Match Fixing in the 6 nations?

Apologies in Advance for the somewhat sensationalist piece.

This I know is rather controversial, but merits discussion I feel. First off, let me say that Italy v France was an emphatic win and truly heartening to watch. I believe Italy deserved the win, and that France were just shellshocked into submission. Yet, on the way into town this morning I heard reports about recent match fixing being uncovered in Football, and was intrigued, after all why couldn't this happen in Rugby?

Rugby has become more and more bureaucratic in recent times, with the recent Heineken cup fiasco a case in point. Is it that hard to fathom that there could be back room deals taking place? The sport of rugby had everything to gain, as well as the 6 nations as the world's leading competition. Looking at the Italy game, Italy made ground with almost every carry. France were standing off alarmingly in defence, inviting the Italian attack to run at them. As a result, France were always on the back foot. In addition, France's breakdown work was almost non existent, giving Italy quick and clean ball.

The game highlights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-AxnGxNnbY show three examples of either French standing off, or Italian brilliance. For Parisse's try, Fofana (no slouch) is comprehensively outpaced by the great man. Fofana doesn't even touch Parisse it seems. Another incident involves Maxime Machenaud's break (not in the video), after which he simply threw the ball foreward, turning a promising French attack into an impressive Italian counter. Furthermore (in the video), the build up to Casto's try see's france stack 8 players in a 10 metre channel near the touchline, all lined up to defend a solitary Venditti, and Favaro. Not necessary at all when the touchline is there as yet another available line of defence.

Another incident can be examined at the final whistle (in the video). First Parra gives a dreadful pass to Michalak, next Trinh Duc, and then Mermoz can be seen actually shoving the ruck into touch, very sloppy play which ends the game. Now, having said all this, I will concede that France are France, and thus always an unknown entity. It is absolutely more likely that France imploded due to Italian pressure. I do not wish to demerit the Italian win, I believe it was a fully deserved. I am merely examining the possibility that things may not be as they seem to us supporters.

If there is match fixing going on then Howley is up to his neck in it.....

Very topical. IRB today announced a blanket ban on all betting by players or rugby personal.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2013/0204/1224329604142.html

love how rugby is able to learn from all of footballs mistakes to ensure it will always be the better sport.

You cannot rule out any sport from match fixing. However the greater the number of players the harder it is to fix. Or to fix the outcome of the game.

Instead for team spots you often get spot fixing - so the time of the first throw in (a common one in football). Hell I bet people in Asia will bet on the time of the first tip tackle if given the chance.

By the way, because of the low scoring it is much easier to fix a football match. Rugby by contrast is very difficult.

Kunu, essentially you've heavily smeared the actions of the French team & coaches because of an unexpected result, so unexpected that it is a mere 2 years since Italy last beat France.

Honestly, while the French can of course, be criticised for how they went about things, we've had 100+ years of the french going about things in such a fashion; in all aspects of French sporting, business, political and bureacratic life. So obviously I can infer that everything Frnace has ever done ever has been some sort of corruption. Beacuase Italy could never beat France otherwise. FFS.

Upsets happen in sport. Otherwise it wpuld be fairly farking boring to watch as it would be predictable.

As for the reasons why Italy won, well, their dfensive effort was more organised. they were hingrier for the ball and thus won the big collisions. More crucially though, intead of looking for contact, they tried to keep the ball out of contact when they had it. I'd say there were more offloads in that one game by Italian players than in whole seasons past. their first try is a perfect example, they truned ball over and the French countered, then kicked. the bounce was friendly and the space then exploited by italy who ran at space and supported the ball carrier. Parisse is one of the fastest guys over a 40 stretch as you'll see in Rugby and was running from the get go, Fofana had to turn and retreat. An excellent team try and a very very unItalian try because it was heads-up and out of hand, not a mutli phase sledge hammer approach.

I do not think it acceptable to heavily insinuate that the French lost this match because the game was fixed. Which is what you did, so please do not insult us by denying it.

debaters, an opinion is an opinion, not a statement of fact or law.

