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.

biltongbek wrote: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.

and no ball will ever come from a ruck ever again

Rory_Gallagher wrote: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.

Scrum, but you thinking seems to be the same as mine, let the players decide the outcome, not the referee.

I like Brian Moore, he can be a whinge, but I like hearing his POV. He is very critical of the different interpretations, especially in the scrum, but he often he makes some very good points. He is critical of the interpretations made for both sides, and will say if he thinks a decision should have gone the other way (even if England are involved). I think he wants to see more consistency rather than interpretation and teams needing to adapt.

The likes of Jonathan Davies (who is one of the most biased commentators around) do not do this and simply blame the referee for decisions going against their team, which is not good.

Some fans on here also just complain when things aren't going their way, and it was seriously annoying during the summer tour.

mowgli wrote:

biltongbek wrote: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.

and no ball will ever come from a ruck ever again

How do you work that one out?

Teams would be forced to try and retain possession, therefore having to rely on fantastic support play and an offloading game. When a player is tackled the attacking team will want to be right there to clear out with the 9 immediately releasing the ball. This would create a much faster game. If the opposition does manage to get over the ball (which in this scenario would be more difficult than it is in today's game) then everything will be slowed down, and the opposition have an opportunity to steal the ball for their team. Either that or the idea Biltong went with, they win the scrum which I think is a fantastic idea. So either you counter attack in broken play after stealing the ball, or you hold on and take the scrum.

Nowadays players do not try and steal the ball, but they try to win the penalty. You can gain on average about 30 metres this way and retain possession, so why wouldn't players do this? Or win 3 points.

A penalty should be awarded to the attacking team if the opposition is offside at the breakdown, so that would be the only thing the referee would have to look for. In this case, the defending team would be more careful to give away the penalty, as they cannot win a penalty for themselves.

Kieth Wood is probably the most biased pundit in the world; or probably joint worst with Justin Marshal.

Award scrums at slow rucks.......


....that'll definitely speed the game up

Comfort wrote:Award scrums at slow rucks.......


....that'll definitely speed the game up

only until teams adapt comfort. Currently there are too many controversies, who was holding on, who was on their feet, did the pilferer beat the ruck or not, etc.

This way teams will adapt or lose possession.

I want the contest to be between players, not between who can con the referee the best.

It is after all a game of physical prowess, not chess.

Comfort wrote:Award scrums at slow rucks.......


....that'll definitely speed the game up

I think if scrums were awarded rather than a penalty, there would actually be very few slow rucks. Teams would prefer to steal the ball rather than try and win the scrum. Catch the opposition off guard and attack in broken play (which leads to many tries nowadays). I think the Crusaders-Chiefs game was a good example of a real tussle at the breakdown at times. There were tons of turnovers, not where they tried to win the penalty, but where they stole the ball and attacked. I think if the penalty was to be replaced with the scrum in this situation, teams would be more inclined to steal the ball and attack.

Also as a side note, Mowgli if you want to respond to my questions (which were legitimate questions) do it on here, instead of sending me personal insults via PM.

Morgannwg wrote:Kieth Wood is probably the most biased pundit in the world; or probably joint worst with Justin Marshal.

Wow I actually thought Marshall was pretty neutral. Especially compared with Johnson and Nisbett.

Justin Marshall is a fantastic commentator, I love hearing him. He is very neutral, and offers great insight.

To me, all that is doing is shifting the area in which the referees can be conned from the breakdown to the scrum.

Call me a moron, but I would have thought that at every breakdown possible the defensive team would be trying to steal the ball, if they're unable to do that, then they slow it down and give themselves time to set their defensive line. At least, im lamens terms.

I understand where you guys are trying to go with it, I just think its shifting the problem rather than solving it and would in itself prevent another load of "problems" the referees would have to interpret.

I mean we'd be arguing about the calls at all the scrums then, even more than we are now. Especially with teams focussing on the hit (a la Leinster/Harlequins) rather than winning the scrum itself.

( ps. I quite like Justin Marshalls commentary!)

disneychilly wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:Kieth Wood is probably the most biased pundit in the world; or probably joint worst with Justin Marshal.

