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.

The meaning has been explained.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The meaning has been explained.

It's been explained as be better than the opposition, kick easy goals, and don't drop the ball.

I'm just pointing out that unless you're implying referee bias (in which case you should say so), those things have nothing to do with the ref and I'm still puzzled as to why people just don't say those things instead.

Are you Beshocked in disguise?

I'm not implying bias but the phrase means put enough points on the board so that a refs mistake or a perceived mistake doesn't impact the result. That's just what it means.

It's like you haven't read my post at all. Which mistake? one at the start or the end? Why is one more important than the other? Why is a player's mistake different and not worthy of it's own special phrase?

Look fair enough, you're clearly not interested in what I've said if you are being so dismissive of it as to not even counter/answer it. I just don't like clichés.

You always have to have the last word dont you?

Any mistake by the ref cas. I'm just explaining the phrase to you.

French referees seem to be a law unto themselves. They can even modify the laws in real time if they get scared.

ebop wrote:French referees seem to be a law unto themselves. They can even modify the laws in real time if they get scared.

Whereas SH referees just ignore the laws altogether.

I love the way Kiwi's claim that they dont criticise referees.

cascough wrote:

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.

Good to see you continue to miss the point. The ABs failed to take the possibility of the ref out. Whether that was actually the case or not is irrelevant. They failed to do that in Chicago as well. Wasn't the case there.

Anyway, happy to cut a long, pointless road of discussion there.

I think it is quite clear, and I think people are reading too much into it

Every team wants to be clear enough ahead so that a poor ref decision or a bounce of the ball or a silly mistake have a chance for you to lose.

It is the same as why teams go for a 3 pointer near the end if it gets them ahead a more than a single score

R!skysports wrote:I think it is quite clear, and I think people are reading too much into it

Every team wants to be clear enough ahead so that a poor ref decision or a bounce of the ball or a silly mistake have a chance for you to lose.

It is the same as why teams go for a 3 pointer near the end if it gets them ahead a more than a single score

Again, you are not understanding the difference between that as a generalisation and building and entire culture around it.
Since 2007, whiles fans on both sides of the fence were pointlessly arguing the Barnes affair, the ABs were taking measures to remove every possible non controllable out of the match and said so many times.

The weather, injuries, depth, referees, intercepts. All things you largely cannot control bar the one that avoids them all, being 8 points clear with time nearly up, 16 to cover any miracle.

You say it like a pre game chat where the skip says 'and if we're five points up with five to go, lets score again so the ref cant rip the game away from us'.

Well try years of planning and strategy to avoid exactly that same scenario.

Anyway, its clearly lost on most as a concept, but does explain a lot.

Taylorman wrote:

R!skysports wrote:I think it is quite clear, and I think people are reading too much into it

Every team wants to be clear enough ahead so that a poor ref decision or a bounce of the ball or a silly mistake have a chance for you to lose.

It is the same as why teams go for a 3 pointer near the end if it gets them ahead a more than a single score

Again, you are not understanding the difference between that as a generalisation and building and entire culture around it.
Since 2007, whiles fans on both sides of the fence were pointlessly arguing the Barnes affair, the ABs were taking measures to remove every possible non controllable out of the match and said so many times.

The weather, injuries, depth, referees, intercepts. All things you largely cannot control bar the one that avoids them all, being 8 points clear with time nearly up, 16 to cover any miracle.

You say it like a pre game chat where the skip says 'and if we're five points up with five to go, lets score again so the ref cant rip the game away from us'.

Well try years of planning and strategy to avoid exactly that same scenario.

Anyway, its clearly lost on most as a concept, but does explain a lot.

Didnt work very well against the Lions did it

Gooseberry wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

R!skysports wrote:I think it is quite clear, and I think people are reading too much into it

Every team wants to be clear enough ahead so that a poor ref decision or a bounce of the ball or a silly mistake have a chance for you to lose.

It is the same as why teams go for a 3 pointer near the end if it gets them ahead a more than a single score

Again, you are not understanding the difference between that as a generalisation and building and entire culture around it.
Since 2007, whiles fans on both sides of the fence were pointlessly arguing the Barnes affair, the ABs were taking measures to remove every possible non controllable out of the match and said so many times.

The weather, injuries, depth, referees, intercepts. All things you largely cannot control bar the one that avoids them all, being 8 points clear with time nearly up, 16 to cover any miracle.

You say it like a pre game chat where the skip says 'and if we're five points up with five to go, lets score again so the ref cant rip the game away from us'.

Well try years of planning and strategy to avoid exactly that same scenario.

Anyway, its clearly lost on most as a concept, but does explain a lot.

Didnt work very well against the Lions did it

... and you continue to prove my point...

Taylorman wrote:

R!skysports wrote:I think it is quite clear, and I think people are reading too much into it

Every team wants to be clear enough ahead so that a poor ref decision or a bounce of the ball or a silly mistake have a chance for you to lose.

It is the same as why teams go for a 3 pointer near the end if it gets them ahead a more than a single score

Again, you are not understanding the difference between that as a generalisation and building and entire culture around it.
Since 2007, whiles fans on both sides of the fence were pointlessly arguing the Barnes affair, the ABs were taking measures to remove every possible non controllable out of the match and said so many times.

The weather, injuries, depth, referees, intercepts. All things you largely cannot control bar the one that avoids them all, being 8 points clear with time nearly up, 16 to cover any miracle.

You say it like a pre game chat where the skip says 'and if we're five points up with five to go, lets score again so the ref cant rip the game away from us'.

