NZ Media Reaction.

First topic message reminder :

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.

Of course you don't

They're either chicken shyte or not good enough

Every single B/I nation is propped up

But as I said and as you agreed there are coaches with the teams now.

ebop wrote:Of course you don't

They're either chicken shyte or not good enough

Every single B/I nation is propped up

Must be news to Gregor Townsend

englishborn wrote:

ebop wrote:Of course you don't

They're either chicken shyte or not good enough

Every single B/I nation is propped up

Must be news to Gregor Townsend

And good on Scotland

The only British/Irish rugby nation with any pride.

No. They all have coaches who are from Britain or ireland. Do you pay any attention ebop?

The lackeys

So you see no value in someone like wayne smith or indeed hansen under previous coaches. I disagree with you.

I see no B/I coaches taking charge. Either too inexperienced, lacking in ability, lacking in man management, lacking in guts, lacking in drive, lacking in ambition, etc etc

ebop wrote:Why are all the British and Irish coaches so hopeless that they can't even coach their own national teams? Isn't it about time the home grown coaches grow a pair of bollarks and stand up? It really is a blight on the international landscape.

To be fair, Eddie Jones is England's first ever overseas head coach. England were due a change of emphasis after the Lancaster regime and it seems to be working pretty well. Hopefully the likes of Rob Baxter will be in a position to step in after 2019.

So again ebop you don't see the point of wayne smith in the very recent past for nz? Could it be we've found a new zealander who doesn't actually follow rugby?

EBOP England had 2 rookies in charge of England before Jones with mixed results.

English coaches do make good assistants though.

Dave Ellis helped your lot in 2005 and helped France vs your lot.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/newzealand/11932442/Rugby-World-Cup-Flashback-The-day-when-France-shocked-rugby-and-left-All-Blacks-in-disarray.html


Shaun Edwards has been helping your countryman, Gatland for years.

Jones has been given a very useful helping hand by Borthwick since 2012.

Even Farrell Sr has had notable success vs you NZers as a coach.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So again ebop you don't see the point of wayne smith in the very recent past for nz? Could it be we've found a new zealander who doesn't actually follow rugby?

Tell me about Wayne Smith

Spell out your point 7.5

Do it like this

1. Wayne Smith blah blah blah
2. Blah blah blah
3. .....
4. .....

So you dint see the point in wayne smith then ebop? You think he's a coward? You really know nothing about kiwi rugby.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you dint see the point in wayne smith then ebop? You think he's a coward? You really know nothing about kiwi rugby.

Wayne Smith? Because he did a stint at the saints? What are you even on about? You're an enigma wrapped up in a riddle it's fair to say. What is your point....

1.
2.
3.

Ypu don't rate him. Or seemingly know much about him as I'd be surprised anyone thinks he's a coward or no good. My point is we've found a nz fan who doesn't follow rugby closely. Houghton you guys all lived and breathed it.

Lol, you're crackers mate

Wayne Smith has been head coach of the ABs 7.5

Did you know that before you went kraykray?

Think I'm on the right track????

Kraykray? Just can't believe you don't rate him and think he's a chicken. Very surprised. Thought you at least knew your nz stuff but not even that it seems.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No. They all have coaches who are from Britain or ireland. Do you pay any attention ebop?

Joe Schmidt is an Irish citizen. He has also lived a long time in the NH including two stints in Ireland.

Seems to me 7.5 that you are living in an alternate reality. Yes, I rate Wayne Smith very highly as a coach. Why wouldn't I? Please explain because I can't wait to hear why I don't.

Come on 7.5

Because you surely feel he should be a head coach somewhere and not being a coward and a lackey. Maybe you feel he's proved he wasn't up to it. I rate him very highly but ill leave you to your unique view.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because you surely feel he should be a head coach somewhere and not being a coward and a lackey. Maybe you feel he's proved he wasn't up to it. I rate him very highly but ill leave you to your unique view.

But thank you for finally putting your thoughts out there. It's pretty warped though I have to say.

I agree your thought that only the head coach matters is a very strange one.

Yet every single B/I nation has a kiwi or Aussie as one. That's very strange.

Why is that strange ignoring the fact that townsend isn't a kiwi or an aussie.

Lol, now we're living in a future reality???

ebop wrote:Yet every single B/I nation has a kiwi or Aussie as one. That's very strange.

