NZ Media Reaction.

I think it's fair to say that large parts of the NZ rugby media are filthy about Romain Poite's decision. There is certainly also a good deal of appreciation being shown to the visitors, and for the Lions tour as an event, but the NZ Herald and Stuff.co.nz sites had well over half a dozen separate articles up soon after the final whistle which focused on Poite.

Today, Gregor Paul has a piece called "World Rugby's Big Problem". Paul is a Scot, but he's also a leading Herald rugby writer, so it's fair to see him as a representative of NZ rugby media. I found this caveat interesting:

The All Blacks don't want to become a team who give the impression they only lose or don't win because they have been robbed by the officials. That's not the narrative they want to promote

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11888071

It really is going to be hard for that not to become the narrative, though. It's almost as if the rest of the rugby world is being told "Yes, we know you've all complained about officiating decisions in the past but this time, it really matters (because it's happened to us)".

That controversial play was probably a penalty (although I see that Jonathan Kaplan agrees with Gatland and says he would have ruled it to the Lions not New Zealand). I would certainly have been annoyed to lose a Test that way but I was annoyed when the Lions lost the first test in 1993 to one of the worst last minute penalty calls ever seen. Given that the Lions took the second Test comfortably, it could have been the defining series decision.  No-one in NZ was concerned at the time, and I've yet to see it brought up now.

England had Simon Shaw sent off against New Zealand in 2004 after an illegal intervention from the linesman. He asked the TMO to identify Shaw, something the law allows now, but didn't at the time. Shaw was consequently cleared of the offence by the disciplinary panel after the match but that was too late to save England. Again, there was no sense from NZ media that anything untoward had happened.

These things happen to all teams, and some of them in games against New Zealand. That's not to defend poor officiating but to ask that commentators like Paul consider the wider context.

We all want our officials to be consistent but it often seems that none of us really want to be held to that standard ourselves. I saw suggestions that Garces should not have awarded the Lions last penalty in the second Test because it was more in the nature of a technical offence based on an inadequate law. Now Poite appears to have shared that view yesterday, the same voices want referees to be sticklers. Yes, both approaches are at odds with each other but we can't just choose which we prefer based on which result suits us best.

Paul doesn't just take aim at the officals in his piece. Here he is on Lions tactics:

Perhaps, though, the bigger worry in the wake of this series is that cynicism was richly rewarded. The Lions were terrific. They defended supremely well, attacked with poise and vision and deserved their share of the series. But they played a cynical hand in the second and third tests that was unquestionably smart, but still cynical.

No-one in rugby can take this observation seriously unless it's accompanied with an acknowledgement that the world champions of smart but cynical play over the years are New Zealand. Most of us who hold this view about the All Blacks do so with a grudging admiration, or even envy. Richie McCaw lived offside for most of his playing career but is widely, and rightly regarded as one of the game's greats, rather than someone who undermined the integrity of the game.

Hansen said he was a little annoyed, but that that's rugby, we didn't take our opportunities.

If that's teams viewpoint it doesn't matter what fans or the media say, they don't represent the team.

For me the ABs didn't take the ref out of the equation, so let themselves open to that possibility.

Taylorman wrote:Hansen said he was a little annoyed, but that that's rugby, we didn't take our opportunities.

If that's teams viewpoint it doesn't matter what fans or the media say, they don't represent the team.

For me the ABs didn't take the ref out of the equation, so let themselves open to that possibility.

I think you're right, you have to draw a distinction between the team and the media (and a small group of fans). The former seem to take most things on the chin, the latter seem to have little respect for rugby played outside of NZ.

Rugby Fan wrote:I think it's fair to say that large parts of the NZ rugby media are filthy about Romain Poite's decision. There is certainly also a good deal of appreciation being shown to the visitors, and for the Lions tour as an event, but the NZ Herald and Stuff.co.nz sites had well over half a dozen separate articles up soon after the final whistle which focused on Poite.

Today, Gregor Paul has a piece called "World Rugby's Big Problem". Paul is a Scot, but he's also a leading Herald rugby writer, so it's fair to see him as a representative of NZ rugby media. I found this caveat interesting:

The All Blacks don't want to become a team who give the impression they only lose or don't win because they have been robbed by the officials. That's not the narrative they want to promote

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11888071

It really is going to be hard for that not to become the narrative, though. It's almost as if the rest of the rugby world is being told "Yes, we know you've all complained about officiating decisions in the past but this time, it really matters (because it's happened to us)".