Well try years of planning and strategy to avoid exactly that same scenario.

Anyway, its clearly lost on most as a concept, but does explain a lot.

What load of pompous rubbish....did they not remove shoulder barging and short arming opponents then? Or the Captain taking players out off the ball....are these not controllable...actually for the New Zeland rugby team they probably aren't, years pf planning and strategy goes up in smoke when your players can't even follow the rules and 'confuse' hard with dirty.

Gwlad wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

R!skysports wrote:I think it is quite clear, and I think people are reading too much into it

Every team wants to be clear enough ahead so that a poor ref decision or a bounce of the ball or a silly mistake have a chance for you to lose.

It is the same as why teams go for a 3 pointer near the end if it gets them ahead a more than a single score

Again, you are not understanding the difference between that as a generalisation and building and entire culture around it.
Since 2007, whiles fans on both sides of the fence were pointlessly arguing the Barnes affair, the ABs were taking measures to remove every possible non controllable out of the match and said so many times.

The weather, injuries, depth, referees, intercepts. All things you largely cannot control bar the one that avoids them all, being 8 points clear with time nearly up, 16 to cover any miracle.

You say it like a pre game chat where the skip says 'and if we're five points up with five to go, lets score again so the ref cant rip the game away from us'.

Well try years of planning and strategy to avoid exactly that same scenario.

Anyway, its clearly lost on most as a concept, but does explain a lot.

What load of pompous rubbish....did they not remove shoulder barging and short arming opponents then? Or the Captain taking players out off the ball....are these not controllable...actually for the New Zeland rugby team they probably aren't, years pf planning and strategy goes up in smoke when your players can't even follow the rules and 'confuse' hard with dirty.

1954 Gwlad. I can sense your frustration, you probably don't know any one alive that saw that. I'd be as upset as you too so fair enough, those meany meany All Blacks...It's ok to have a cry...

Taylorman wrote:

R!skysports wrote:I think it is quite clear, and I think people are reading too much into it

Every team wants to be clear enough ahead so that a poor ref decision or a bounce of the ball or a silly mistake have a chance for you to lose.

It is the same as why teams go for a 3 pointer near the end if it gets them ahead a more than a single score

Again, you are not understanding the difference between that as a generalisation and building and entire culture around it.
Since 2007, whiles fans on both sides of the fence were pointlessly arguing the Barnes affair, the ABs were taking measures to remove every possible non controllable out of the match and said so many times.

The weather, injuries, depth, referees, intercepts. All things you largely cannot control bar the one that avoids them all, being 8 points clear with time nearly up, 16 to cover any miracle.

You say it like a pre game chat where the skip says 'and if we're five points up with five to go, lets score again so the ref cant rip the game away from us'.

Well try years of planning and strategy to avoid exactly that same scenario.

Anyway, its clearly lost on most as a concept, but does explain a lot.

Sorry but that is very pretentious.

All teams play to get the second score and all teams know that within 7 points can be lost by an outside (or poor) play.

It is not rocket science and is drilled into all teams

Sorry, but this really is a very condescending POV

R!skysports wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

R!skysports wrote:I think it is quite clear, and I think people are reading too much into it

Every team wants to be clear enough ahead so that a poor ref decision or a bounce of the ball or a silly mistake have a chance for you to lose.

It is the same as why teams go for a 3 pointer near the end if it gets them ahead a more than a single score

Again, you are not understanding the difference between that as a generalisation and building and entire culture around it.
Since 2007, whiles fans on both sides of the fence were pointlessly arguing the Barnes affair, the ABs were taking measures to remove every possible non controllable out of the match and said so many times.

The weather, injuries, depth, referees, intercepts. All things you largely cannot control bar the one that avoids them all, being 8 points clear with time nearly up, 16 to cover any miracle.

You say it like a pre game chat where the skip says 'and if we're five points up with five to go, lets score again so the ref cant rip the game away from us'.

Well try years of planning and strategy to avoid exactly that same scenario.

Anyway, its clearly lost on most as a concept, but does explain a lot.

Sorry but that is very pretentious.

All teams play to get the second score and all teams know that within 7 points can be lost by an outside (or poor) play.

It is not rocket science and is drilled into all teams

Sorry, but this really is a very condescending POV

No need to apologise, I understand how some just don't get it.

I agree it is pretty pretentious. Kiwis aren't immune to having a good whinge about refs when they lose close games. Hansen has very politely been whinging as much as possible about the French refs and the NZ media take the pi$$ in general.

Taylorman wrote:

R!skysports wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

R!skysports wrote:I think it is quite clear, and I think people are reading too much into it

Every team wants to be clear enough ahead so that a poor ref decision or a bounce of the ball or a silly mistake have a chance for you to lose.

It is the same as why teams go for a 3 pointer near the end if it gets them ahead a more than a single score

Again, you are not understanding the difference between that as a generalisation and building and entire culture around it.
Since 2007, whiles fans on both sides of the fence were pointlessly arguing the Barnes affair, the ABs were taking measures to remove every possible non controllable out of the match and said so many times.

The weather, injuries, depth, referees, intercepts. All things you largely cannot control bar the one that avoids them all, being 8 points clear with time nearly up, 16 to cover any miracle.

You say it like a pre game chat where the skip says 'and if we're five points up with five to go, lets score again so the ref cant rip the game away from us'.

Well try years of planning and strategy to avoid exactly that same scenario.

Anyway, its clearly lost on most as a concept, but does explain a lot.

Sorry but that is very pretentious.