We've been here before when early criticisms of and questions concerning the exploits of one Lance Armstrong were dismissed viciously by those who suggested the insinuations themselves were an affront to the sport of cycling.

Kunu gave an opinion and some thoughts on a subject. He made no claims or accusations but made observations on the game as he is entitled to do on the subject that he mentioned as others are when relating observations to referee mistakes, unseen game infringements, tactics etc.

Disagree with his points by all means but to suggest what opinion is 'acceptable' or not is simply not on given the curious route truth and lies have taken in the long long years Lance Armstrong was denying everything... and insulting everyone.

is this what the world is coming to? An underdog wins a game, and suddenly the word fixing comes up.....disgusting!

To be fair he did say it was unlikely and pointed out that a lot of what the French team did suggested that they didn't give a toss, there are a number of possible reasons for this but he's made a suggestion which has some evidence.

Pretty sure the 6N was fixed last year....and maybe 2008. In fact now I think of it the last clean 6N was probably 2003.

I'm sorry you feel aggrieved, that was not my intention. From my neutral standpoint I can state Italy deserved their win, and I believe it was legitimate. I have no affiliation with France, and being Irish, love seeing them beaten.

The article is merely an examination of the circumstances which, just like upsets, have become more and more common in today's world. I could have as easily applied it to Ireland v Wales, or England v NZ. However, France's performance was absolutely dreadful. They offered zero intensity, and were lethargic. This is a complete turnaround from club form, hence I thought it offered a stronger argument.

if there was any match fixing this year in NH rugby it was Monpellier v Toulon. But that was people not trying.

In soccer you ussually have one person who is key to not conceeding scores and about three who are key to scoring. In rugby it is much more harder to let in a score or make a score. the Italian one yesterday because their attempts at goal were not 50% as per usual. Italy are a good team but that has cost them about 5 five games in the last three years. When they beat France last time their kickers were also better then usual.

not sure about the 6 nations, but i'm pretty sure that any match the All Blacks lose is rigged.

No
Wales deserved their last win against us.
Not sure about the other loses

Think you might have a point here, both Phil Godman & Chris Cusiter were obliviously involved in match fixing against Italy in 2007. 1 charge down (17 seconds) and a further two intercept tries all with in the first 6 minutes!

Also think back to Scotland V Australia 09, how much was Giteau played to miss all those kicks!

All right. We admit it. Scotland have been completely mince on purpose.

Don't tell anyone.

It's a good post. It's pretty naive to think I doesn't happen/couldn't happen rugby. It's not necessarily fixing the final score, or who wins. I think it's probably as likely to focus on stats that are more easily fixed. For example does goal kicker get his first attempt at goal. It may not relate to internationals, it could be club games.

In terms of fixing results. I am unsure. The referee's interpretation has big influence on the game. If sides are competitive it could have an effect.

The problem is going to be getting evidence from the game. It's only likely to come about via a sting. There's so many variables. We've seen it's possible to literally referee only one side and there is no response from rugby powers, media and the public in general. Given that I think it would be relatively easy if games are fixed for it to go unnoticed.

SecretFly wrote:debaters, an opinion is an opinion, not a statement of fact or law.

We've been here before when early criticisms of and questions concerning the exploits of one Lance Armstrong were dismissed viciously by those who suggested the insinuations themselves were an affront to the sport of cycling.

Kunu gave an opinion and some thoughts on a subject. He made no claims or accusations but made observations on the game as he is entitled to do on the subject that he mentioned as others are when relating observations to referee mistakes, unseen game infringements, tactics etc.

Disagree with his points by all means but to suggest what opinion is 'acceptable' or not is simply not on given the curious route truth and lies have taken in the long long years Lance Armstrong was denying everything... and insulting everyone.

Opinion in a court of law in the UK can only be given by an expert in that field, I think Kunu would fail, nuf said.

rodders wrote:If there is match fixing going on then Howley is up to his neck in it.....