That controversial play was probably a penalty (although I see that Jonathan Kaplan agrees with Gatland and says he would have ruled it to the Lions not New Zealand). I would certainly have been annoyed to lose a Test that way but I was annoyed when the Lions lost the first test in 1993 to one of the worst last minute penalty calls ever seen. Given that the Lions took the second Test comfortably, it could have been the defining series decision.  No-one in NZ was concerned at the time, and I've yet to see it brought up now.

England had Simon Shaw sent off against New Zealand in 2004 after an illegal intervention from the linesman. He asked the TMO to identify Shaw, something the law allows now, but didn't at the time. Shaw was consequently cleared of the offence by the disciplinary panel after the match but that was too late to save England. Again, there was no sense from NZ media that anything untoward had happened.

These things happen to all teams, and some of them in games against New Zealand. That's not to defend poor officiating but to ask that commentators like Paul consider the wider context.

We all want our officials to be consistent but it often seems that none of us really want to be held to that standard ourselves. I saw suggestions that Garces should not have awarded the Lions last penalty in the second Test because it was more in the nature of a technical offence based on an inadequate law. Now Poite appears to have shared that view yesterday, the same voices want referees to be sticklers. Yes, both approaches are at odds with each other but we can't just choose which we prefer based on which result suits us best.

Paul doesn't just take aim at the officals in his piece. Here he is on Lions tactics:

Perhaps, though, the bigger worry in the wake of this series is that cynicism was richly rewarded. The Lions were terrific. They defended supremely well, attacked with poise and vision and deserved their share of the series. But they played a cynical hand in the second and third tests that was unquestionably smart, but still cynical.

No-one in rugby can take this observation seriously unless it's accompanied with an acknowledgement that the world champions of smart but cynical play over the years are New Zealand. Most of us who hold this view about the All Blacks do so with a grudging admiration, or even envy. Richie McCaw lived offside for most of his playing career but is widely, and rightly regarded as one of the game's greats, rather than someone who undermined the integrity of the game.

Completely agree with you.

Congratulations Rugby Fan - one of the best pieces I've read on here, well written and researched.

The Lions tour has given the rugby media in all forms plenty of material over the last month, carrying on about a late penalty or that there should be extra time or golden point shows how desperate they are to wring every last inch of coverage which they know is going to be picked up on the other side of the World.

Rugby has probably too many opinion writers, but thats only because we keep reading them.

 The Lions tour is now over and New Zealand fans are now looking forward to the All Blacks playing the Wallabies in the 2017 Rugby Championship next month. sadly this means that some members of the New Zealand media will be targeting readers over on the West Island.

Waiting for the plane..... Having grown up reading the Western Mail rugby columns of JBG Thomas it's fair to say the NZ rugby media tend to the cycloptic.The NZ fans are on the other hand serious analysts of the game.Listening to the debates,discussions and arguments between NZ fans in Auckland today here are some of their analytical pearls of wisdom:
-Hansen may have a ridiculous depth of talent to pick from but that doesn't mean he picks the best team in contrast to Gatland who with little time and a much smaller pool got a Lions Test team together good enough to draw the series.Hansen could even be accused of Warrenball tendencies when to most fans it seemed clear that the Lions Achilles heel was sheer pace and speed in the backs;
-one of the real achievements of the Lions forward's coaches is that the Lions pack achieved parity with the AB's pack in the second and third tests.Suggestions that an AB's pack is going to be dominated is for the birds.But and;
-in particular,it became clear after the Crusaders match that AWJ and Kruis et al had the ability and dog to at least nullify the AB pairing of Whitelock/Retallick and after the 1st Test AWJ/Itoje did precisely that so preventing a rampaging AB back-row causing their usual and expected damage(Note to Gatland:find a Welsh 2nd row as athletic and dynamic as Itoje to complement the huge fight in the AWJ dog).The Lions pack reduced the sum of the AB's pack's parts by nullifying its second row elements.

Finding an Itoje doesn't happen very often.

