not because they haven't had one for a while so i had better give them one because they are he mighty all blacks (as their coach suggests). Were not the ABs naive for not considering this when they knew Barnes was ref? Fact is they didn't play the ref, France did.

It is very ironic to see Mowgli of all people accusing others of arrogance.

You make a mistake Mowgli! I didn't consider that he was corrupt. I consider that he is incompetent and always trip over his ego. Which is common for barrister. He believe he is superior and always right so does not question what he thinking, so he never improves. Contrast to the all blacks who realisate already the system is a bit broken but already plan and execute the world cup win whilst Barnes is just demoted and now only can referee in club matches and local second tier international games. So justice done and we see who has the better credentials.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

red_stag wrote:Its perfectly true that Barnes didnt penalise French infringing.

However I bet that I could watch ANY rugby match and spot a penalty offense at every ruck.

This is some worry, do you think? If this is the case then we might accept the game outcome is mostly controlled by referee who must just award a roughly similar amount of penalties to each team even though they always break the law at every ruck? That would mean the game is entirely broken. And leaving open the door for performances like Barnes 2007 and Bryce Lawrence 2011 and we have to live with it because always the referee can justify every decision and every not decision.

AWOP,

It is a massive worry because respect for the referee is dying out.

Rugby had a great respect for the referee. His word was law. He was picked to make judgement calls as he saw it as he was the only fella on the park who didn't care who won.

There were no action replays. Everyone just saw things in real time from 1 angle. Now the fan sitting in his armchair at home or drinking in the pub has a better view than the referee.

Rugby needs to either accept that referees are making judgement calls and respect that or else it is a MASSIVE change of the system.

To referee at that level you need a serious ego as you are going to cop a lot of stick when you mess up and you will make mistakes same as players do.

I heard a former international referee say that he remembers his first match in Eden Park. When asked was he lucky to ref the All Blacks he said "No they are lucky to have me as a ref".

red_stag wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

red_stag wrote:Its perfectly true that Barnes didnt penalise French infringing.

However I bet that I could watch ANY rugby match and spot a penalty offense at every ruck.

This is some worry, do you think? If this is the case then we might accept the game outcome is mostly controlled by referee who must just award a roughly similar amount of penalties to each team even though they always break the law at every ruck? That would mean the game is entirely broken. And leaving open the door for performances like Barnes 2007 and Bryce Lawrence 2011 and we have to live with it because always the referee can justify every decision and every not decision.

AWOP,

It is a massive worry because respect for the referee is dying out.

Rugby had a great respect for the referee. His word was law. He was picked to make judgement calls as he saw it as he was the only fella on the park who didn't care who won.

There were no action replays. Everyone just saw things in real time from 1 angle. Now the fan sitting in his armchair at home or drinking in the pub has a better view than the referee.

Rugby needs to either accept that referees are making judgement calls and respect that or else it is a MASSIVE change of the system.

+1

We all know that in rugby you have to gauge how the ref reffs the game if you wanna win and maybe switch your tactics in game. When the NH teams go to the SH they are penalised for stuff they arnt back home. The sooner that the kiwi fans and coaches realise this the better. Its not all about NZ

mystiroakey wrote:We all know that in rugby you have to gauge how the ref reffs the game if you wanna win and maybe switch your tactics in game. When the NH teams go to the SH they are penalised for stuff they arnt back home. The sooner that the kiwi fans and coaches realise this the better. Its not all about NZ

Yes, and that's why the NH teams never win.

Way to disrupt a good conversation Mystry!

Rory_Gallagher wrote:It is very ironic to see Mowgli of all people accusing others of arrogance.

Care to contribute anything to the thread other than making personal remarks when you clearly haven't read what i have written, just taking a cheap pop as usual because frankly you have nowt else to offer? Knew you would pop up you always do!!

