[2016 Rugby Championship] New Zealand v Australia (27/08/2016)

[Sker]

I think we should all calm down, smoke a lot of weed and drink ourselves into a coma

 

[RoosTah]

No need to get personal here. And no need to insult my intelligence either.

I don't see Eddie Jones as the world's best coach. I never have. Sure he has had success, but at every job he has ever been in the international arena, he has had problems with colleagues/administrators/players etc. He has a brash personality, and isn't always looking at the welfare of his players or the aura of the team. Which is not something I can say about Hansen.

If you want to point to stats, well then there is only one international coach who will crack the nod in regard to success. And that is Kitch Christie, who coached the 1995 World Cup Winning Springboks and had a 100% Success record. Something not even Jones, Hansen, Henry, White, Woodward or anyone else can claim.

Eddie Jones lacks a lot of skills as you say. One of them are people skills, and the other is confrontation skills. Both of those skills are something that Hansen however has.

And I'm not kneeling in front of the altar of Hansen. I just made a remark that he is respected and well-liked, something not a lot of people can say about Eddie. Especially after it's made perfectly clear that he's just after money, and whoever pays the most will get his services...

But that's okay, he's rugby's mercenary coach. And you are his fanboy. All good!

So let's get this straight, you first plead with me not to get personal, and then respond by calling me a fan boy and giving me a bunch of emotionally charged stuff about character traits.

Again, I wasn't going out of my way to insult your intelligence, I was simply asking if you understand how statistical analysis works and you either couldn't grasp the logic of the argument or you just chose to deflect it because it doesn't fit your bias.

As for loving Eddie - mate he went and coached England. I f##king hate him now, but that doesn't mean I can't logically see that the common factor in his success lately has been him - something you just can't say for Hansen until he takes a gig somewhere else.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Again, I wasn't going out of my way to insult your intelligence, I was simply asking if you understand how statistical analysis works and you either couldn't grasp the logic of the argument or you just chose to deflect it because it doesn't fit your bias.

Deflect? Fit my bias? I gave you a compelling statistical analysis of another coach, and yet, you deflect that evidence to fit your bias.

As for loving Eddie - mate he went and coached England. I f##king hate him now, but that doesn't mean I can't logically see that the common factor in his success lately has been him - something you just can't say for Hansen until he takes a gig somewhere else.

Why should Hansen leave or take a gig somewhere else? He has worked terribly hard to be where he is now. He wasn't the only assistant coach to Henry, yet he was selected above everyone else to be the head coach of the top team in the world. That says a lot about him as a person, his coaching ability and his consistency. And to add to that he'll be coaching the All Blacks longer than many other coaches. If his stats was of a lesser standard, then I can guarantee you that plans would've been made already to replace him or to move him back into an assistant coaching role.

 

[RoosTah]

Deflect? Fit my bias? I gave you a compelling statistical analysis of another coach, and yet, you deflect that evidence to fit your bias.

We're not talking about the 90s mate - your point was off point and in any case dealt with coaches at single teams - the exact thing that makes a clear analysis of ability versus environment difficult. In Rugby League we had a guy coach the Kangaroos with a perfect record about 12 or so years ago on a tour of the UK, which included a clean sweep of England. But when he went and coached at club level he was complete crap and all his teams went no where. It turned out that unbelievably his job coaching a star studded Kangaroos team just made him look good. Same thing happened a couple years ago - a guy named Tim Sheens coached them to a record winning run of 16 wins in a row, which included a hammering of a very talented NZ team in the World Cup Final, but as a club coach his side was going nowhere for years. Again, apparently having a team built around a legendary Qld side and then stars from the rest of the NRL just made his job at the Kangaroos quite a lot easier and made him look quite a lot smarter. Funny that.

Why should Hansen leave or take a gig somewhere else? He has worked terribly hard to be where he is now. He wasn't the only assistant coach to Henry, yet he was selected above everyone else to be the head coach of the top team in the world. That says a lot about him as a person, his coaching ability and his consistency. And to add to that he'll be coaching the All Blacks longer than many other coaches. If his stats was of a lesser standard, then I can guarantee you that plans would've been made already to replace him or to move him back into an assistant coaching role.

Are you trying to miss the point to be irritating?

 

[smartcooky]

1. @smartcooky - How are the citing commisioner's appointed? It seems to me like the citing commissioner is always someone from the home nation hosting the match. In SA it's usually Jannie Lubbe. So if the match was in New Zealand, then the citing commissioner was a New Zealander?

Jannie Lubbe is not a Citing Commissioner, he is a Judicial Officer. Citing commissioners are often former referees while judicial officers must have legal backgrounds.

AFAIK, the Citing Commissioner panels for SANZAAR are
South Africa: Freek Burger & Andy Prior
Australia: Scott Nowland & Dick Byres
New Zealand: Steve Hinds & Mike O'Leary

AFAIK there is no Citing Commissioner from Argentina this year, though there was in 2012 (Pablo DeLuca IIRC)

The Citing protocols for the Rugby Championship is different from that for Super Rugby. Here is an excerpt from of SANZAAR's Citing and Hearing Procedures

[TEXTAREA]Judicial Officers and Citing Commissioners
• Each of the four SANZAAR Unions has a panel of Judicial Officers and Citing Commissioners.
Judicial Officers must be legally qualified and experienced and Citing Commissioners must have appropriate rugby experience.