I have pretty solid info that Cuthbert likes the casinos, maybe he had a bet on Zebo scoring because my gran could have made a better attempt at a tackle on him than Cuthbert did.

rainbow-warrior wrote:

SecretFly wrote:debaters, an opinion is an opinion, not a statement of fact or law.

We've been here before when early criticisms of and questions concerning the exploits of one Lance Armstrong were dismissed viciously by those who suggested the insinuations themselves were an affront to the sport of cycling.

Kunu gave an opinion and some thoughts on a subject. He made no claims or accusations but made observations on the game as he is entitled to do on the subject that he mentioned as others are when relating observations to referee mistakes, unseen game infringements, tactics etc.

Disagree with his points by all means but to suggest what opinion is 'acceptable' or not is simply not on given the curious route truth and lies have taken in the long long years Lance Armstrong was denying everything... and insulting everyone.

Opinion in a court of law in the UK can only be given by an expert in that field, I think Kunu would fail, nuf said.

In that case, every single post on this website would be invalid.

hugo124 wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

SecretFly wrote:debaters, an opinion is an opinion, not a statement of fact or law.

We've been here before when early criticisms of and questions concerning the exploits of one Lance Armstrong were dismissed viciously by those who suggested the insinuations themselves were an affront to the sport of cycling.

Kunu gave an opinion and some thoughts on a subject. He made no claims or accusations but made observations on the game as he is entitled to do on the subject that he mentioned as others are when relating observations to referee mistakes, unseen game infringements, tactics etc.

Disagree with his points by all means but to suggest what opinion is 'acceptable' or not is simply not on given the curious route truth and lies have taken in the long long years Lance Armstrong was denying everything... and insulting everyone.

Opinion in a court of law in the UK can only be given by an expert in that field, I think Kunu would fail, nuf said.

In that case, every single post on this website would be invalid.

Thankfully like the law, there are many asses here too.

rainbow-warrior wrote:

hugo124 wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

SecretFly wrote:debaters, an opinion is an opinion, not a statement of fact or law.

We've been here before when early criticisms of and questions concerning the exploits of one Lance Armstrong were dismissed viciously by those who suggested the insinuations themselves were an affront to the sport of cycling.

Kunu gave an opinion and some thoughts on a subject. He made no claims or accusations but made observations on the game as he is entitled to do on the subject that he mentioned as others are when relating observations to referee mistakes, unseen game infringements, tactics etc.

Disagree with his points by all means but to suggest what opinion is 'acceptable' or not is simply not on given the curious route truth and lies have taken in the long long years Lance Armstrong was denying everything... and insulting everyone.

Opinion in a court of law in the UK can only be given by an expert in that field, I think Kunu would fail, nuf said.

In that case, every single post on this website would be invalid.

Thankfully like the law, there are many asses here too.

Gosh do you, like, study law???

Kunu wasn't Fofana being played out of position?

Michalak is notoriously flaky. Capable of the sublime and ridiculous.

Leaving Parra on the bench was just silly.

French sides can be unpredictable.

Not enough Clermont players starting obviously!

The last two rounds of the HC didn't exactly go the way of Racing Metro's,Toulouse's and Toulon's players. It didn't exactly help matters!

When the bulk of the team comes from these three clubs it doesn't do confidence much good.

In theory, I suppose a coach not picking his best players could be a form of fixing too. This cannot apply to France, as they are just bonkers anyway

Match fixing in Rugby is far more likely to involve officials than players due to the amount of impact one can have on a game, we would have to be very naive to believe it does not go on at all but I would imagine it is happening in much lower profile games rather than in international matches.

hugo124 wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

hugo124 wrote:

rainbow-warrior wrote:

SecretFly wrote:debaters, an opinion is an opinion, not a statement of fact or law.

We've been here before when early criticisms of and questions concerning the exploits of one Lance Armstrong were dismissed viciously by those who suggested the insinuations themselves were an affront to the sport of cycling.

Kunu gave an opinion and some thoughts on a subject. He made no claims or accusations but made observations on the game as he is entitled to do on the subject that he mentioned as others are when relating observations to referee mistakes, unseen game infringements, tactics etc.