You usually come up with some personal experience or other to back up your point of view, well in the case of a debate about arrogance I will listen to the master, please go ahead and edify us all

anotherworldofpain wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:We all know that in rugby you have to gauge how the ref reffs the game if you wanna win and maybe switch your tactics in game. When the NH teams go to the SH they are penalised for stuff they arnt back home. The sooner that the kiwi fans and coaches realise this the better. Its not all about NZ

Yes, and that's why the NH teams never win.

Way to disrupt a good conversation Mystry!

England win pal. Are you an NZ fan?

mystiroakey wrote:

anotherworldofpain wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:We all know that in rugby you have to gauge how the ref reffs the game if you wanna win and maybe switch your tactics in game. When the NH teams go to the SH they are penalised for stuff they arnt back home. The sooner that the kiwi fans and coaches realise this the better. Its not all about NZ

Yes, and that's why the NH teams never win.

Way to disrupt a good conversation Mystry!

England win pal. Are you an NZ fan?

When? (I fear another historical recital about all the times ENG won the RWC in 2003 coming on...)

anotherworldofpain wrote:You make a mistake Mowgli! I didn't consider that he was corrupt. I consider that he is incompetent and always trip over his ego. Which is common for barrister. He believe he is superior and always right so does not question what he thinking, so he never improves. Contrast to the all blacks who realisate already the system is a bit broken but already plan and execute the world cup win whilst Barnes is just demoted and now only can referee in club matches and local second tier international games. So justice done and we see who has the better credentials.

Oh so "The Barrister" save him because there's never any incompetent or corrupt barristers are there?


Um, yes you did your Honour

can i change my plea?

we beat france in 2007. NZ didnt

arrrha as you can see (and before you edited your post) I only mentioned 2007. so na na

mowgli wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:It is very ironic to see Mowgli of all people accusing others of arrogance.

Care to contribute anything to the thread other than making personal remarks when you clearly haven't read what i have written, just taking a cheap pop as usual because frankly you have nowt else to offer? Knew you would pop up you always do!!

You usually come up with some personal experience or other to back up your point of view, well in the case of a debate about arrogance I will listen to the master, please go ahead and edify us all

Not sure where else I have "popped up".

Foe list broken Mowgli? Seems to have served you well so far.

Because i knew (and was completely right) that you popped up on this thread to take a swipe. Pathetic and very predictable, now unless you have a contribution to make abou tthe debate go and play somewhere else there's a good boy.

You just took an unnecessary swipe at AWOP on another thread immediately before typing that. You are such a hypocrite.

I made my contribution already, thanks.

Mowgli - do you think that rugby should have a shift away from "interpretations" in refereeing.

Make it more of a science than an art if that analagy makes sense.

What you think Rory?

Personally I hate refs interpretation. I want the rules simplied to become black and white-right and wrong- but how do we do that without simplifing the game and turning it into American football or rugby league

Rory_Gallagher wrote:You just took an unnecessary swipe at AWOP on another thread immediately before typing that. You are such a hypocrite.

I made my contribution already, thanks.

Like I said you are the expert on arrogance and your sole contribution to this thread was a personal attack so well done give yourself a pat on the back.

I'm all for that Stag. Science is a far less emotional field than art. Taking emotions out leads to cold analysis and that's where we need referees to be. Makes things more consistent and then teams can figure out how to improve without fear of getting pinged for stuff they got away with the previous week.

Mowgli I'm not being oversensitive. I felt your posting was quite antagonistic though to multiple people. It's why I posted the comment about the chip on your shoulder. I shouldn't have and I apologise. But I felt you should know that you were rubbing some people up the wrong way.

Stag -

Well going by the summer tours, many of the NH fans seemed to complain about the standard of reffing and their "biased" interpretations. Their interpretations apparently suited the SH style of rugby more than the NH style. I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment, because when the SH teams come up here to play they still beat us, it makes no difference to them. It isn't really much of an excuse and I don't think it has as much of a bearing on a game as some people make out, very rarely will it affect the outcome IMO.