All teams play to get the second score and all teams know that within 7 points can be lost by an outside (or poor) play.

It is not rocket science and is drilled into all teams

Sorry, but this really is a very condescending POV

No need to apologise, I understand how some just don't get it.

I think everyone and their dog gets it - one of the most basic and easily understood concepts in the game.

If that is the limit of your technical ability and you think that is difficult to understand, then I worry about your enjoyment of rugby

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I agree it is pretty pretentious. Kiwis aren't immune to having a good whinge about refs when they lose close games. Hansen has very politely been whinging as much as possible about the French refs and the NZ media take the pi$$ in general.

Considering your regular plotting of Barnes downfall you're hardly one to speak on the subject.

And when was the last time kiwis whinged about a ref prior to this? 2007? Name one test since then?

Yes, a real common trait. Where Ive seen you go on many, many times since then.

R!skysports wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

R!skysports wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

R!skysports wrote:I think it is quite clear, and I think people are reading too much into it

Every team wants to be clear enough ahead so that a poor ref decision or a bounce of the ball or a silly mistake have a chance for you to lose.

It is the same as why teams go for a 3 pointer near the end if it gets them ahead a more than a single score

Again, you are not understanding the difference between that as a generalisation and building and entire culture around it.
Since 2007, whiles fans on both sides of the fence were pointlessly arguing the Barnes affair, the ABs were taking measures to remove every possible non controllable out of the match and said so many times.

The weather, injuries, depth, referees, intercepts. All things you largely cannot control bar the one that avoids them all, being 8 points clear with time nearly up, 16 to cover any miracle.

You say it like a pre game chat where the skip says 'and if we're five points up with five to go, lets score again so the ref cant rip the game away from us'.

Well try years of planning and strategy to avoid exactly that same scenario.

Anyway, its clearly lost on most as a concept, but does explain a lot.

Sorry but that is very pretentious.

All teams play to get the second score and all teams know that within 7 points can be lost by an outside (or poor) play.

It is not rocket science and is drilled into all teams

Sorry, but this really is a very condescending POV

No need to apologise, I understand how some just don't get it.

I think everyone and their dog gets it - one of the most basic and easily understood concepts in the game.

If that is the limit of your technical ability and you think that is difficult to understand, then I worry about your enjoyment of rugby

That's the point, you don't actually get it, it shows in your rugby. It shows in the weakness of unions allowing the clubs to dominate. It shows in the willingness to adopt project players so easily rather than investing in their own. It shows in having seasons not in tune with the international scene, the difficulty in releasing players. It shows in your limited styles and gameplans, inability to produce a high standard of backplay, or skilled, mobile forwards, a lack of continuity across the club scene and its disconnect with the national side.

It shows all over the place, yet you don't even see it. It's not a concept, it's a culture, so it shows in your very understanding of what 'taking the ref out of the game even means'. You say it as a throwaway line. Not a lot you can do with that. Condascending! You betcha!

Can't believe this is still rumbling on. I think, Taylorman, it stems from a sense that a more gracious form of wording (albeit one meaning something different to what you're saying) might have been something along the lines of "It was a close series, the Lions were well worth the draw as we were pretty evenly matched over 3 games."

Of course you may disagree with that, and I think you were clearly trying to make a different point which is probably just as valid, but timing is everything. From a personal point of view I probably struggled to separate the awful NZ media (I know, ours is pretty terrible too) from the pretty gracious fans and the extremely decent players, so that's on me, because as a result I did quite want a bit of of grovel and an admission NH rugby isn't all dross :-) But I'm guessing from your last post you remain unimpressed!

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I agree it is pretty pretentious. Kiwis aren't immune to having a good whinge about refs when they lose close games. Hansen has very politely been whinging as much as possible about the French refs and the NZ media take the pi$$ in general.

An Irishman lecturing about whinging is a bit rich.You guys are the biggest whingers in world rugby. The aftermath of Dublin was the biggest whingefest in recent memory.

Hood83 wrote:Can't believe this is still rumbling on. I think, Taylorman, it stems from a sense that a more gracious form of wording (albeit one meaning something different to what you're saying) might have been something along the lines of "It was a close series, the Lions were well worth the draw as we were pretty evenly matched over 3 games."

Of course you may disagree with that, and I think you were clearly trying to make a different point which is probably just as valid, but timing is everything. From a personal point of view I probably struggled to separate the awful NZ media (I know, ours is pretty terrible too) from the pretty gracious fans and the extremely decent players, so that's on me, because as a result I did quite want a bit of of grovel and an admission NH rugby isn't all dross :-) But I'm guessing from your last post you remain unimpressed!

I did praise the Lions on their tour, emphatically in fact, and immediately after the third tesr.
My entire point here isnt about being humble either, Im well over that. It is that in terms of the ABs result and what they could control, the Lions effort not being one of them, was that they werent good enough this round to put decisions, good or bad, out of the pucture.

Im not blaming the ref for the loss or draw, nor am I detracting from a very good Lions effort, Im simply saying the ABs were in a good enough posirion to take their chances to take the series.

With a relatively convincing first test win a close second loss and a third drawn in a series where the Lions only ever lead for i think it was three minutes in the entire series, from an AB perspective they would normally take the ref out of the equation but failed to. Something they do on a very regular basis let them down. From an AB perspective.

Take your point about poor timing because all it seems anyone wants to hear is a great big serving of humility so comment purely in that regard, as you are now.