Disagree with his points by all means but to suggest what opinion is 'acceptable' or not is simply not on given the curious route truth and lies have taken in the long long years Lance Armstrong was denying everything... and insulting everyone.

Opinion in a court of law in the UK can only be given by an expert in that field, I think Kunu would fail, nuf said.

In that case, every single post on this website would be invalid.

Thankfully like the law, there are many asses here too.

Gosh do you, like, study law???

Gosh, like no

Its happened in Football, cricket, horse racing, American sports, the Olympics... whilst most people on here will defend rugby to the death we are being obtuse if we think it hasn't at least happened in the past in our sport.

We're not whiter then white.

Matt Le Tissier got involved in not throwing matches but fun bets such as the first throw in (if I recall) and would just boot the ball out of bounds asap. Doesn't mean big money isn't gambled on it though.

We've seen it's possible to literally referee only one side

hmmm - I wonder what game that was.

Could it have involved the French, an English ref and a Welsh Stadium?

TrailApe wrote:

We've seen it's possible to literally referee only one side

hmmm - I wonder what game that was.

Could it have involved the French, an English ref and a Welsh Stadium?

I hope your not trying to pin that one on the stadium.

As a bit of a generalisation, these large rings which organise these tings tend to be Asian based. As rugby isnt generally that popular in Asia I would guess there is less chance of the sport being a target?

Although if it is the chances are it ownt be the result and that would be too hard, something like losing the first lineout would be more the sort of thing which could be rigged.

Bathman_in_London wrote:As a bit of a generalisation, these large rings which organise these tings tend to be Asian based. As rugby isnt generally that popular in Asia I would guess there is less chance of the sport being a target?

Although if it is the chances are it ownt be the result and that would be too hard, something like losing the first lineout would be more the sort of thing which could be rigged.

A good point. Match fixing is only worthwhile if there's a decent amount of money being bet on the event. Rugby League in Australia had the Ryan Tandy scandal a few years back (he deliberately gave away a penalty in front of the posts to manipulate the 1st scoring play market, but the unusual betting patterns meant it was spotted before hand - and the Cowboys opted to kick for the corner instead of for goal anyway).

So any fixing would have to be at professional level, there simply aren't the betting markets available at a lower level - and even the likes of the Rabo and AP would struggle to generate the betting volumes to make it worthwhile (the NRL has a bigger supporter base than either, and the Aussies are massive gamblers).

Secret,

Perhaps the word 'unacceptable' was a little too far, as I love my freedom of speech, but I do not think this post would have been written had Ireland played & beaten France in Dublin. And one has to bear in mind that now out of their last three games, Italy have won twice. As an Irish man I'd give up a kideny for that kind of record against France. Ireland have two losses & a draw in the 6N (and 2 losees in RWC 2011 warm-ups in between)

So that is why I am unhappy with insinuating that Italy are not good enough to beat France without some help. I think that is unfair. If you want to go through each game with a microscope and pick out flaws and casually ask questions over the integrity of the result, then expect a strong reaction. So being Irish, I must believe that Keith Earls missed tackle was a bung. And Cuthbert's too. And Zebo's flick was a mistake as Heaslip was trying the throw the ball behind him. And Best was able to charge it down in the first place because Biggar wanted it to happen.

We pillory players for their mistakes, errors of judgement and execution, and that is part of being a fan (and part of being a player too) And I for one am not the type to be trusting to a fault, but sometimes the underdog wins because he is better on the day. Ridiculous I know.

France took 20 years to win a Championship after joining, so don't begrudge Italy a win because it is so far fetched in your mind. Only Ireland & England have 100% records over Italy in the 6N, and that statistic will not last forever.