An interesting perspective from Kaplan. I thought I heard Poite say "do we have a deal? or something like that. He was examining Read's challenge on Williams, which was a bump-off a man without the ball.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/07/08/ref-romain-poite-couldve-avoided-controversy-awarding-lions/

Could have been reversed for play acting as well I suppose or ruled out as read was offside from the kick.

samuraidragon wrote:An interesting perspective from Kaplan. I thought I heard Poite say "do we have a deal? or something like that. He was examining Read's challenge on Williams, which was a bump-off a man without the ball.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2017/07/08/ref-romain-poite-couldve-avoided-controversy-awarding-lions/

That's a point I've seen raised elsewhere too. As Kaplan says, no-one knows what Poite meant when he said the word "deal". I doubt very much whether he was talking about haggling. It's more likely he used it as in "this is a big deal" but we've got no way of knowing unless Poite happens to clarify things.

Don't think a Frenchman would use the word in that sense. I think - though not sure - he was using to mean "agreement." Ie. he was saying "there was a bunch of possible transgressions - do you both agree to a black scrum?"

All round NZ 'media' have shown themselves up, pretty disgraceful but I expect no less. Clowns.

Anyone know why Sinkler was arrested in Auckland? Did he jump into someone?

British and Irish Lions rugby prop Kyle Sinckler has apologised after he was arrested during a night out in Auckland.

The 24-year-old tighthead was held in the early hours of Sunday morning after police were called to a "minor disorder".

The incident occurred just hours after the Lions drew 15-15 with the New Zealand All Blacks at Eden Park.

Sinckler is believed to have been celebrating with teammates when the incident took place on Galway Street in central Auckland about 3am.

In a statement, police said: "A male was placed under arrest but was not charged after further inquiries established that the incident did not warrant prosecution."

Harlequins star Sinckler issued an apology on Tuesday.

He said: "I apologise for putting myself and the Lions in this position and also to the police and anyone else affected."

Seems like nothing tbh

Also a very good piece Rugby Fan.

It's a real shame that a lot of the NZ media let the AB's down in the way they report anything about them, especially after a loss, the same happened the few times they lost to Oz lately. They don't seem to realise that their own writing is far more detrimental to public opinion on NZ and it's team then anything any rugby team actually does.

yappysnap wrote:Also a very good piece Rugby Fan.

It's a real shame that a lot of the NZ media let the AB's down in the way they report anything about them, especially after a loss, the same happened the few times they lost to Oz lately. They don't seem to realise that their own writing is far more detrimental to public opinion on NZ and it's team then anything any rugby team actually does.

 Most kiwis dont regard it as a big deal, the average Kiwi would know more about Rugby than the Average member of the Kiwi media. At times I think you guys up there read more of our Rugby jounos than we do.

Taylorman wrote:Hansen said he was a little annoyed, but that that's rugby, we didn't take our opportunities.

If that's teams viewpoint it doesn't matter what fans or the media say, they don't represent the team.

For me the ABs didn't take the ref out of the equation, so let themselves open to that possibility.

What does that actually mean though?

How does a team take the ref out of the equation? Surely the only way that you can negate being on the wrong end of a contentious decision (which happen every game, across the game and not just in the last 2 minutes) is to be so much better than the opposition that it doesn't matter if you fall foul of the odd contentious decision?

If a team matches you (as the Lions did) then you're back to being affected by the ref just as much as the opposition. But in that case, how is that about something NZ didn't do? (ie you didn't take the ref out of the equation).

I'm just struggling to figure out what you actually mean by this phrase. It sounds like a cliché to me.

Mistakes they wouldn't expect to make. Savea dropping a pass with a walk in beckoning?

cascough wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Hansen said he was a little annoyed, but that that's rugby, we didn't take our opportunities.

If that's teams viewpoint it doesn't matter what fans or the media say, they don't represent the team.

For me the ABs didn't take the ref out of the equation, so let themselves open to that possibility.

What does that actually mean though?

How does a team take the ref out of the equation? Surely the only way that you can negate being on the wrong end of a contentious decision (which happen every game, across the game and not just in the last 2 minutes) is to be so much better than the opposition that it doesn't matter if you fall foul of the odd contentious decision?

If a team matches you (as the Lions did) then you're back to being affected by the ref just as much as the opposition. But in that case, how is that about something NZ didn't do? (ie you didn't take the ref out of the equation).

I'm just struggling to figure out what you actually mean by this phrase. It sounds like a cliché to me.

is to be so muchenough better than the opposition that it doesn't matter if you fall foul of the odd contentious decision? is exactly what taking the ref out of the equation means.