Well im over that, over the loss and am more interesting in learning from it and one way of doing that is to get back to what works, one of them taking the ref out, and doing that by focussing on higher accuracy levels, respecting and analysing the opposition more etc so that next time theyll be more prepared, something incidentally Hansen has just said, ie that the Lions lessons have been learnt and theyll be stronger for it.

But I shouldnt have to explain all that, many just looking for their big dollop of humility where anything else is considered poor sportsmanship, arrogance blah blah. Cant be bothered with that.

Taylorman wrote:

Hood83 wrote:Can't believe this is still rumbling on. I think, Taylorman, it stems from a sense that a more gracious form of wording (albeit one meaning something different to what you're saying) might have been something along the lines of "It was a close series, the Lions were well worth the draw as we were pretty evenly matched over 3 games."

Of course you may disagree with that, and I think you were clearly trying to make a different point which is probably just as valid, but timing is everything. From a personal point of view I probably struggled to separate the awful NZ media (I know, ours is pretty terrible too) from the pretty gracious fans and the extremely decent players, so that's on me, because as a result I did quite want a bit of of grovel and an admission NH rugby isn't all dross :-) But I'm guessing from your last post you remain unimpressed!

I did praise the Lions on their tour, emphatically in fact, and immediately after the third tesr.
My entire point here isnt about being humble either, Im well over that. It is that in terms of the ABs result and what they could control, the Lions effort not being one of them, was that they werent good enough this round to put decisions, good or bad, out of the pucture.

Im not blaming the ref for the loss or draw, nor am I detracting from a very good Lions effort, Im simply saying the ABs were in a good enough posirion to take their chances to take the series.

With a relatively convincing first test win a close second loss and a third drawn in a series where the Lions only ever lead for i think it was three minutes in the entire series, from an AB perspective they would normally take the ref out of the equation but failed to. Something they do on a very regular basis let them down. From an AB perspective.

Take your point about poor timing because all it seems anyone wants to hear is a great big serving of humility so comment purely in that regard, as you are now.

Well im over that, over the loss and am more interesting in learning from it and one way of doing that is to get back to what works, one of them taking the ref out, and doing that by focussing on higher accuracy levels, respecting and analysing the opposition more etc so that next time theyll be more prepared, something incidentally Hansen has just said, ie that the Lions lessons have been learnt and theyll be stronger for it.

But I shouldnt have to explain all that, many just looking for their big dollop of humility where anything else is considered poor sportsmanship, arrogance blah blah. Cant be bothered with that.

To be fair I wasn't aware of your previous comments so I was only dealing with that particular phrase, and just trying to explain, honestly, that rightly or wrongly some of us felt a bit miffed at the smugness of the NZ media and wanted to see the famed humility on show post 3rd test - but as I say, that's perhaps because we failed to distinguish between media and fans, and I think some journos did offer a thin mea culpa.

I'm also absolutely over expecting those in NZ who think NH rugby is a load of cack to think otherwise just because the ABs couldn't find a way to beat it. In any case, I thought you'd win 3-0 so I can hardly blame the media or anyone else for agreeing. It's all fine, you're still the best team in the world of course, and if you still think we can't develop mobile forwards or a decent backline (fair arguments) etc. then that only works for us. Especially as it suggests a glitch in the "take the ref out of the equation" culture you describe.

Hood83 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Hood83 wrote:Can't believe this is still rumbling on. I think, Taylorman, it stems from a sense that a more gracious form of wording (albeit one meaning something different to what you're saying) might have been something along the lines of "It was a close series, the Lions were well worth the draw as we were pretty evenly matched over 3 games."

Of course you may disagree with that, and I think you were clearly trying to make a different point which is probably just as valid, but timing is everything. From a personal point of view I probably struggled to separate the awful NZ media (I know, ours is pretty terrible too) from the pretty gracious fans and the extremely decent players, so that's on me, because as a result I did quite want a bit of of grovel and an admission NH rugby isn't all dross :-) But I'm guessing from your last post you remain unimpressed!

I did praise the Lions on their tour, emphatically in fact, and immediately after the third tesr.
My entire point here isnt about being humble either, Im well over that. It is that in terms of the ABs result and what they could control, the Lions effort not being one of them, was that they werent good enough this round to put decisions, good or bad, out of the pucture.

Im not blaming the ref for the loss or draw, nor am I detracting from a very good Lions effort, Im simply saying the ABs were in a good enough posirion to take their chances to take the series.

With a relatively convincing first test win a close second loss and a third drawn in a series where the Lions only ever lead for i think it was three minutes in the entire series, from an AB perspective they would normally take the ref out of the equation but failed to. Something they do on a very regular basis let them down. From an AB perspective.

Take your point about poor timing because all it seems anyone wants to hear is a great big serving of humility so comment purely in that regard, as you are now.

Well im over that, over the loss and am more interesting in learning from it and one way of doing that is to get back to what works, one of them taking the ref out, and doing that by focussing on higher accuracy levels, respecting and analysing the opposition more etc so that next time theyll be more prepared, something incidentally Hansen has just said, ie that the Lions lessons have been learnt and theyll be stronger for it.

But I shouldnt have to explain all that, many just looking for their big dollop of humility where anything else is considered poor sportsmanship, arrogance blah blah. Cant be bothered with that.

To be fair I wasn't aware of your previous comments so I was only dealing with that particular phrase, and just trying to explain, honestly, that rightly or wrongly some of us felt a bit miffed at the smugness of the NZ media and wanted to see the famed humility on show post 3rd test - but as I say, that's perhaps because we failed to distinguish between media and fans, and I think some journos did offer a thin mea culpa.