Oh, and on the Lance issue, never liked the man, never really trusted him, especially after a flat denial regarding steroids a few years back. He beat Cancer and there are few enough that do that and a fraction again of whom do so without steroids (an ENTIRELY legitimate practice for an athlete btw, as staving off death trumps any potential benefit of same in a sporting career) but post '96 he was cheating with their use. Asking questions then was legitimate as his story was to good to be true. Chemo and other treatments do such damage to the system that getting back to being a pro never mind THE TOP pro would, should and did raise eyebrows. And we now know such disbelief was accurate.

On a side note, the Montpellier v Toulon game in Round 6 of the HC was a much much much more dubious result that anything over the weekend in my opinion. So I do not think that Rugby is or can be immune to cheating, spot betting fixes etc. But when Nigel Owens added time back onto the clock (rightly so as it was slow to stop a few occasions) with France 8 metres from the italian line, any hint of illigitimate officiating i think was taken off the table.

Italy played flowing, passing rugby. France had clearly practiced for a more traditional Italian game plan. So you can question the inability of the French players to adapt their on field systems in a general sense, but i think it is a bridge too far to simply jump to the consclusion that the French threw the game. And the beauty of the Italian game plan was that they reserved the right & ability to shove the ball back up the jumper and rely on a strong set piece. A good strategic win and tactical nouse to know when to go for it and when to play the numbers. Backed up by a huge well of passion. A fine & deserved win.

Given the amount of betting oppertunities especially spread betting via the internet etc.Match fixing in a major tournament such as a RWC is possible and
very long odds could be obtained.Say for RWC 2015 as an example say Georgia versus top team in there group.Today you would get very long odds nearer the event less so.
Take NZ to win or finalists on there record poor bet 2015,to reach semi`s good bet.Very good bet them not getting out of there group,or even losing a match in it etc.
Fixing is certainly possible but it also has to be beleiveable certainly France v Tonga 2011.Had it been the Derby or The Grand National there would have been a stewards enquiry no disrespect to a Great Tonga win.

I wouldn't say the match was fixed but New Zealands win over France in the 2011 WC final left a sour taste.....

By that Criteria MunsterMac Frances win in 2007 versus AB`s left a sour taste too.Bok supporters were`nt happy with Aus vs Sa result 2011 either.BUT that isn`t to say they were fixed either.

debaters1 wrote:Secret,

Perhaps the word 'unacceptable' was a little too far, as I love my freedom of speech, but I do not think this post would have been written had Ireland played & beaten France in Dublin. And one has to bear in mind that now out of their last three games, Italy have won twice. As an Irish man I'd give up a kideny for that kind of record against France. Ireland have two losses & a draw in the 6N (and 2 losees in RWC 2011 warm-ups in between)

So that is why I am unhappy with insinuating that Italy are not good enough to beat France without some help. I think that is unfair. If you want to go through each game with a microscope and pick out flaws and casually ask questions over the integrity of the result, then expect a strong reaction. So being Irish, I must believe that Keith Earls missed tackle was a bung. And Cuthbert's too. And Zebo's flick was a mistake as Heaslip was trying the throw the ball behind him. And Best was able to charge it down in the first place because Biggar wanted it to happen.

We pillory players for their mistakes, errors of judgement and execution, and that is part of being a fan (and part of being a player too) And I for one am not the type to be trusting to a fault, but sometimes the underdog wins because he is better on the day. Ridiculous I know.

France took 20 years to win a Championship after joining, so don't begrudge Italy a win because it is so far fetched in your mind. Only Ireland & England have 100% records over Italy in the 6N, and that statistic will not last forever.

Oh, and on the Lance issue, never liked the man, never really trusted him, especially after a flat denial regarding steroids a few years back. He beat Cancer and there are few enough that do that and a fraction again of whom do so without steroids (an ENTIRELY legitimate practice for an athlete btw, as staving off death trumps any potential benefit of same in a sporting career) but post '96 he was cheating with their use. Asking questions then was legitimate as his story was to good to be true. Chemo and other treatments do such damage to the system that getting back to being a pro never mind THE TOP pro would, should and did raise eyebrows. And we now know such disbelief was accurate.