Given that England are higher ranked than Ireland, Wales and Scotland does that mean that Aussie coaches are better than NZ ones?

Why the future ebop?

Cyril wrote:

ebop wrote:Yet every single B/I nation has a kiwi or Aussie as one. That's very strange.

Given that England are higher ranked than Ireland, Wales and Scotland does that mean that Aussie coaches are better than NZ ones?

Nice try Cyril but the ABs and our 'NZ' coaches are número uno

The Aussie guy is number 2s

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why the future ebop?

Why the future.

Please ask a more specific question.

You said or asked now we're living in a future reality. I'm assuming it was in response to my question and statement. I'm asking what you meant by that.

So are you hiding behind Scotland are you?

Peeka boo

Erm. Sorry what was the future reality thing?

You'll have to be more specific

Are you feeling alright? You're acting pretty strangely and are all over the place with your logic and posts.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Are you feeling alright? You're acting pretty strangely and are all over the place with your logic and posts.

Its OK, he's just off on a Gwladrant. No need to stress

Ha. Good turn of phrase.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Really, the number of times I've heard you go on about Barnes is unbelievable, a regular article in fact.

SOB...and I thought they were his initials, and Mako the misguided missile had waaay more intent to injure than did SBW who can be seen immediately trying to prop up Watson in the fall after he'd realised what he'd done, and Watson was fully appreciative of SBWs apology over dinner that night, adding that he held no animosity whatsoever over the incident.

Hypocracy? You don't know the meaning of the word if you can look at the intent of the three incidents and come up with that as a summary. At least the players know their places. Perhaps we did learn something from the BOD incident? Pity Irish fans haven't, a long term grudge much preferred perhaps.

Haha you are hilariously hypocritical. Is that meant to be satire? Kiwis are notoriously thin skinned when it comes to criticism and yet you get your knickers in a twist over the most innocuous incidents. You couldn't make it up.

Only one I keep seeing with twisted knickers on, whatever that means, is your constant bemoaning of Barnes.

You keep claiming Kiwi foul play yet the red cards don't reflect it, Ireland, Eng, Eales and Scot ALL have more, the penalties don't reflect it, the Lions were more heavily penalised, the intent to injure doesn't reflect it.

So you make it up because you can't win as often. ABs ''get away with it more'?

What on earth is that supposed to mean. All one can possibly read into that is that other teams are dumber.

We'll take that any day.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:As for saying that Irish fans have a grudge...I'm not so sure. I didn't even watch rugby when the BOD incident happened. It's more than I have to constantly read condescending and pretentious tripe from pompous New Zealanders who don't even seem to notice. So I respond to it when it happens. It isn't just Irish fans who have been engaging against it either.

As well as the fact that their team is incredibly cynical and dirty and many referees are afraid to officiate them properly. Again, I'll comment when it happens.

Once again, it's all about perception.

- ABs 'get away with it'
- refs are 'afraid' to officiate them. Really, is that what they all say? Or is there this veil of secrecy amongst them all?

Amazing how so many buy into this. Because there are no facts to support all this, people make it up.

Delusion and paranoia at its best where it's more like based purely on... 'surely these guys can't be that good, but we can't find any facts, so we'll create an illusion and comment on it, and pick out the rare, isolated events that others will buy into it, because it all makes us feel better. Yes, a bunch of ghosts and the odd SBW, Owen Franks moment will help explain why these guys win 90% of their matches.'

Hilarious. Never seen so much commentary about stuff that doesn't actually exist.

And I'm not saying it's everyone doing it, there's just a few odd bods with such an axe to grind that they've lost their logical marbles to be objective. To adopt a stance that the ABs are successful because they're cheats, or over aggressive when the match and historical facts don't even support it shows just how far some are prepared to go. When you pick isolated events, and here I'm talking two or three over more than a hundred tests, to explain a massive trend you don't fool anyone.

Similarly, when you prefer to adopt a stance like the fool refs, get away with things more to explain that same trend, again you fool no one.

And on humility...well it goes both ways, respect the other side of that coin. Either way, doesn't really worry me.