I'm also absolutely over expecting those in NZ who think NH rugby is a load of cack to think otherwise just because the ABs couldn't find a way to beat it. In any case, I thought you'd win 3-0 so I can hardly blame the media or anyone else for agreeing. It's all fine, you're still the best team in the world of course, and if you still think we can't develop mobile forwards or a decent backline (fair arguments) etc. then that only works for us. Especially as it suggests a glitch in the "take the ref out of the equation" culture you describe.

I wasnt very impressed with a lot of the media stuff either though you expect a whole spectrum of opinions when this sort of things happen.

one of the things I think Hansen will be working on is assuming the northern sides will try to adopt a Lions approach, even if they actually dont. Its possible those sides are going to feel the backlash of the wounded side.

So the motivation is easy for the eoyt and i wouldnt be surprised if Hansen adopts a wider squad for the Rugby championship and beyond to really beef up the experience between now and Japan, oz and Argie not looking particularly strong this year, SA showing signs.

Hes started by allowing Ben Smiths sabbatical as a way to preserve the older classy players in the same way he did Carter and McCaw. These are the sorts of things they do to maximise their ability to perform at their best at a certain time.

Our midfield clearly needs work and there will be a lot of focus on that in the RC with Im guessing many getting a chance.

Taylorman wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Hood83 wrote:Can't believe this is still rumbling on. I think, Taylorman, it stems from a sense that a more gracious form of wording (albeit one meaning something different to what you're saying) might have been something along the lines of "It was a close series, the Lions were well worth the draw as we were pretty evenly matched over 3 games."

Of course you may disagree with that, and I think you were clearly trying to make a different point which is probably just as valid, but timing is everything. From a personal point of view I probably struggled to separate the awful NZ media (I know, ours is pretty terrible too) from the pretty gracious fans and the extremely decent players, so that's on me, because as a result I did quite want a bit of of grovel and an admission NH rugby isn't all dross :-) But I'm guessing from your last post you remain unimpressed!

I did praise the Lions on their tour, emphatically in fact, and immediately after the third tesr.
My entire point here isnt about being humble either, Im well over that. It is that in terms of the ABs result and what they could control, the Lions effort not being one of them, was that they werent good enough this round to put decisions, good or bad, out of the pucture.

Im not blaming the ref for the loss or draw, nor am I detracting from a very good Lions effort, Im simply saying the ABs were in a good enough posirion to take their chances to take the series.

With a relatively convincing first test win a close second loss and a third drawn in a series where the Lions only ever lead for i think it was three minutes in the entire series, from an AB perspective they would normally take the ref out of the equation but failed to. Something they do on a very regular basis let them down. From an AB perspective.

Take your point about poor timing because all it seems anyone wants to hear is a great big serving of humility so comment purely in that regard, as you are now.

Well im over that, over the loss and am more interesting in learning from it and one way of doing that is to get back to what works, one of them taking the ref out, and doing that by focussing on higher accuracy levels, respecting and analysing the opposition more etc so that next time theyll be more prepared, something incidentally Hansen has just said, ie that the Lions lessons have been learnt and theyll be stronger for it.

But I shouldnt have to explain all that, many just looking for their big dollop of humility where anything else is considered poor sportsmanship, arrogance blah blah. Cant be bothered with that.

To be fair I wasn't aware of your previous comments so I was only dealing with that particular phrase, and just trying to explain, honestly, that rightly or wrongly some of us felt a bit miffed at the smugness of the NZ media and wanted to see the famed humility on show post 3rd test - but as I say, that's perhaps because we failed to distinguish between media and fans, and I think some journos did offer a thin mea culpa.

I'm also absolutely over expecting those in NZ who think NH rugby is a load of cack to think otherwise just because the ABs couldn't find a way to beat it. In any case, I thought you'd win 3-0 so I can hardly blame the media or anyone else for agreeing. It's all fine, you're still the best team in the world of course, and if you still think we can't develop mobile forwards or a decent backline (fair arguments) etc. then that only works for us. Especially as it suggests a glitch in the "take the ref out of the equation" culture you describe.

I wasnt very impressed with a lot of the media stuff either though you expect a whole spectrum of opinions when this sort of things happen.

one of the things I think Hansen will be working on is assuming the northern sides will try to adopt a Lions approach, even if they actually dont. Its possible those sides are going to feel the backlash of the wounded side.

So the motivation is easy for the eoyt and i wouldnt be surprised if Hansen adopts a wider squad for the Rugby championship and beyond to really beef up the experience between now and Japan, oz and Argie not looking particularly strong this year, SA showing signs.

Hes started by allowing Ben Smiths sabbatical as a way to preserve the older classy players in the same way he did Carter and McCaw. These are the sorts of things they do to maximise their ability to perform at their best at a certain time.

Our midfield clearly needs work and there will be a lot of focus on that in the RC with Im guessing many getting a chance.

I felt if anything it was tactical and an overeagerness. I get the Barrett cross kick is a great weapon but it was played too early on occasion I think. I could be wrong but it also felt like they were trying to do everything in about 5 fewer phases than is normal. There seemed a lack of patience.

I suspect the NH sides will adopt a rush defence, so it'll be interesting to see if that works and if the ABs try to get width more quickly or try a few drinks in behind, or a mixture. I still think re midfield the best move is smashing up the middle with Savea and customary quick ball out wide. The biggest problem the NH sides will have is we don't produce the same size of backs so we can't stop you on the gain line, so we can't prevent quick ball. Or haven't found a way too, even if your midfield isn't firing.