On a side note, the Montpellier v Toulon game in Round 6 of the HC was a much much much more dubious result that anything over the weekend in my opinion. So I do not think that Rugby is or can be immune to cheating, spot betting fixes etc. But when Nigel Owens added time back onto the clock (rightly so as it was slow to stop a few occasions) with France 8 metres from the italian line, any hint of illigitimate officiating i think was taken off the table.

Italy played flowing, passing rugby. France had clearly practiced for a more traditional Italian game plan. So you can question the inability of the French players to adapt their on field systems in a general sense, but i think it is a bridge too far to simply jump to the consclusion that the French threw the game. And the beauty of the Italian game plan was that they reserved the right & ability to shove the ball back up the jumper and rely on a strong set piece. A good strategic win and tactical nouse to know when to go for it and when to play the numbers. Backed up by a huge well of passion. A fine & deserved win.

Don't deel like addressing your gripes with me? I am the one you flew off the handle at, after all

CF wrote:is this what the world is coming to? An underdog wins a game, and suddenly the word fixing comes up.....disgusting!

come on its just two on the trot for england! steady on with your wind up gags lads!

MunsterMac wrote:I wouldn't say the match was fixed but New Zealands win over France in the 2011 WC final left a sour taste.....

Good contribution mac...look forward to more... After losing to Tonga who would need to fix it, so much did France deserve it.

In fact this time its similar, lose to a lowly non home unions side, then beat them all...hmmm...good point.

Hardly two on the trot scotland was very much a form book win

If it was fixed i wonder why the french were trying so flipping hard to score a try at the end..

Can we leave this debate to football at the moment please!!

rather than jumping on a game were a genuine upset was allways on the cards!

Just because someone cant believe france could get beat!!

There was no doubt that up to the final NZ were head and shoulders above everyone else and France were appalling.

However in the final France were more than a match for the ABs and more than a few eyebrows were raised by Joubert's reluctance to give the French a penalty towards the end of the match.

But like I said, not fixed.

MunsterMac wrote:There was no doubt that up to the final NZ were head and shoulders above everyone else and France were appalling.

However in the final France were more than a match for the ABs and more than a few eyebrows were raised by Joubert's reluctance to give the French a penalty towards the end of the match.

But like I said, not fixed.

In McCaw's autobiography, he said he felt that Joubert froze in the big occasion - McCaw felt the same happened to Barnes in 2007, and on both occasions the team in the lead was able to use the referee's inactivity to hold on.

I'm sorry Pete but I don't subscribe to the 2 wrongs make a right in this instance.

What happened in 2011 was worse for me as it was the showpiece final and the contentious issues happened repeatedly in front of Joubert's eyes at the breakdown whereas in 2007 the 1 or 2 contentious issues happened at high speed.

Regardless the only connecting thread between the 2 events is that New Zealanders seem to accept what happened in 2011 as righting the wrongs of 2007 which just doesn't wash with me.

Munster mac, I don't think Pete was saying this was a correction of the previous result, rather that McCaw reasonsed that tow different men on two different days reacted in the same way and had a bearing on the result. Not that Joubert needed to even up the score. Certainly i don't think that was what Pete was saying and/or jusitfying.

Kunu,

I was addressing Secret with my first sentance as he picked me up on the use of a certain word. I stand by my sentiment though, that you have unduly tainted the Italian victory as per my second post. So I suppose if you'd like to take me up on my more comprehensive reasoning as to why I think you're incorrect to question the validity of the result, tis your thread you can reply or not as you feel like it.

debaters1 wrote:Munster mac, I don't think Pete was saying this was a correction of the previous result, rather that McCaw reasonsed that tow different men on two different days reacted in the same way and had a bearing on the result. Not that Joubert needed to even up the score. Certainly i don't think that was what Pete was saying and/or jusitfying.

...

Indeed. I was referring to referees feeling the big match pressure. McCaw recognised the signs in Joubert that he'd seen (and not recognised quick enough) in Barnes and used it to his advantage.