Wow I actually thought Marshall was pretty neutral. Especially compared with Johnson and Nisbett.

I reckon Marshall's insight into the actual play is as unbiased as a commentator can possibly be.

Comfort wrote:To me, all that is doing is shifting the area in which the referees can be conned from the breakdown to the scrum.

Call me a moron, but I would have thought that at every breakdown possible the defensive team would be trying to steal the ball, if they're unable to do that, then they slow it down and give themselves time to set their defensive line. At least, im lamens terms.

I understand where you guys are trying to go with it, I just think its shifting the problem rather than solving it and would in itself prevent another load of "problems" the referees would have to interpret.

I mean we'd be arguing about the calls at all the scrums then, even more than we are now. Especially with teams focussing on the hit (a la Leinster/Harlequins) rather than winning the scrum itself.

( ps. I quite like Justin Marshalls commentary!)

You may be correct that we are shifting the problem, but it shifts the onus onto the attacking team not to go to ground with the ball, but rather keeping play alive.

I hate, absolutely hate what interpretations are doing to the ruck.

JD is certainly the most biased commentator follow closely by Moore and then Wood. Although that little wet fishgill of a man who used to have a crush on JW would take the biscuit if he were in the commentary box.

Marshal moans about the ref too much. He's been doing it through the S15 and was quite bad throughout the JWC in my opinion. When he was up North with Scrum V he was decent and provided some laughs on sunday nights programme. J Davies' problem is that he is too much of a fan to be a commentator. I usually agree with most of what he says though.

I still think Greenwood & Quinnell should present every half-time stats/tactics/round-up talk, they basically do it through shouting a few single words and interpretive dance.

Look Comfort WE'RE the ones who take care of the silly dances, ok?

I see Stephen Jones has jumped on this one as well.
What is it with that guy. Does he blame NZ for his being born in the wrong country or something, doomed to forever pick up scraps we feed him now and then.

Keeps reminding me of one of those annoying scraps of rubbish you flick of the garden path on the way in with your foot.

Funny thing is he keeps harping on Kiwis' inability to understand irony. Given his nationality, I think it's rather ironic he looks down from his self-made pedestal (read soapbox) on the All Blacks' supposed inability to play rugby. Oh Stephen, show us how it is done. Oh wait, you're from Wales...

"on the All Blacks' supposed inability to play rugby"

errrrr- thats one thing you know how to do

Hence the ironic nature of his opinions when juxtaposed with those of the rest of the world. Of course we've had ironic results at the World Cup based on our expectation and I think that schadenfreude is possibly the biggest kick he's ever gotten.

We do know how to do other stuff too! Switch over to the rowing when it's on. Pay no mind to the girl who broke her oar though!

You can row abit pal. Not quite up there with the GB TEAM but your not bad. You do have the most medals per capita in the olympics though- so I will give you the olympics and rugby.

disneychilly wrote: Pay no mind to the girl who broke her oar though!

That was Barnes Disney...spotted him on the grassy knoll...

Yeah watch out all Kiwi athletes. We are out to get ya

Ha nice one Taylorman. Listen to Bill Hicks and get inspired by his claims of corruption. At least he's bloody funny about it.

We'll keep an eye out Oakey Susie apparently moved to the UK so you know she's in Wimbledon.

anotherworldofpain wrote: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

Funny you say that AWoP. Heard on the radio yesterday, that Kaplan said to Mark Keohane that after the game in the changing room, Kaplan said to Barnes 'think we may have a problem with how we managed that game' and Barnes replied 'what do you mean, I was great'.

Now that's just something that I've heard third-hand and who knows if the radio host embellished it a bit. But it did sound like he was oblivious to his sub-par performance, much like Bryce after his effort.

Read that article biltong, man the similarities with us are uncanny. Good old Bryce and Barnes make a good double act them two, gone but never forgotten.

Immediately after a game how could a referee know he'd had a bad game? If he had come out and said "Bloody hell I was awful out there", that would suggest he knew what he was doing and did nothing about it. Much much worse than thinking you did the right thing, even if it turned out you hadn't in the end.