Taylorman wrote:- ABs 'get away with it'
Amazing how so many buy into this. Because there are no facts to support all this, people make it up

I pointed out above that even World Rugby thought the Owen Franks incident last year was wildly inconsistent with other similar judgements.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:- ABs 'get away with it'
Amazing how so many buy into this. Because there are no facts to support all this, people make it up

I pointed out above that even World Rugby thought the Owen Franks incident last year was wildly inconsistent with other similar judgements.

Even so, it doesn't explain a trend, or prove that he's deliberately biased that and Rugby world came out in criticism of Joubert as well. And it certainly doesn't make the ABs accountable for Owens actions. Are Oz also 'getting away with it'.

Anyway, no matter, after this drawn series the ABs will go away and put into practice what they've learnt, which for some will be:

- searching the country for its next SBW or Owen Franks
- spend weeks planning and maximising resources with an agenda to:
- identify additional ways to bribe every single referee..
- practice ways of cheating so the Ref is just never able to pick it up

Oh, and if there's a bit of time left, though unlikely, perhaps do a bit of training as well.

Geez some read this game in a funny way.

I guess the interesting thing for me is if the teams that these people support were to base their opinions on the same thinking as their fans of their opposition they would have zero chance of competing.

The disconnect that some fans have with their own teams and that of their opposition is in some cases astounding.

Taylorman wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:- ABs 'get away with it'
Amazing how so many buy into this. Because there are no facts to support all this, people make it up

I pointed out above that even World Rugby thought the Owen Franks incident last year was wildly inconsistent with other similar judgements.

Even so, it doesn't explain a trend, or prove that he's deliberately biased that and Rugby world came out in criticism of Joubert as well. And it certainly doesn't make the ABs accountable for Owens actions. Are Oz also 'getting away with it'.

As that earlier post of mine established, I don't agree with the conspiracy theories floated by others. This is the one I mean:

https://www.606v2.com/t66023p50-nz-media-reaction#3600853

I don't think the increase in NZ citings and cards is down to an inexperienced side not knowing where the lines are. It's more that NZ have come up against the same wide scope of law interpretations which afflict the rest of us. Should Kaino have been carded while O'Brien wasn't? There is no definitive answer. If the All Blacks "take the referee out of the equation" by telling Kaino not to risk that kind of hit in future, they might tie one hand behind his back, especially if the opposition are getting away with murder.

If you play the game on the edge, then you'll get it wrong. Warburton isn't a dirty player but he got red-carded at the World Cup. Dan Carter isn't a dirty player but a different referee could have sent him from the field against Wales in 2009. On that occasion, Carter was cited and banned, and acknowledged he had put in a bad tackle.

Taylorman wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:As for saying that Irish fans have a grudge...I'm not so sure. I didn't even watch rugby when the BOD incident happened. It's more than I have to constantly read condescending and pretentious tripe from pompous New Zealanders who don't even seem to notice. So I respond to it when it happens. It isn't just Irish fans who have been engaging against it either.

As well as the fact that their team is incredibly cynical and dirty and many referees are afraid to officiate them properly. Again, I'll comment when it happens.

Once again, it's all about perception.

- ABs 'get away with it'
- refs are 'afraid' to officiate them. Really, is that what they all say? Or is there this veil of secrecy amongst them all?

Amazing how so many buy into this. Because there are no facts to support all this, people make it up.

Delusion and paranoia at its best where it's more like based purely on... 'surely these guys can't be that good, but we can't find any facts, so we'll create an illusion and comment on it, and pick out the rare, isolated events that others will buy into it, because it all makes us feel better. Yes, a bunch of ghosts and the odd SBW, Owen Franks moment will help explain why these guys win 90% of their matches.'

Hilarious. Never seen so much commentary about stuff that doesn't actually exist.

And I'm not saying it's everyone doing it, there's just a few odd bods with such an axe to grind that they've lost their logical marbles to be objective. To adopt a stance that the ABs are successful because they're cheats, or over aggressive when the match and historical facts don't even support it shows just how far some are prepared to go. When you pick isolated events, and here I'm talking two or three over more than a hundred tests, to explain a massive trend you don't fool anyone.

Similarly, when you prefer to adopt a stance like the fool refs, get away with things more to explain that same trend, again you fool no one.

And on humility...well it goes both ways, respect the other side of that coin. Either way, doesn't really worry me.

"It's more than I have to constantly read condescending and pretentious tripe from pompous New Zealanders who don't even seem to notice."

