Rolland apologises to the All Blacks

World Rugby boss Alain Rolland admits to All Blacks that Aaron Smith yellow card was wrong.

The confusion and anger continues.

The latest fallout from the match against Ireland in Dublin last weekend is that World Rugby referees chief Alain Rolland spoke to All Blacks supremo Steve Hansen this week, and told him Aaron Smith should never have been yellow carded.

That might provide some clarity to those viewers who wondered exactly what referee Jaco Peyper was referring to when he accused halfback Smith of spoiling ball at the breakdown in the first half.

That is not the only thing the All Blacks are annoyed about.

Hansen has already called for consistency. Behind the scenes you can imagine his crew may also be wondering whether Peyper lost the plot at Aviva Stadium, during the All Blacks' 21-9 win.

The Irish will laugh, saying it is rich for the New Zealanders to complain when they should have first rights at firing all the arrows, given they believed Malakai Fekitoa and Sam Cane should have been sent off for high tackles.

They got it half right. The judiciary said Fekitoa committed a red card offence with his bell-ringer on Simon Zebo, and banned the All Blacks centre for a week. Cane was exonerated.

Now it is the All Blacks' turn to return serve.

They had no issue with Peyper penalising them 14 times, but feel they were marginalised because he failed to scrutinise what the Irish were doing.

They say it doesn't make sense that the Irish could only concede four penalties, especially with a fast defensive line, swift advances around the ruck fringes and, like everyone, the desire to slow ruck ball.

Former England and British and Irish Lions midfielder Jeremy Guscott has given referees the hot tip. It's time to watch the All Blacks' more closely, he whispered. They're getting away with too much, you blokes with the whistles need to take it up a level.

Hansen says things need to be taken up a level alright, but it has to be when the refs are scrutinising their opponents.

The All Blacks get caned as much, if not more, than other teams, says Hansen.

He wants that habit to stop, for the referees to ask if the side in black, or black and white as will be the case when they meet France in Paris on Sunday morning (NZT), is the one really at fault.

Or is the perception, fuelled by Guscott and friends, becoming reality? In rugby, where the lawbook is so confusing, that is a dangerous thing.

The All Blacks can do their bit, too.

At training this week they have spoken about the need to lower their tackles, to give the officials fewer excuses to punish them. That in turn will, possibly, lead to them to start winning the PR war.

There is little doubt the All Blacks play some of the most attractive rugby on the international stage. You don't record 18 consecutive wins by operating by a kick-and-grind code.

Following their match in Dublin they have received a decent kicking.

Some of it was deserved, a lot has been unfair.

This All Blacks team is tired, and ready to go home. A win without any ugly incidents at Stade de France would be a suitable way to farewell their 2016 season.

Les Bleus might want to try their luck, to see if they disrupt with fist and niggle. Discipline may never be so important for the All Blacks.

miaow wrote:

Not grey and not a ghost wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Does Hansen want other sides to be as dirty as the ABs so that the penalty count is equal? Is he a complete idiot as that strategy would put his players at risk of career-ending injuries?

The reality is I think it's relatively easy to test whether the AB's get away with murder and intimidate the refs. Look at the statistical data for penalties for European national and club sides with kiwi coaches and players. If it's true there should be a difference in the number of penalties awarded against these teams (coaches and players aren't going to suddenly become saints). Given the number of matches played it's possible to test the hypothesis using standard statistical techniques. Teams that I would expect to have a higher penalty count include: Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Connacht, Scarlets, Benneton, Pau, Bath and Leicester. Given this information is available (it can be purchased from Opta) and be processed, analysed and assessed and reviewed in an few hours. I'm guessing there is no, or little, difference.

Bit of a flawed way of looking at things. Kiwis are, as I'm sure you are aware, not one homogenised mass of like minded drones (although the All Blacks do seem to have a seamless conveyor belt in every position...perhaps that's the reason...?). Being "dirty" is hardly an essential aspect to New Zealanders who play rugby, as some national identity. Take Wales for instance: Gatland is almost antithetical to the All Blacks' style of rugby. He is highly focused on a low penalty count, low errors, low risk rugby, squeezing out games not through superior skill, but through small micro management of the game, compartmentalising things. The All Blacks, under Hansen in particular, play a far different brand of rugby: it's far more reactive, far more intrinsic and 'natural', and far less reliant on discipline and a low penalty count for success (playing ability of the two countries aside, obviously).

Being an All Black, however, seems to demand a different intensity. It's the mentality of perennial winners. It's the psyche that means you really front up when threatened, and often in the past that's meant being properly dirty. The brutal way you used to ruck, through to the modern examples like BoD, Andrew Hore, and now this Ireland game. The All Blacks demand a level of intensity that means not taking a backward step in the confrontational facet of the game. What many see as outsiders is that you're so much better than everyone else, is there really a need for this manner of living on the edge?