That said I can see the guile of Smith and perhaps even Crotty was missed.

Hood83 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Hood83 wrote:Can't believe this is still rumbling on. I think, Taylorman, it stems from a sense that a more gracious form of wording (albeit one meaning something different to what you're saying) might have been something along the lines of "It was a close series, the Lions were well worth the draw as we were pretty evenly matched over 3 games."

Of course you may disagree with that, and I think you were clearly trying to make a different point which is probably just as valid, but timing is everything. From a personal point of view I probably struggled to separate the awful NZ media (I know, ours is pretty terrible too) from the pretty gracious fans and the extremely decent players, so that's on me, because as a result I did quite want a bit of of grovel and an admission NH rugby isn't all dross :-) But I'm guessing from your last post you remain unimpressed!

I did praise the Lions on their tour, emphatically in fact, and immediately after the third tesr.
My entire point here isnt about being humble either, Im well over that. It is that in terms of the ABs result and what they could control, the Lions effort not being one of them, was that they werent good enough this round to put decisions, good or bad, out of the pucture.

Im not blaming the ref for the loss or draw, nor am I detracting from a very good Lions effort, Im simply saying the ABs were in a good enough posirion to take their chances to take the series.

With a relatively convincing first test win a close second loss and a third drawn in a series where the Lions only ever lead for i think it was three minutes in the entire series, from an AB perspective they would normally take the ref out of the equation but failed to. Something they do on a very regular basis let them down. From an AB perspective.

Take your point about poor timing because all it seems anyone wants to hear is a great big serving of humility so comment purely in that regard, as you are now.

Well im over that, over the loss and am more interesting in learning from it and one way of doing that is to get back to what works, one of them taking the ref out, and doing that by focussing on higher accuracy levels, respecting and analysing the opposition more etc so that next time theyll be more prepared, something incidentally Hansen has just said, ie that the Lions lessons have been learnt and theyll be stronger for it.

But I shouldnt have to explain all that, many just looking for their big dollop of humility where anything else is considered poor sportsmanship, arrogance blah blah. Cant be bothered with that.

To be fair I wasn't aware of your previous comments so I was only dealing with that particular phrase, and just trying to explain, honestly, that rightly or wrongly some of us felt a bit miffed at the smugness of the NZ media and wanted to see the famed humility on show post 3rd test - but as I say, that's perhaps because we failed to distinguish between media and fans, and I think some journos did offer a thin mea culpa.

I'm also absolutely over expecting those in NZ who think NH rugby is a load of cack to think otherwise just because the ABs couldn't find a way to beat it. In any case, I thought you'd win 3-0 so I can hardly blame the media or anyone else for agreeing. It's all fine, you're still the best team in the world of course, and if you still think we can't develop mobile forwards or a decent backline (fair arguments) etc. then that only works for us. Especially as it suggests a glitch in the "take the ref out of the equation" culture you describe.

I wasnt very impressed with a lot of the media stuff either though you expect a whole spectrum of opinions when this sort of things happen.

one of the things I think Hansen will be working on is assuming the northern sides will try to adopt a Lions approach, even if they actually dont. Its possible those sides are going to feel the backlash of the wounded side.

So the motivation is easy for the eoyt and i wouldnt be surprised if Hansen adopts a wider squad for the Rugby championship and beyond to really beef up the experience between now and Japan, oz and Argie not looking particularly strong this year, SA showing signs.

Hes started by allowing Ben Smiths sabbatical as a way to preserve the older classy players in the same way he did Carter and McCaw. These are the sorts of things they do to maximise their ability to perform at their best at a certain time.

Our midfield clearly needs work and there will be a lot of focus on that in the RC with Im guessing many getting a chance.

I felt if anything it was tactical and an overeagerness. I get the Barrett cross kick is a great weapon but it was played too early on occasion I think. I could be wrong but it also felt like they were trying to do everything in about 5 fewer phases than is normal. There seemed a lack of patience.

I suspect the NH sides will adopt a rush defence, so it'll be interesting to see if that works and if the ABs try to get width more quickly or try a few drinks in behind, or a mixture. I still think re midfield the best move is smashing up the middle with Savea and customary quick ball out wide. The biggest problem the NH sides will have is we don't produce the same size of backs so we can't stop you on the gain line, so we can't prevent quick ball. Or haven't found a way too, even if your midfield isn't firing.

That said I can see the guile of Smith and perhaps even Crotty was missed.

Yes I thought Smith was a huge loss, particularly in hindsight where we tend to take him for granted, but geez when he was missing it showed. He revels in the dirty work and keeps keeping things moving forward.

ABs were definitely rattled. In 2014 England went a long way to suppressing the AB breakouts but in tests two and three that got harder to do and the ABs were able to slip into the upper gears enough times to win.

Here the lid was kept firmly on the more the tour progressed so that's a credit to the learning that went on by the squad and the coaching setup.

It's the first time for years some have even mentioned Gats as a potential AB coach by NZ interests so gotta give him credit for that.

It will be interesting to see how the Lions efforts filters down to the four squads

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I agree it is pretty pretentious. Kiwis aren't immune to having a good whinge about refs when they lose close games. Hansen has very politely been whinging as much as possible about the French refs and the NZ media take the pi$$ in general.