And most NZers (GreyGhost excepted) don't bregrudge Barnes for missing the forward pass for the try. It's how the French managed to play for 50 minutes without conceding a single penalty that baffles us (while defending desperately for much of the time) - much the same as Joubert's failure to award penalties in the last 20 minutes doubtless baffles the French.

Maybe its a new revenue strategy for the WRU so that it can actually fund the regions properly.

Pete - and the rest of us

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

debaters1 wrote:Munster mac, I don't think Pete was saying this was a correction of the previous result, rather that McCaw reasonsed that tow different men on two different days reacted in the same way and had a bearing on the result. Not that Joubert needed to even up the score. Certainly i don't think that was what Pete was saying and/or jusitfying.

...

Indeed. I was referring to referees feeling the big match pressure. McCaw recognised the signs in Joubert that he'd seen (and not recognised quick enough) in Barnes and used it to his advantage.

And most NZers (GreyGhost excepted) don't bregrudge Barnes for missing the forward pass for the try. It's how the French managed to play for 50 minutes without conceding a single penalty that baffles us (while defending desperately for much of the time) - much the same as Joubert's failure to award penalties in the last 20 minutes doubtless baffles the French.

Yup ha-50 mins trumps 20 and I think that's why Kiwis feel they can still lament 07 as the perceived injustices went on for most of the match as opposed to to only 25 mins where France were on top in 2011. Having said that there were no guarantees the kicks would have gone over with NZ's first two kickers gone in Cardiff and neither team bringing their kicking boots to Eden Park. Though I had some friends from Paris come over and started teasing me about it-when I used the obvious retort of 2007 they didn't have a clue about any controversy. Probably good the NZ media is pretty insignificant to them!

MunsterMac wrote:I'm sorry Pete but I don't subscribe to the 2 wrongs make a right in this instance.

What happened in 2011 was worse for me as it was the showpiece final and the contentious issues happened repeatedly in front of Joubert's eyes at the breakdown whereas in 2007 the 1 or 2 contentious issues happened at high speed.

Regardless the only connecting thread between the 2 events is that New Zealanders seem to accept what happened in 2011 as righting the wrongs of 2007 which just doesn't wash with me.

It may have been worse for you as but as a NZer you need to know what you are talking about.

Up until the 07 semi final France were THE most penalised side in the competition and despite Henry afterwards naming 41 separate instances- time, reason and person who infringed in his analysis, and France hardly having the ball the entire time, not one penalty in the last 60 minutes despite infringement after infringement.

Now assuming you are basing the comparison on what you are seeing, perhaps you need to reassess your 'all NZers seem to accept comment' as it goes both ways when all you are considering is the team that you 'prefer' to win, if you only saw 'one or two incidents at high speed, you, like Barnes, missing the other 30+ at normal speed'.

So which specific penalty offences did you see in 2011? Odd no ones come up with the actual detail on this occasion.

NZ didnt need Jouberts help before the match so why would someone approach him if thats what you are inferring? Whereas France in both matches needed a huge upset, and nearly got it in both.

Fact is both refs froze on the big occasion (and add BL's performance in 2011 as the third prong to the frozen trident) and we've gone over this again and again, but to disregard 2007 over 2011 in terms of possible match fixing or the unfairness of one ref towards one side needs a response- despite being as boring as it has become for us all.

Just back to the UK court of law bit that Rainbow Warrior brought up a good while back for a moment........................... he said only experts in certain disciplins have the 'right' to give "opinions" in UK courts.

Hmmm, I'd guess a UK court is the same as most courts in that a witness to a crime gives an opinion, a person with perhaps circumstantial evidence gives an opinion, a 'victim' gives an opinion; criminals themselves give opinions (experts in their chosen field! - "I didn't do it Gov, honest; coz I'm allergicked to them kinda house alarms..so my opinion is it couldn't have been me wot did it."

Opinions are always happening in yon UK courts of Law... and of course there is always a lawyer lying at any given time too given that one supports the 'victim' and one defends the accused. Lovely places courts for chat, even without the stiff upper lip experts.