That's a longer question, and I'd argue probably so. It drives standards, competition, which is integral when the greatest challenge to improve yourself is almost always one from within, to develop your own game to stay ahead of the pack, rather than catch anyone up. It also means when teams do go back to the old style of trying to rough up the opposition, you're prepared for it, and give it back. When you're threatened, you kick back, and this is what the Ireland game was: you'd been embarrassed by the Irish, the players were smarting, trying to make sure it didn't happen again, and key to avoiding complacency is firing yourself up to the point of being on that edge that the All Blacks have always shown signs of treading.

The point is, you're good at it. That should be commended at times, because after all, rugby is regulated and artificial brutality on a sporting field. Any idiot can go and thump their opposite number in open play, but what good does it do when your team is down to 14 men for the rest of the game? If you can intimidate and bully and batter the opposition in subtle and novel ways- just as you've always tested the laws and expectations relating to areas like the offside and the breakdown, and the more skillfull elements of the game- that's far better for a winning team.

The problem is, the referee and officials have become part of that trying to gain a small edge for the All Blacks (live all teams, I should add, and so I'm happy to argue about the hypocrisy of many people criticising them alone for this), and it's a game that clearly goes on off the field of play, too, when Hansen makes comments like those quoted earlier in this thread. That should be unacceptable, precisely because, as I mentioned above, on institutionalised talent alone, the All Blacks are ****ing marvelous to watch, when they're in full flow, even against Wales, it never fails to make me happy. It's like watching a Grand Master, or someone at the very peak of their powers and the best in their profession.

You keep pushing what's possible with the rugby ball, and it's wonderful to watch. It should come as no surprise, however, that referees start refereeing games with you in differently, for two reasons, one I mentioned in an earlier post. The first is that, inherently, there is an aura that they feel surrounding the All Blacks, that they're the "best in the world" etc. That can manifest itself in favourable or, in trying to avoid that, unfavourable refereeing. It's a feeling of unease- pressure, in short- that comes from officiating your team, and that means perhaps a referee doesn't relax and therefore behave as they normally would were it a SA vs Aus game. The other element is that, in reviewing games, referees will no doubt receive directives on areas where the All Blacks have "pushed" the laws to gain an advantage, and that has been deemed impossible to allow by the governing body. So they're more atuned to these things when they next referee them; they're watching out for them. Perhaps they then punish the All Blacks where other refs have not, and so it feels 'harsh', or that your team is being unduly done against.

This is one of the unfortunate results that come from being the best, from constantly innovating from within. Other than the 'choke tackle', almost every other modern facet of the game I can think of has come from NZ rugby, adapting things from league, or martial arts at the ruck, or whatever. Generally speaking, Australia in the backs and SA in the pack have done this too, but always NZ do it far more successfully. That's both the joy and frustration of your team. You're so good, why make imitation of the referee- on and off the pitch- such a big part of your coach's focus, as well as trying to push the barriers that exist on the more physical/confrontational side of the game, when you've innovated enough elsewhere to beat teams, comfortably and in emphatic style? It's why, as I said, you're good winners: when you're winning, and comfortably, you don't do this. It's only when you're threatened. It's only when you've lost that the more uglier and 'pragmatic' self preserving tactics come out, and historically, as now, they can be pretty unsavoury.

As far as I can tell, it's in NZ culture so far as there's an intense level of competition to be "the best" that permeates all levels of the game, and at pro level that's what makes even non All Blacks great players. That doesn't mean they're all dirty, all willing or able to go to the lengths that some All Blacks do/have done when threatened. You won't find that psyche by looking into NZers in Europe, precisely because it's an unquntifiable thing when the whole point of this "living on the edge" is the ability to get away with it. [/quote



Actually Miaow you have pretty much nailed a lot of good points, and if I had any criticism, two minor points I maybe dont agree entirely with but its not because you are wrong its just that in a couple of places you maybe have over-thought things.

Every weekend in the Rugby season many thousands of kiwis have a direct involvement in  a Rugby game or two, nearly 50 % of them experience defeat, but as a result of that loss they dont turn into dirty axe murderers, they go away and one of the things that they focus on is their defence, they enjoy their Rugby, its the love of the game that drives  every team go out and  play better next week than they did last week,The All Blacks are really not a lot different. they just do it at an International level.

Not grey and not a ghost wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'm still amazed, not at the ABs getting away with anything, but at the sheer inconsistency in what is deemed to be not even a penalty and what is cited for a  week ban if you happen to be Samoan...

Agreed. Very seldom do you see UK and Irish national sides even penalised for high tackles.

SecretFly wrote:Can I pass the Whinger baton back to New Zealand now?

I enjoyed having it here in Ireland for a few days.  Gave me an ego boost.  But I guess you can't hold onto these titles forever.