Kicking easy goals and not dropping the ball with the line open would've been a good start

No 7&1/2 wrote:Mistakes they wouldn't expect to make. Savea dropping a pass with a walk in beckoning?

That's nothing to do with the ref though. That's back to the level of performance, and that is relative to the opposition. Lions brought an intensity that was demonstrably hard to live with. Especially having leveled the series the Lions created a high pressure environment that NZ weren't quite good enough to deal with.

The Lions were absolutely relentless in this. Think about the first half. NZ clearly had a game plan to go wide early and try negate the rush defence. Despite it looking dangerous for the Lions, the Lions kept their aggression in defence. It would have been easy for them to start to drift and get passive, but they stuck to their guns and kept the pressure on. NZ had something like 8 handling errors in the first half and that's got a lot to do with the Lions sticking to their plan IMO. That decision pretty much saved the series because it kept this high pressure environment going (which Barrett also struggled to cope with) and allowed the Lions to work their way back into the game.

So that's not about what NZ didn't do with the ref, it's what they couldn't do to the Lions.

Like I said, you can be much better than your opposition and then the ref doesn't matter. But that's not about the ref, that's about being better than your opposition.

If you're not much better than your opposition and then you're at the mercy of the ref, then again that's because you're not much better than your opposition. It's still not about the ref!

I don't mean it as a dig, Taylorman has been quite gracious on this thread. But unless someone can give me some tangibles, it sounds like a cliché to me. It's just another way of saying, the ref is only a problem when we lose.

That's exactly what it means though. Creating and finishing enough chances that a perceived error.or error s by officials don't affect the score. Had Savea caught a relatively simple pass or as Pete said Barrett kicked goals that really he should have it takes that decision from the ref out of the equation.

So it means "be better than your opposition".

And then when you're not better than your opposition, the ref is a problem.

If all it means is be better than your opposition, then people should say that. Terming it as "Take the ref out of the equation" is either a)alluding to a mystical power or b)not about the ref at all but actually about performance.

Now people have said it's not a case of a. But if it's b, when you use the term being discussed, it relates to performance whilst still maintaining a little dig at the ref. A whinge, if you will.

NZ should have been better, but they weren't good enough to beat the Lions. I suppose it's just more palatable to say we should have taken the ref out of the equation because it insinuates it's not all your fault whilst also avoiding giving credit to your opposition.

Ok. Just a common phrase which means people make mistakes just make sure the mistakes don't impact on you negatively.

cascough wrote:So it means "be better than your opposition".

And then when you're not better than your opposition, the ref is a problem.

If all it means is be better than your opposition, then people should say that. Terming it as "Take the ref out of the equation" is either a)alluding to a mystical power or b)not about the ref at all but actually about performance.

Now people have said it's not a case of a. But if it's b, when you use the term being discussed, it relates to performance whilst still maintaining a little dig at the ref. A whinge, if you will.

NZ should have been better, but they weren't good enough to beat the Lions. I suppose it's just more palatable to say we should have taken the ref out of the equation because it insinuates it's not all your fault whilst also avoiding giving credit to your opposition.

You're still not quite reading it right mate. When you're not better than your opposition then there's an opportunity for the ref to be a problem, not that he necessarily is one - ref. Chicago where most* kiwi fans gave credit to Ireland for being better on the day - ditto England in 2012.

Rugby's such a complicated game to ref that in a close game a fan can point to half a dozen decisions and moan. Even though a rival fan might be able to point at a different 6 calls gone the other way. Look at all the whinging about the ref that goes on in the 6N where the teams are pretty closely matched.


*not all, every country has their share of idiots

Garces gave away a pedantic penalty in the last minute to allow the Lions to win Test 2 but talked Poite out of a pedantic penalty to give the ABs the opportunity to win Test 3. How very French.

Taylorman wrote:Hansen said he was a little annoyed, but that that's rugby, we didn't take our opportunities.

If that's teams viewpoint it doesn't matter what fans or the media say, they don't represent the team.

For me the ABs didn't take the ref out of the equation, so let themselves open to that possibility.

Hansen also made it very clear that he thought Poite robbed the ABs. He cant really have any complaints though as Read was about 3 metres ahead of Barrett's kick. If anything it should have been a scrum to the Lions on halfway.

aucklandlaurie wrote:...the average Kiwi would know more about Rugby than the Average member of the Kiwi media...