...and so it continues. Sigh.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:- ABs 'get away with it'
Amazing how so many buy into this. Because there are no facts to support all this, people make it up

I pointed out above that even World Rugby thought the Owen Franks incident last year was wildly inconsistent with other similar judgements.

Doesn't count - doesn't fit Taylorman's narrative.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:- ABs 'get away with it'
Amazing how so many buy into this. Because there are no facts to support all this, people make it up

I pointed out above that even World Rugby thought the Owen Franks incident last year was wildly inconsistent with other similar judgements.

Even so, it doesn't explain a trend, or prove that he's deliberately biased that and Rugby world came out in criticism of Joubert as well. And it certainly doesn't make the ABs accountable for Owens actions. Are Oz also 'getting away with it'.

As that earlier post of mine established, I don't agree with the conspiracy theories floated by others. This is the one I mean:

https://www.606v2.com/t66023p50-nz-media-reaction#3600853

I don't think the increase in NZ citings and cards is down to an inexperienced side not knowing where the lines are. It's more that NZ have come up against the same wide scope of law interpretations which afflict the rest of us. Should Kaino have been carded while O'Brien wasn't? There is no definitive answer. If the All Blacks "take the referee out of the equation" by telling Kaino not to risk that kind of hit in future, they might tie one hand behind his back, especially if the opposition are getting away with murder.

If you play the game on the edge, then you'll get it wrong. Warburton isn't a dirty player but he got red-carded at the World Cup. Dan Carter isn't a dirty player but a different referee could have sent him from the field against Wales in 2009. On that occasion, Carter was cited and banned, and acknowledged he had put in a bad tackle.

Again, taking the ref out of the equation has zero to do with incidentals, in fact it is about avoiding them.

It is to do with adopting a style of play that creates opportunities to put points on the board. It is about the things that separate the ABs from others in terms of the use of open space, the demand for high skill levels, fitness levels.

Yet the dicussion gets dragged back to this player on that.

How long did the Kaino incident last? a few seconds?

How much impact did that one incodent have on the last thirty tests and each of the 80minutes of those tests that produced a 90% win rate.

Zip. yet is a point of discussion in this equation?

No idea.

Taylorman wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:- ABs 'get away with it'
Amazing how so many buy into this. Because there are no facts to support all this, people make it up

I pointed out above that even World Rugby thought the Owen Franks incident last year was wildly inconsistent with other similar judgements.

Even so, it doesn't explain a trend, or prove that he's deliberately biased that and Rugby world came out in criticism of Joubert as well. And it certainly doesn't make the ABs accountable for Owens actions. Are Oz also 'getting away with it'.

As that earlier post of mine established, I don't agree with the conspiracy theories floated by others. This is the one I mean:

https://www.606v2.com/t66023p50-nz-media-reaction#3600853

I don't think the increase in NZ citings and cards is down to an inexperienced side not knowing where the lines are. It's more that NZ have come up against the same wide scope of law interpretations which afflict the rest of us. Should Kaino have been carded while O'Brien wasn't? There is no definitive answer. If the All Blacks "take the referee out of the equation" by telling Kaino not to risk that kind of hit in future, they might tie one hand behind his back, especially if the opposition are getting away with murder.

If you play the game on the edge, then you'll get it wrong. Warburton isn't a dirty player but he got red-carded at the World Cup. Dan Carter isn't a dirty player but a different referee could have sent him from the field against Wales in 2009. On that occasion, Carter was cited and banned, and acknowledged he had put in a bad tackle.

Again, taking the ref out of the equation has zero to do with incidentals, in fact it is about avoiding them.

It is to do with adopting a style of play that creates opportunities to put points on the board. It is about the things that separate the ABs from others in terms of the use of open space, the demand for high skill levels, fitness levels.

Yet the dicussion gets dragged back to this player on that.

How long did the Kaino incident last? a few seconds?

How much impact did that one incodent have on the last thirty tests and each of the 80minutes of those tests that produced a 90% win rate.

Zip. yet is a point of discussion in this equation?

No idea.

Yes, but I think what Rugby Fan is saying is that if that culture is so embedded, so pervasive, so all encompassing, as you suggest, why doesn't it cut out all on field thuggery (not pointing the finger solely at NZ of course) and the risks that pose to "taking the ref out of the equation".