Not grey and not a ghost wrote:

Munchkin wrote:The penalty count wasn't the problem. It was the fact that Peyper couldn't/refused to control the game, and that favoured the ABs.
The ABs must have known they weren't going to get a red and so went beyond the line. They played the ref. They knew they wouldn't get away with it in Chicago and so they didn't attempt to. Still 12 penalties awarded against them and 4 for Ireland. Was that ref also biased in favour of Ireland? They wont try the same tactics in France either.

Having a very poor TMO also helped the ABs cause.

I disagree. Plenty of infringements by Ireland. They got a wealth of possession and position. The AB's weren't allowed to play the game they wanted. I agree with some of the sentiments of Eddie O'Sullivan. He said it's a big penalty count in Ireland's favour, no yellow cards, no penalty tries to NZ. Also he thought Cane wasn't a yellow card (don't think it was a penalty) and that Smith wasn't a yellow card or penalty.

From my perspective. He allowed Ireland to start high in tackle. that set the standard. In the rucks he pretty much assumed NZ was going to be offside so was looking at that first and ignoring other ruck offences. That set the tone and gave Ireland a huge advantage and allowed them to dictate much of the game.

Essentially your not happy with the referee who penalises a team more than any others this year. Supported by essentially a group of local officials and very one side penalty count with associated sanctions. It seems to me your asking for an insurmountable bias.

ebop wrote:So all this teeth gnashing aside

The better team won in Dublin right?

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:So all this teeth gnashing aside

The better team won in Dublin right?

The more clinical side did

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:So all this teeth gnashing aside

The better team won in Dublin right?

The more clinical side did

And the better prepared side?

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:So all this teeth gnashing aside

The better team won in Dublin right?

The more clinical side did

And the better prepared side?

Well I wasn't training with either side so cant say how well either prepared

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

ebop wrote:So all this teeth gnashing aside

The better team won in Dublin right?

The more clinical side did

And the better prepared side?

Well I wasn't training with either side so cant say how well either prepared

Ok, was Johan Smidt or whatever his name is out coached?

ebop wrote:So all this teeth gnashing aside

The better team won in Dublin right?

ebop wrote:Say it again

LondonTiger wrote:

ebop wrote:Say it again

War, what is it good for?
Absolutely, nothing, listen to me

SecretFly wrote:

ebop wrote:So all this teeth gnashing aside

The better team won in Dublin right?

Let's put it this way, ebop.... if we had a bigger percentage slice of your bountiful attacking ability/smarts/talent, then we'd be bloomin' well fighting for Number One spot in the Woyld!  

But.................... we don't.

We're still pretty blunt in the attack department  - even in comparison to most other top sides (NH included) who seem to have evasive speedsters aplenty - and yet still we give ourselves opportunities even in that second game against the best side in the World.  We were held up twice I think?  And O'Brien fluffed his so-close attempt.

So our backline is our Achilles Heel right now (attack-wise) but there are signs of that maybe improving with the inclusion of some promising looking youngster over the next few years.

ebop wrote:Come on guys

Spit those purple grapes out

We've already gift wrapped you Johan Smidt on a plate

Just say......the All Blacks were the better team

And let's be done with it

No 7&1/2 wrote:Where would you say tactically NZ were better ebop?

ebop wrote:But Johan Smidt 'out coached' Hansen in Chicago didn't he?

Tell me how he did it 7.5

Not grey and not a ghost wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'm still amazed, not at the ABs getting away with anything, but at the sheer inconsistency in what is deemed to be not even a penalty and what is cited for a  week ban if you happen to be Samoan...

Agreed. Very seldom do you see UK and Irish national sides even penalised for high tackles.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Not grey and not a ghost wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'm still amazed, not at the ABs getting away with anything, but at the sheer inconsistency in what is deemed to be not even a penalty and what is cited for a  week ban if you happen to be Samoan...

Agreed. Very seldom do you see UK and Irish national sides even penalised for high tackles.

This one was play on. Not one of the 4 officials saw anything wrong with it.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Not grey and not a ghost wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'm still amazed, not at the ABs getting away with anything, but at the sheer inconsistency in what is deemed to be not even a penalty and what is cited for a  week ban if you happen to be Samoan...

Agreed. Very seldom do you see UK and Irish national sides even penalised for high tackles.

This one was play on. Not one of the 4 officials saw anything wrong with it.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Not grey and not a ghost wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'm still amazed, not at the ABs getting away with anything, but at the sheer inconsistency in what is deemed to be not even a penalty and what is cited for a  week ban if you happen to be Samoan...

Agreed. Very seldom do you see UK and Irish national sides even penalised for high tackles.

This one was play on. Not one of the 4 officials saw anything wrong with it.

RugbyFan100 wrote:This one was dealt with poorly too if I recall correctly

No 7&1/2 wrote:From my point of view the obvious factor was up the physicality which NZ generally went about their work

No 7&1/2 wrote:
So you honestly agree that high tackles aren't penalised by NH refs, or just for NH teams? Maybe they just thought it was accidental (not that that's in the laws but it's how you see it right?).