According to his comment above, that was certainly exile jack's experience.

The public's relationship with the main media outlets has changed over the years. Even the top journalists are no longer gatekeepers to the flow of information on the game.

This struck me the other day when a poster on a forum raised the 1997 match at Old Trafford between England and New Zealand. Hardly a year goes by without someone bring up the old canard that England did a lap of honour after the game even though they'd lost. It's often to be brought up as an example of how English rugby is seemingly satisfied with low performance standards. Meanwhile, in England, we know that the players were actually just thanking the Old Trafford crowd for coming out to watch union in a football and league heartland.

I'd always assumed the mistaken NZ take came from an All Black on the pitch who didn't know what was going on. Stumbling across a YouTube video, I now realize the real origin was the NZ TV commentary:



You can actually here the commentators beginning to realize they have misunderstood what's going on but their initial disbelief is what left its mark in the minds of many NZ viewers.

It occurred to me that would never happen today. Within moments of the commentators saying that, it would become a talking point on twitter. The actual rationale for England's actions would have been quickly established, and the video would have then gone around social networks accompanied by some mocking. One of the commentary team might have tweeted out a "my bad", while an All Black player or two could also have added a respectful comment to the Old Trafford crowd. All done and dusted in less that a 24 hour news cycle, rather than dragging on for 20 years.

Quite simply, we don't trust media figures in the way we did before. We never put them up on pedestals, but there was a basic assumption that they were privy to a lot of information we didn't have. Now, we don't believe that. We are also aware of the parlous economics of journalism these days. Provocative opinions are more likely to just be clickbait than genuinely-held views. The Eggchasers podcast pointed out that NZ news sites will have seen a sharp rise in views from overseas during the tour, and controversy gets more attention than even-handedness.

ebop wrote:Garces gave away a pedantic penalty in the last minute to allow the Lions to win Test 2 but talked Poite out of a pedantic penalty to give the ABs the opportunity to win Test 3. How very French.

Poite asked TMO George Ayoub if anyone was ahead of Barretts restart kick off. Ayoub an Aussie said no. However, Read was about 3 metres ahead of the kick off and should have been penalised. It should have been a Lions scrum on half way no need for any controversy.

Ayoub also tried to get Garces to reconsider the Red against SBW and reconsider just a yellow on Mako V. I think you can also make a good case for Jaco Peyper being quite a favourable referee for the ABs too in both the first test and the test against Ireland in Dublin.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:Garces gave away a pedantic penalty in the last minute to allow the Lions to win Test 2 but talked Poite out of a pedantic penalty to give the ABs the opportunity to win Test 3. How very French.

...

I think you can also make a good case for Jaco Peyper being quite a favourable referee for the ABs too in both the first test and the test against Ireland in Dublin.

You can make a case for Peyper being rubbish in Dublin. Bias not so much, he missed plenty both ways.

I think we can make a case for Ayoub being rubbish full stop.

You can argue that Poite (and possibly Garces) made a few wrong calls (as most refs do btw but people tend to remember only the ones at the 78th minute against their team for some reason) but to say they are biaised is laughable.

Anyway...I see that French refs stock hasn't dropped so much down south given 4 of them will be appointed during this year RC ) and if you think Garces is bad (he will be in charge of NZ against SA and Aus), wait till you see Gauzere and Raynal in action...

Ayoub is terrible. Some bizarre interjections from him over the series.

cascough wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Hansen said he was a little annoyed, but that that's rugby, we didn't take our opportunities.

If that's teams viewpoint it doesn't matter what fans or the media say, they don't represent the team.

For me the ABs didn't take the ref out of the equation, so let themselves open to that possibility.

What does that actually mean though?

How does a team take the ref out of the equation? Surely the only way that you can negate being on the wrong end of a contentious decision (which happen every game, across the game and not just in the last 2 minutes) is to be so much better than the opposition that it doesn't matter if you fall foul of the odd contentious decision?

If a team matches you (as the Lions did) then you're back to being affected by the ref just as much as the opposition. But in that case, how is that about something NZ didn't do? (ie you didn't take the ref out of the equation).

I'm just struggling to figure out what you actually mean by this phrase. It sounds like a cliché to me.

Taking the ref out of the equation....is that why Sonny Bill was selected?

cascough wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Hansen said he was a little annoyed, but that that's rugby, we didn't take our opportunities.