Regarding the simplification of the rules, well, the laws have come in over time to push the rugby in particular directions or to stop certain tactics. they aren't there for no reason...however we very may well have gone down a branch early on that's causing us problems now. If you want to change it you need to fundementally rework ALL of the laws from scratch. Figure out what we want to game to be and make it so (or at least try and then add in 20 modifications when it doesn't work).

You are suggesting Kaplan knew what he was doing and part of the conspiracy? and Barnes just a naive pawn?

yep Kaplan missed a forward pass, what a biiiiiiig deal right. should go to jail isnt it ?

Mr Henry allegation of match fixing are quite serious and could lead to an investigation indeed ... an investigation on his side as libel is still considered as an offense. Does Henry has some kind of job in the IRB as well? this would make it even worst.

I haven't really been paying attention but are we seriously talking about some conspiracy against the ABs?

Can't really remember anymore, I took this thread as an opportunity to look back at our QF of last year and just got angry all over again, so I best step aside and forget all about it.

Not you Bilt, some rubbish from AWOP. It sounds all too familiar if I'm honest.

There will be no investigation because Henry quite clever (or his lawyer) how it is written in the book. He suggest this without claiming is true. He owns it as a thought in context and historical by saying that at the time he could only imagine match fixing as an answer to such incompetence. But presumably he saw Barnes and Kaplan referee a few more times and realisate that incompetence is more likely than conspiracy by Occam's Razor.

fair enough AWOP, makes sense

whocares wrote:yep Kaplan missed a forward pass, what a biiiiiiig deal right. should go to jail isnt it ?

Mr Henry allegation of match fixing are quite serious and could lead to an investigation indeed ... an investigation on his side as libel is still considered as an offense. Does Henry has some kind of job in the IRB as well? this would make it even worst.

Wasn't Michelak on the receiving end of that pass or thereabouts?

Think he was the one who passed the ball.

Who on here actually believes foul play. Its easy for us to say no it didnt happen your paranoid. But i suspect it in certain football games a swell. Its just I am blunt to it these days - its like a lost cause to me!

So is the forward pass that indicates match fixing or the penalty count?

It would be the 40 missed penalties I think Mowgli. **** happens regarding the forward pass-we had one in one of our tries. Same with the yellow card. But the 40 odd penalties would have supposedly made up the difference.

Na I don't think there was a conspiracy at all. Just like 95, it was plain bad luck. Was just a freak of a game with injuries, France playing great, us playing bad, ref playing bad. I think we just got an absolutely ridiculous amount of bad luck in that game but we weren't good enough to take that out of the equation. I mean no Mauger, Muliaina at 13, a half fit Robinson, asking for trouble. But that's what Henry picked and he wanted us to win the thing just as much if not more than we did. I'll always be filthy on that game but I just hope the All Blacks learned enough from it to ensure the part they could control doesn't happen again. Looks like we did as we were the best side in the 2011 tournament. Not that winning it takes the pain away from the previous losses-we need to bottle that up for motivation in 2015 and beyond.

Define a 'missed penalty'. Do you mean 40 offences that Kiwis think were offences? How many 'missed' ones were there for France? Zero? Did they get all the top refs in the world to score each offence? Or did they do what every single fan can do when their team is playing (especially if you lose) and find loads of things that the ref 'missed'?

Luck was sucky in that game but even the All Blacks get bad luck occasionally (they just usual so much better than the other side it doesn't matter.

I'm sure the number of "infringements" supposedly committed by France rises by about 5 every time this game gets mentioned.

Exactly Hammer you can't. Pretty much every breakdown ruling could have multiple interpretations.

Sugar 40 was the number mentioned in the recent articles about those excerpts. I'm not increasing it at all-in fact 18 was the number bandied about originally. Don't be silly.

I agree 100% with Disney. Although I've said some provocative things in this thread, I think the ABs really only had themselves to blame and injuries to key players (eg DC) and their replacements didnt help (eg Evans). A bad day at the office compounded by missed penalty opportunities by the ref.