An Irishman lecturing about whinging is a bit rich.You guys are the biggest whingers in world rugby. The aftermath of Dublin was the biggest whingefest in recent memory.

and yet it is pretty much proven that the Irish media was right given that NZ received a red card a couple of games later. The ABs discipline in general is terrible. Maybe Hansen should have addressed the elephant in the room rather than having a sulk over being called a dirty side? You might have won the series if he had.

I do think it is also ironic that Kiwis call criticising Cane for sending Hendshaw to sleep and off the field in a stretcher whinging but are happy themselves to whinge for weeks on end over a fairly innocuous passive collision with Naholo by Sean O'Brien which didn't even concuss Naholo.

Kiwis lead the way in hypocracy and whinging.

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I agree it is pretty pretentious. Kiwis aren't immune to having a good whinge about refs when they lose close games. Hansen has very politely been whinging as much as possible about the French refs and the NZ media take the pi$$ in general.

Considering your regular plotting of Barnes downfall you're hardly one to speak on the subject.

And when was the last time kiwis whinged about a ref prior to this? 2007? Name one test since then?

Yes, a real common trait. Where Ive seen you go on many, many times since then.

That's the point. Prior to 2007 the referee allowed NZ to assault other players on the pitch and do whatever they wished. After that, when a young and naive Wayne Barnes decided to penalise New Zealand the same as everyone else, he received death threats. That put the referees back in line, I guess (see RWC2011).

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I agree it is pretty pretentious. Kiwis aren't immune to having a good whinge about refs when they lose close games. Hansen has very politely been whinging as much as possible about the French refs and the NZ media take the pi$$ in general.

An Irishman lecturing about whinging is a bit rich.You guys are the biggest whingers in world rugby. The aftermath of Dublin was the biggest whingefest in recent memory.

and yet it is pretty much proven that the Irish media was right given that NZ received a red card a couple of games later. The ABs discipline in general is terrible. Maybe Hansen should have addressed the elephant in the room rather than having a sulk over being called a dirty side? You might have won the series if he had.

I do think it is also ironic that Kiwis call criticising Cane for sending Hendshaw to sleep and off the field in a stretcher whinging but are happy themselves to whinge for weeks on end over a fairly innocuous passive collision with Naholo by Sean O'Brien which didn't even concuss Naholo.

Kiwis lead the way in hypocracy and whinging.

 Thats a pretty good example of a whinge there GG, By the way your spelling of hypocrisy wrong.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I agree it is pretty pretentious. Kiwis aren't immune to having a good whinge about refs when they lose close games. Hansen has very politely been whinging as much as possible about the French refs and the NZ media take the pi$$ in general.

Considering your regular plotting of Barnes downfall you're hardly one to speak on the subject.

And when was the last time kiwis whinged about a ref prior to this? 2007? Name one test since then?

Yes, a real common trait. Where Ive seen you go on many, many times since then.

That's the point. Prior to 2007 the referee allowed NZ to assault other players on the pitch and do whatever they wished. After that, when a young and naive Wayne Barnes decided to penalise New Zealand the same as everyone else, he received death threats. That put the referees back in line, I guess (see RWC2011).

Technically Barnes opted to not penalise France for 50 mins in '07 rather than penalise NZ more Rory

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I agree it is pretty pretentious. Kiwis aren't immune to having a good whinge about refs when they lose close games. Hansen has very politely been whinging as much as possible about the French refs and the NZ media take the pi$$ in general.

Considering your regular plotting of Barnes downfall you're hardly one to speak on the subject.

And when was the last time kiwis whinged about a ref prior to this? 2007? Name one test since then?

Yes, a real common trait. Where Ive seen you go on many, many times since then.

That's the point. Prior to 2007 the referee allowed NZ to assault other players on the pitch and do whatever they wished. After that, when a young and naive Wayne Barnes decided to penalise New Zealand the same as everyone else, he received death threats. That put the referees back in line, I guess (see RWC2011).

Technically Barnes opted to not penalise France for 50 mins in '07 rather than penalise NZ more Rory

That's right Pete. Barnes was ahead of his time. He paved the way forward for people like Poite and Garces to make up new rugby laws on the spot when they get scared to make the big calls. The ABs will think a two-try buffer going into the last 5 minutes should be enough if a NH referee with mummy issues has the whistle.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I agree it is pretty pretentious. Kiwis aren't immune to having a good whinge about refs when they lose close games. Hansen has very politely been whinging as much as possible about the French refs and the NZ media take the pi$$ in general.

Considering your regular plotting of Barnes downfall you're hardly one to speak on the subject.

And when was the last time kiwis whinged about a ref prior to this? 2007? Name one test since then?

Yes, a real common trait. Where Ive seen you go on many, many times since then.

That's the point. Prior to 2007 the referee allowed NZ to assault other players on the pitch and do whatever they wished. After that, when a young and naive Wayne Barnes decided to penalise New Zealand the same as everyone else, he received death threats. That put the referees back in line, I guess (see RWC2011).

When did Barnes receive death threats because he decided to penalise NZ?

Have you somehow managed to avoid completely why Barnes was vilified?

It certainly wasn't about penalising NZ. In fact it was more his ability to not penalise at all...anyone for that fact.

Makes a change from refs blatantly forgetting to penalise NZ which lets face it is much more common.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Makes a change from refs blatantly forgetting to penalise NZ which lets face it is much more common.

We have something in common with Ireland - the least-penalised team in world rugby - then

Must be handy having World Rugby's reffing section based in Dublin ...

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I agree it is pretty pretentious. Kiwis aren't immune to having a good whinge about refs when they lose close games. Hansen has very politely been whinging as much as possible about the French refs and the NZ media take the pi$$ in general.