If that's teams viewpoint it doesn't matter what fans or the media say, they don't represent the team.

For me the ABs didn't take the ref out of the equation, so let themselves open to that possibility.

What does that actually mean though?

How does a team take the ref out of the equation? Surely the only way that you can negate being on the wrong end of a contentious decision (which happen every game, across the game and not just in the last 2 minutes) is to be so much better than the opposition that it doesn't matter if you fall foul of the odd contentious decision?

If a team matches you (as the Lions did) then you're back to being affected by the ref just as much as the opposition. But in that case, how is that about something NZ didn't do? (ie you didn't take the ref out of the equation).

I'm just struggling to figure out what you actually mean by this phrase. It sounds like a cliché to me.

As you say, you take the ref out of the equation by being more than seven points ahead near the final whistle. The ABs have managed that in roughly 80% of their wins. How is it a cliche? It's just a logical statement. If the ABs were eight or so points ahead of the Lions then it wouldn't have mattered what happened with that kick off.

ABs have operated on that basis for years, and why you hear that other commonly used 'cliche', you have to play 80 minutes against the ABs because the fact is most tests they play are more or less over before then.

The Barnes incident saw thecABs rethink their approach in that they not only have to score more points they had to score so many it mattered not what the ref did, good call or bad.

Here they allowed the ref to have a say in the outcome, so didn't take him out of the equation. Doesn't happen often, but it did this series, twice.

Take last year, ABs played 14 tests, and besides the Chicago loss only one match, the last of the year, was the winning score less than 8 points. France, in the last match. 12 tests were 12, at Dublin, or more. So it's not only important to win, it's important to win without having to worry at the death about referees, as that tends to happen a lot more than it should in tests.

England were similar, two matches out of 13 that were under 8 at the whistle.

Taking the ref out of the equation sounds good but it's meaningless. When Andrew Hore committed a red card offence against Wales, which wasn't spotted, did he take the referee out of the equation?

NZ take the ref out of the game through intimidation. Thankfully this seems to be changing and refs are no longer afraid to penalise them appropriately. This is why NZ have recieived 6 or 7 cards in their last 10 games.

It's not meaningless Rugby Fan because the French referees stitched up the ABs in the last couple of minutes in TWO tests. Not to mention the biased way Lions foul play was treated (SOB and Vunipola to name a couple).

1 test surely ebop as read was offside on the kick off.

Where was the so-called "stitch-up" in the second Test? If you tackle a player in the air, it's a penalty. That's stated clearly in the laws, with no reference to it needing to be a player who's caught a kick (rather than a pass). I've seen it pinged a few times in NH club rugby certainly. Unlucky, perhaps, but don't think it was in any way a controversial decision. Sinckler was tackled in the air, hence penalty.

As for the third Test, I'm ambiguous, in that I felt it was 50-50. Owens sort of makes an initial grab for the ball, but immediately pulls back and lets it go. You could argue the initial grab removes the "accidental" or you could say it's purely instinctive and as much a case of the ball hitting him. Having made the original decision, Poite should IMO have stuck to it. However, you could also argue, as Kaplan does, that Read should have been pinged going for a ball he had no realistic chance of reaching, and certainly Read was miles offside at the kick-off which, had it been spotted, would actually have given the Lions a decent midfield platform to maybe look for the winning score themselves, so maybe it's the Lions who were robbed?

NZ fans really should be blaming their own team for missing relatively easy kicks and constantly dropping the ball rather than the tedious whingeing about the ref...

For stitch up read decision that didn't benefit NZ and held them to account for their actions.

Rugby Fan wrote:Taking the ref out of the equation  sounds good but it's meaningless. When Andrew Hore committed a red card offence against Wales, which wasn't spotted, did he take the referee out of the equation?

Well i wouldnt expect many to get what that means. Its part of the culture of the side and ha nothing to do with incedentals such as the poor examples being quoted here.
If you arent winning most of your tests then its not an option but it is for sides you should normally beat.
But anyway, toil away. It aint NZ that has the bucketloads of red cards remember.

Rugbys rules are that complex and open to so much interpretation in a way no other sport is.

How thats not obvious is beyond me.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:NZ take the ref out of the game through intimidation. Thankfully this seems to be changing and refs are no longer afraid to penalise them appropriately. This is why NZ have recieived 6 or 7 cards in their last 10 games.