You only have to watch the game to see penalisable offences go un-pinged. I don't even play rugby or know the rules inside out, and I even saw them.

Don't think any of us blame Barnes entirely and I certainly think match fixing is a bit of a stretch and perhaps an opinion GH should have kept to himself.

But, a question for those defending Barnes, did you see the game or seen replays? Can you honestly say, hand on your heart, that he had a good game? Like Disney said, it's not about the YC or missed forward pass, these things happen. But not being awarded a single penalty in 60 minutes, when we were hammering away at the line, and the French turn the ball over with hands in the ruck, didn't help.

Perhaps if you're reincarnated as a non-kiwi you'll get that feeling every time you're team plays the All Blacks

I feel that way after most games that Rolland refs us for. I would never suggest he was bribed or even biased (much more likely I am). And Kaplan think about it. Most games Walsh does. I also don't like Owens interpretation and get really frustrated by it. Also most refs have shockers (which game depends on your point of view)

Yeah for sure Hammer, totally agree. Most of the times it's just a minor irritation with refs if things dont pan out, and it's just a case of the best team winning. Nigel Owens used to get my goat but I recall he did well in a recent ABs game, was pleasantly surprised.

Let's be honest, we've lost many a game over the years and never have we lambasted the ref as harshly as we have Barnes. The attitude towards Barnes is not symptomatic of how we accept losses (I hope anyway). Although there was that pesky Susie I'm sure we just use Susie as an excuse for a giggle though, I do anyway, and is kinda up there with this match fixing stuff. A bit extreme and unlikely, and I'm not surprised we get stick for it.

All refs have shockers of course they do and in someone's opinion every game every game ever reffed was a shocker for the ref largely because one side usually loses. the problem comes when pundits/fans/coach keep whining about a result that didn't go their way instead of taking it on the chin and then start coming up with theories as to why the game was lost, inevitably the ref comes in for close scrutiny and some coaches/pundits/fans, so extreme are they in their views, decide the ref must be bent. They cannot accept that their team failed and was beaten and look at every decision as inherently biased against them. Some of these idiots even make death threats to refs and make such a fuss they destroy careers. We all sit in judgment of them because we once played 2nd XV and we watched the VT 75 times and think we know what it is like to call a game real time in a huge arena with no access to VT other than for scoring.

The most telling comment I`ve heard about RWCs in general and 2007 in particular was this."We put an intolerable burden on our Coaches and Players,as AllBlacks we expect to win every game.When we don`t we look for reasons[excuses]?Henry was Lucky not to go the way of Mains,Wyllie,Mitchell,and Hart"THAT was a comment by a NZ fan on the review of Graham Henry`s Book in a NZ newspaper.Can`t remember what one it sums things up nicely,at the time 2007 there was a lot of criticism on the rotation policy.Also that players [Robinson and Carter]were carrying injuries,this was made worse by injuries during the game.The Officials did`nt have the best of games but at the end of the day France played better than NZ over the full 80 minutes.A review of the Officials by Refs Union[for want of a better word] concluded the officials made mistakes but it did`nt effect the OUTCOME.THAT of course is debatable in any match in which the refs had a `Mare in the fans of the losing sides opinion.Mistakes certainly,biased in favour of the Home team possibly .50/50 Decisions do tend to go to the Home side in matches.Fixed very unlikely but 2007 was in many ways THE best RWC of all because the Tier2 sides did so well.I hate RWCS but would have loved it if Argentina had gone all the way.

It actually goes further than coaches and partisan fans criticising the performances of referees, We've seen criticism also from former International refs as well.

It begs the question as to whether the advances made by coaches and players in their preparation and execution of the game is outpacing the standard of refereeing.

Lets hope that Paddy's replacement has the ability to address the widening skill gap.

Yeah Laurie. Didn't Andre Watson so ape over Lawrence's performance last year? I'm not saying he didn't have points but he should have shut his gob after the 03 final.

You're not seriously comparing Andre Watson in 2003 to Lawrence in 2011?