However I would rather that referees were more consistent as a whole, especially at the breakdown, because one referee may be entirely different to another in terms of what they allow/do not allow. Sometimes they are very strict (I don't really like that honestly) and at other times they allow a bit of a tussle at the breakdown, though this can really lead to inconsistencies.

The ruck needs to be brought back IMO. There is simply too much for a referee to watch out for, and as you said every breakdown usually has an infringement. How can a referee possibly be consistent in this area? Now we are having a time limit on how long a 9 spends at the ruck before getting the ball out, so they are going to have to focus on even more. I think it is a shambles.

However I agree with you entirely about respecting the referee, something that is now lost. I'm sure many will moan that I am being old fashioned and need to get off my high horse etc, but the referee is very rarely to blame for the outcome of a game. The best teams know how to win games for the most part.

red_stag wrote:Mowgli - do you think that rugby should have a shift away from "interpretations" in refereeing.

Make it more of a science than an art if that analagy makes sense.

What you think Rory?

Well you can't avoid interpretation can you and the cult of the referee is a growing and concerning aspect of the game and inevitably there will be a time when a ref is shown to be corrupt but this wasn't it. I think the problem is there are too many rules and too many rule changes and too many refs who never played the game at any level; that is something i would like to see changed.
As some wise person said, before Tony Blair unless there was a law to say you couldn't do something, you could do pretty much anything, after Tony Blair unless there was a law to say you could do something, you couldn't do anything....and it's true of rugby. Too much interference gives the ref the idea he is part of the game not their to ref it.

The TMO came from trial by media. We used to accept the rub of the green for both sides until someone said hang on a minute, lets just watch that back and see if it was a try. I absolutely think technology has a part to play but only because it was thrust upon us and if it takes some power away from refs then i am all for it. It has been very successful in try scoring and see no reason why the TMO domain could not include a review of whether a card should be shown, but the problem with this is that it is the thin end of the wedge...eventually there will come a time when the match is decided by a post match video review and i think that is obviously wrong.

Rory - yes NH fans were going on about it but that was mainly because they lost. Losing teams generally have a go at the ref.

Boots on bodies should not have been removed. I've said it before not a hope would the IRB ever be able to reintroduce it.

We live in a health and safety world and I don't see the IRB being able to introduce a new law allowing players to use their studs on each other.

I honestly don't think the standard of refereeing must be questioned (apart from an individual here and there), the law interpretations can be ambiguous, or should I say the way the laws are written can be ambiguous.

It stands to reason if the NH refereeing councl sit around a table they will interpret those laws amongst themselves and come to a conclusion as to how they will referee it, similarly the SH referees sit around a table and come to a consensus for their tournaments.

Is there ever a situation where all these referees on the panels be it international or domestic sit around the same table to discuss issues on a regular basis?

I highly doubt that.

I still beleive simplification of laws are the solution, the other situation I think is the communication between referee and players should perhaps take a bigger focus whereby teams get a seesion of an hour or whatever is needed beforehand, rather than the quick visit to the change rooms.

I remember John Smit and Victor Matfield specifically complained that Bryce Lawrence didn't communicate with them.

If the communication channels are emphasised it could also make a big difference.

Mowgli - interesting you say that the cult of the referee is growing?

I would say it is shrinking rapidly.

I agree in full that there are too many rules and too many rule changes.

It is possible for a referee to point to his decision and say "I was right" and be correct. However its also possible a lot of time for coach to point the other way and say "He was wrong".

biltongbek wrote:I honestly don't think the standard of refereeing must be questioned (apart from an individual here and there), the law interpretations can be ambiguous, or should I say the way the laws are written can be ambiguous.

It stands to reason if the NH refereeing councl sit around a table they will interpret those laws amongst themselves and come to a conclusion as to how they will referee it, similarly the SH referees sit around a table and come to a consensus for their tournaments.

Is there ever a situation where all these referees on the panels be it international or domestic sit around the same table to discuss issues on a regular basis?

I highly doubt that.

I still beleive simplification of laws are the solution, the other situation I think is the communication between referee and players should perhaps take a bigger focus whereby teams get a seesion of an hour or whatever is needed beforehand, rather than the quick visit to the change rooms.