No they don't, they do it by scoring tries. Is it your honest opinion that NZ win nearly all their games by intimidation? That they apportion so much of maximising their skill levels to intimidate?

Sad if you don't even get that much.

And if that's so that's a lot of meek, intimidated sides. 90% of them, wow.

Thankfully the Lions weren't like that, don't know about the rest.

Taylorman wrote:Well i wouldnt expect many to get what that means. Its part of the culture of the side and ha nothing to do with incedentals such as the poor examples being quoted here.

I suppose what I really mean is I think it's too glib. Everyone knows referees can make mistakes, and that can cost you a match. It's impossible for a team to play a natural game and entirely avoid areas where the referee might penalize you. Everyone wants to score enough points to outweigh any potential errors but you can't do that if the referee makes a key call early in the match. Teams win matches where they didn't take the referee out of the game (Hore had no way of knowing his punch would not be seen), and lose others where the referee didn't have an impact.

All the phrase really translates to is demanding players eliminate mistakes, which is what you ask of them anyway. At a pinch, I can see how it might be a strategy for favouring try scoring chances over penalties, with the aim of creating a big points gap as early as possible, but it's much simpler to say you are just trying to crush your opponent.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Well i wouldnt expect many to get what that means. Its part of the culture of the side and ha nothing to do with incedentals such as the poor examples being quoted here.

I suppose what I really mean is I think it's too glib. Everyone knows referees can make mistakes, and that can cost you a match. It's impossible for a team to play a natural game and entirely avoid areas where the referee might penalize you. Everyone wants to score enough points to outweigh any potential errors but you can't do that if the referee makes a key call early in the match. Teams win matches where they didn't take the referee out of the game (Hore had no way of knowing his punch would not be seen), and lose others where the referee didn't have an impact.

All the phrase really translates to is demanding players eliminate mistakes, which is what you ask of them anyway. At a pinch, I can see how it might be a strategy for favouring try scoring chances over penalties, with the aim of creating a big points gap as early as possible, but it's much simpler to say you are just trying to crush your opponent.

There's a difference between 'wanting to score enough points to outweigh any potential errors' and having it as a core part of what's driving you to success. It takes into account things like being the fittest side of them all, of maximising the time and space available, of creating a network of understanding between the five feeder franchises in terms of what is required for individuals to make the step up, of getting players in as soon as they're ready to take the jersey on therefore creating depth to cover injuries. It's a much deeper concept than simply, scoring more points.

Fall down on any of those factors and you increase the likelihood of the opposition getting closer, and refs interpretations being a factor.

One of the issues the NH have that we don't is your battle with the clubs, players being released. We largely laugh at that. Every year players get here 'late' because of club commitments. That will continue to hinder the national sides so long as clubs have that hold on their players.

The Clubs in Ireland dont have a hold on the players at all. That's England and France's problem because their unions dont own the leagues and have allowed club rugby to become all about money. Argentina used to have the same issues.

When was the last time.English clubs failed.to release players in an international window?

I'd say the Irish provinces have a bigger problem when their union decides to move players around against their wishes. There's obvious favouritism among the blazers which has caused huge bad feeling in the case of Pienaar etc. They seem to be hog-tied by union interference and the old-school ties.

The relationship between the RFU and the clubs, while not always very cordial, is in a pretty good situation. You can see that reflected in England's success and a good structure working down the age-grades. Jones has excellent access and cooperation for the EPS and training squads. In addition to that the rule that players need to play in the AP is working well, with finances to support it.

I am many things but despite what my detractors think I`m neither a
fool or a hypocrite.I`m a realist and despite what peoplethink I`m objective
in my opinions of matches watched.
This thread should be about the Media in general not just the NZmedia
they have by the record the best side and worst media in the world.
NZ Players,and fans mostly said fair enough a good result and a brilliant
tour.
Look at ANY match in any competion in the world objectively and you`ll
see incidents the officials missed.Which should be penalised ,carded etc.
How many here and in the media were saying early on Gatland is rubbish
or why isn`t there more of there own players involved.
Read any tour books of the great tours by John Reason or JBG.Thomas
Terry Mclean,A.c Parker or Reg Swift.I have a comprehensive if dated
of these tours.BUT by both sides because all are one -eyed the same
applies to the newspapers.
UK papers as well as SH they have serve there audience for want of
a better word.
DON`T blame the officials the laws should have a standard interpration
not by NH/SH bias.Things like jumping for the ball in the air,ban it
bring back the mark/freekick anywhere.All Scrum penalties a freekick
etc simplify them,cut out experimental changes in only certain comps
etc.
This was much harder than other recent tours because many sides had
there AB`s in the squad.Unlike the shameful practiced by the Boks in
2009 hiding there test players.
A great tour by two great sides playing as best they could in conditions
where.Both the ball and underfoot was like a bar of wet soap both sides
tripped,slipped,spilled balls.Which on a dry hard track would have been
a different ball game for both sides.