An Irishman lecturing about whinging is a bit rich.You guys are the biggest whingers in world rugby. The aftermath of Dublin was the biggest whingefest in recent memory.

and yet it is pretty much proven that the Irish media was right given that NZ received a red card a couple of games later. The ABs discipline in general is terrible. Maybe Hansen should have addressed the elephant in the room rather than having a sulk over being called a dirty side? You might have won the series if he had.

I do think it is also ironic that Kiwis call criticising Cane for sending Hendshaw to sleep and off the field in a stretcher whinging but are happy themselves to whinge for weeks on end over a fairly innocuous passive collision with Naholo by Sean O'Brien which didn't even concuss Naholo.

Kiwis lead the way in hypocracy and whinging.

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.

I suppose one quibble I have with the idea that NZ train to take the referee out of the equation is that the on-field behaviour doesn't reflect it. Instead, the complaint you most hear over the years is that referees have often seemed to let so much go.

The clearest example I can remember was the Owen Franks eye gouge in one of last year's Bledisloe matches. Whatever your personal opinion of the matter, there's no doubt that all similar incidents in other matches beforehand had drawn bans but Franks was not even cited. World Rugby even highlighted his case as a glaring inconsistency in application of the laws.

The All Blacks are usually very good, especially under McCaw, at understanding what the referee will allow with offside, forward passes, handling or off your feet at rucks etc but I don't think they are so adept when it comes to borderline rough stuff. That offences have not been penalized on the pitch is not because NZ are playing to the referee, it's because they have been very fortunate. I don't think we can say the tide has turned just because there were citings after Dublin, and cards during the Lions tour.

In part, it might well be a function of referees favouring the superior team, and there's no doubt that NZ have been superior for a long time. If they get back on a winning streak again, then we might all be tearing our hair out once more at other officiating inconsistencies.

If NZ really do play to take the referee out of the equation, then they won't take these on-field risks in the future. I bet they will, however because that's rugby. Some of these offences are split-second reactions where events - like how a player lands - can be out of your control. If All Blacks play too safe, then they'll cede too much of an advantage to opponents.

Incidentally, I don't think New Zealand are an especially dirty team. Rather, they aren't any better than at being enforcers than other top Test sides, and that could start being noticed.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Makes a change from refs blatantly forgetting to penalise NZ which lets face it is much more common.

We have something in common with Ireland  - the least-penalised team in world rugby - then

Must be handy having World Rugby's reffing section based in Dublin ...

or when compared to NZ Ireland's discipline is quite good. Strange how Ireland received 3 red cards in a 50 year period that NZ got none.

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.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Makes a change from refs blatantly forgetting to penalise NZ which lets face it is much more common.

We have something in common with Ireland  - the least-penalised team in world rugby - then

Must be handy having World Rugby's reffing section based in Dublin ...

or when compared to NZ Ireland's discipline is quite good. Strange how Ireland received 3 red cards in a 50 year period that NZ got none.

And yet both have received 3 red cards ever. With Ireland having played more games

Taylorman wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I agree it is pretty pretentious. Kiwis aren't immune to having a good whinge about refs when they lose close games. Hansen has very politely been whinging as much as possible about the French refs and the NZ media take the pi$$ in general.

Considering your regular plotting of Barnes downfall you're hardly one to speak on the subject.

And when was the last time kiwis whinged about a ref prior to this? 2007? Name one test since then?

Yes, a real common trait. Where Ive seen you go on many, many times since then.

That's the point. Prior to 2007 the referee allowed NZ to assault other players on the pitch and do whatever they wished. After that, when a young and naive Wayne Barnes decided to penalise New Zealand the same as everyone else, he received death threats. That put the referees back in line, I guess (see RWC2011).

When did Barnes receive death threats because he decided to penalise NZ?

Have you somehow managed to avoid completely why Barnes was vilified?

It certainly wasn't about penalising NZ. In fact it was more his ability to not penalise at all...anyone for that fact.

Strange, I wonder how somebody from New Zealand got sin-binned then. Must have sent himself off?

Anyway, I apologise for getting the source of the death threats wrong and why Barnes was vilified. Now that I have decided to stop ignoring the reason why, the death threats are acceptable.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:

ebop wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I agree it is pretty pretentious. Kiwis aren't immune to having a good whinge about refs when they lose close games. Hansen has very politely been whinging as much as possible about the French refs and the NZ media take the pi$$ in general.

An Irishman lecturing about whinging is a bit rich.You guys are the biggest whingers in world rugby. The aftermath of Dublin was the biggest whingefest in recent memory.

and yet it is pretty much proven that the Irish media was right given that NZ received a red card a couple of games later. The ABs discipline in general is terrible. Maybe Hansen should have addressed the elephant in the room rather than having a sulk over being called a dirty side? You might have won the series if he had.

I do think it is also ironic that Kiwis call criticising Cane for sending Hendshaw to sleep and off the field in a stretcher whinging but are happy themselves to whinge for weeks on end over a fairly innocuous passive collision with Naholo by Sean O'Brien which didn't even concuss Naholo.

Kiwis lead the way in hypocracy and whinging.

 Thats a pretty good example of a whinge there GG, By the way your spelling of hypocrisy wrong.

As is your use of capital letters. Hippocrate.

Also, "Thats" should contain an apostrophe in there somewhere.

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.

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.

Plenty of British and irish coaches within the British and Irish teams.

But they have yellow bellies

What you mean they're cowards? I don't understand your point.