I remember John Smit and Victor Matfield specifically complained that Bryce Lawrence didn't communicate with them.

If the communication channels are emphasised it could also make a big difference.

Nonsensical

Bryce Lawrence yawn!

That was out and out wrong of Lawrence Biltong I remember that mate. Disgusting attitude.

I agree there should be synergy between the hemispheres. But you should also let some form of player policing take place. All for bringing back rucking. Will help quick ball that's for sure. But there can be a fine line between rucking and stamping. If that's policed by the ref and citing officers I don't see a problem.

You lads talk about simplying rules- do you mean allow more or allow less?

Communication is definitely a massive thing.

I reffed a match (just 2nds XV) last year and had a handful of players who were getting mouthy including the captain who got himself two yellows and an early bath.

In the second half a player told me he was new captain and wanted to speak to me. I told him to get on with the game.

After the match he bought me a pint but was quite annoyed that he couldnt speak to me when he came up. He said that he was trying to do what the original captain could not and get his team in order.

Go on Mowgli, why don't you expand on why it is nonsensical, rather than taking another cheap dig?

mystiroakey wrote:You lads talk about simplying rules- do you mean allow more or allow less?

Less rules. Let the players find their way.

Disney in all honesty when I think about rucking these days I don't think the rucking of yesteryear is really necessary, the way they officiate rucks these days is effective when a team simply counter rucks and steps over the ball, the Crusaders as an example does that very well and are never in danger of being blown for stamping.

But if the ruck can be officiated as a free for all, hands in anyway you want as long as you comply to the following laws (stay on your feet, repsect the offside line, don't join unless it is through the gate) then teams will veryquickly adapt as they wll know quick ball is unlikely when it is contested in such a manner, hence they will improve their offloading skills, and/or secure their ruck ball better.

The reason why I advocate this, if all plaers know there is a free for all hands on the ball, there is no hesitation, and if the referee interpretations can't be ambiguous, then it is a contest of the players again and not a lottery for the whistle.

Stag - players getting mouthy can be a natural reaction to lack of communication, however some players are just getting mouthy when things don't go their own way. I have not been impressed with SBW recently and his attitude towards the referee recently. I am sure he will have been spoken to about it by his team because it is getting out of hand.

That is a good point Biltong - players would seek to avoid contact in fear of the game being completely slowed down. Teams would also have to focus on support play in order to clear out when necessary for quick ball or to take the offload. It would be interesting to see which teams would adapt.

If a 7 gets over the ball in that limpet-like manner to win the penalty (rarely do they actually try and steal the ball nowadays, if they can win the penalty) would you give the opposition more time to clear him out then? It is hard for a referee to be consistent in that area, and really measure out how long he lets the player hold on to the ball.

Or would you even award the penalty in that case? It would either force the pilfering player to steal the ball for his team, rather than try and win the penalty, or force the opposition to clear him out. That would create more of a tussle for the ball.

Look at some old classic games that are enshrined in lore, pay close attention to some of the decisions! some very obviously awful, but nobody seemed to complain much then. The thing I noticing is about 10 years ago commentators don't make all the remarks in the game. I think a lot of fan upset cause by the commentators who a lot of times get it completely wrong themselves.

I think the cult of questioning the referee was start by a few commenators, like Brian Moore mostly and then catch on.

Maybe the broadcasters should be more responsible and observe a code about respect the referee! Worst example I can think about is when all the commentators make annoyed about the Warburton red card and make stupid suggestions like "red cards in finals ruins the tournament" and then later it turned out that 99% of rational people agreed about the red card.

Rory in my view the seven or any player in the prone position to steal the ball would then only win a scrum for his team, not a penalty.

The actual purpose of a seven is to win possession not a penalty. If he can stop the attacking team, fine it is supposed to be a physical contest anyway, not a way to con the referees.

As you say teams will have to enhance offloading skills or clear rucks quicker.