Taylorman wrote:

cascough wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Hansen said he was a little annoyed, but that that's rugby, we didn't take our opportunities.

If that's teams viewpoint it doesn't matter what fans or the media say, they don't represent the team.

For me the ABs didn't take the ref out of the equation, so let themselves open to that possibility.

What does that actually mean though?

How does a team take the ref out of the equation? Surely the only way that you can negate being on the wrong end of a contentious decision (which happen every game, across the game and not just in the last 2 minutes) is to be so much better than the opposition that it doesn't matter if you fall foul of the odd contentious decision?

If a team matches you (as the Lions did) then you're back to being affected by the ref just as much as the opposition. But in that case, how is that about something NZ didn't do? (ie you didn't take the ref out of the equation).

I'm just struggling to figure out what you actually mean by this phrase. It sounds like a cliché to me.

As you say, you take the ref out of the equation by being more than seven points ahead near the final whistle. The ABs have managed that in roughly 80% of their wins. How is it a cliche? It's just a logical statement. If the ABs were eight or so points ahead of the Lions then it wouldn't have mattered what happened with that kick off.

ABs have operated on that basis for years, and why you hear that other commonly used 'cliche', you have to play 80 minutes against the ABs because the fact is most tests they play are more or less over before then.

The Barnes incident saw thecABs rethink their approach in that they not only have to score more points they had to score so many it mattered not what the ref did, good call or bad.

Here they allowed the ref to have a say in the outcome, so didn't take him out of the equation. Doesn't happen often, but it did this series, twice.

Take last year, ABs played 14 tests, and besides the Chicago loss only one match, the last of the year, was the winning score less than 8 points. France, in the last match. 12 tests were 12, at Dublin, or more. So it's not only important to win, it's important to win without having to worry at the death about referees, as that tends to happen a lot more than it should in tests.

England were similar, two matches out of 13 that were under 8 at the whistle.

So NZ were not good enough/the Lions were too good for you to be ahead 8 points at the end. Because of that, the ref is suddenly a problem? Surely the real problem is my first sentence.

If the ref is a problem, he's a problem all game. If he's not, then it's down to performance (or lack thereof).

At the end of the day, assuming you've been officiated fairly for 78 minutes, if the game is safe going into the last 2 minutes it's safe. If it's not, there are any number of things that can go wrong. What happens if someone throws an intercept and you lose/draw because of that? Do you have a phrase for that too? "We usually take intercepts out of the equation". Or if the pen was awarded and Barrett missed? "We usually take missed penalties to win the game out of the equation". I suspect not, I suspect in those instances you'd say something like "We just weren't good enough to get it done today" or maybe even "Fair play to the opposition, they were better than us today". Why is it that if it's because of a refereeing decision, even though there are countless throughout the game, the ref gets a special phrase?

If you want to blame the ref, come out and say it. Maybe you even thought he was biased against you all game, so say it. If you don't want to blame the ref, then why can't you acknowledge the problem of your performance? The phrase your'e using is nothing more than a thinly veiled dig at the ref IMO, or it's just a cliché that no one has really thought about and has no real meaning.

Taylorman wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Taking the ref out of the equation  sounds good but it's meaningless. When Andrew Hore committed a red card offence against Wales, which wasn't spotted, did he take the referee out of the equation?

Well i wouldnt expect many to get what that means. Its part of the culture of the side and ha nothing to do with incedentals such as the poor examples being quoted here.
If you arent winning most of your tests then its not an option but it is for sides you should normally beat.
But anyway, toil away. It aint NZ that has the bucketloads of red cards remember.

Rugbys rules are that complex and open to so much interpretation in a way no other sport is.

How thats not obvious is beyond me.

To be fair to the many, explaining an intangible with another intangible isn't going to help much.