• For Super Rugby matches the Citing Commissioner and Judicial Officer are appointed from the host country. This is a compromise in order to keep costs down

• For Rugby Championship matches the Citing Commissioner and Judicial Officer are appointed from a neutral country (for example South Africa or Argentina when New Zealand are playing Australia).

• A Citing Commissioner has, with limited exceptions, 12 hours from the end of the match to cite a player.

• The Citing Commissioner has the power to cite any player for an act of foul play which in his opinion warranted the player concerned being sent off. This is known as "the red card test"

• The Citing Commissioner may issue Citing Commissioner Warning (formerly known as an Off Field Yellow Card) for an act of foul play that went unpunished (or was punished only with a penalty) and which in his opinion warranted the player concerned being temporarily suspended. This is known as "the yellow card test"

• Citing Commissioners act independently of the match officials; for example a player who receives a yellow card during the course of the match can still be cited if the Citing Commissioner believes the yellow card was an insufficient punishment and the offence met the red card test.

​

[/TEXTAREA]
As for the Franks incident, here is my last word on this.

There is no doubt that Franks should have been cited for his actions, and I am somewhat pissed off that he hasn't been, mostly because it was stupid on his part and deserves punishment, partly because not being cited is not a good look for the game.

However, I am also pissed off because the lack of a citing brings all the whacko conspiracy theorist nut-jobs like Brendon Gallagher and Mark "un" Reason crawling out from their slime pits.

The "cloak of invisibility" is a myth, as is the spurious idea that there is some kind of "special treatment" given to the All Blacks. This is the same allegation that creeps into any sport when one team has a dominant period of time and is certainly not unique to rugby. In NFL, the Dallas Cowboys had to put up with this type of media BS when they were dominant; when they fell off the pace, and the New England Patriots became the Tall Poppy that everyone wanted to chop down, they had to put up with it too. In football, Manchester United have had to stomach this crap for years as have Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal in their time at the top. Brazil, Argentina and Germany have been in that same firing line for many years, and the Aussie cricketers were forever being accused of getting the rub of the green from umpires.

The reality is that the people who whinge about special treatment for the winning teams or sportsmen, are invariably the losing teams or sportsmen and their supporters. Its simply a case of professional jealousy... nothing more, nothing less.

So, how could things be improved to give us more consistent citing procedures and outcomes?

Firstly, there needs to be some public accountability... the Citing Commissioner for each match should be named along with all the match officials and the match observer.

Secondly, at least at International level, WR should list the incidents that the Citing Commissioner is looking at, and he should have to justify his reasons for citing, not citing, or the issuing (or not) of a Citing Commissioner Warning. Those lists and justifications should be made public.

In this case, if the Citing Commissioner believed that Franks' actions did not meet the criteria for a RC, then he needed to explain how he came to that conclusion, and the rugby public have the right to know.

If the citing procedure was made more open, we might see some better consistency. We also might see why certain decisions have been made, and hopefully, this would allay suspicions and minimise the chances of unbridled speculation.

As to the argument over Hansen., I cant be arsed arguing over this any more. I'm never going to be convinced to change my opinion, and I think Roostah is of the same mind. Its an impasse, and pointless to continue.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Thanx Cooky, So it had to be either Prior or Burger who was the citing commissioner for this match?

I get the whole thing about costs and so on. But in this modern day and age, surely it can't be that hard to send the footage of citing incidents in a match to more than one commissioner wherever in the world he is. I'm sure that by posting the footage on World Rugby's official Referees/Citings website where only members with a log in or password can look at the footage?

I guess the only hurdle would be to get the footage from the broadcaster?

I'm just thinking out loud here, but wouldn't it be better for rugby, if we rather focus on addressing these foul incidents correctly than to have so many debates about favouritism or oversight from one person.

 

[Maverick1987]

Jannie Lubbe is not a Citing Commissioner, he is a Judicial Officer. Citing commissioners are often former referees while judicial officers must have legal backgrounds.

AFAIK, the Citing Commissioner panels for SANZAAR are
South Africa: Freek Burger & Andy Prior
Australia: Scott Nowland & Dick Byres
New Zealand: Steve Hinds & Mike O’Leary

AFAIK there is no Citing Commissioner from Argentina this year, though there was in 2012 (Pablo DeLuca IIRC)

The Citing protocols for the Rugby Championship is different from that for Super Rugby. Here is an excerpt from of SANZAAR's Citing and Hearing Procedures

[TEXTAREA]Judicial Officers and Citing Commissioners
• Each of the four SANZAAR Unions has a panel of Judicial Officers and Citing Commissioners.
Judicial Officers must be legally qualified and experienced and Citing Commissioners must have appropriate rugby experience.

• For Super Rugby matches the Citing Commissioner and Judicial Officer are appointed from the host country. This is a compromise in order to keep costs down

• For Rugby Championship matches the Citing Commissioner and Judicial Officer are appointed from a neutral country (for example South Africa or Argentina when New Zealand are playing Australia).

• A Citing Commissioner has, with limited exceptions, 12 hours from the end of the match to cite a player.

• The Citing Commissioner has the power to cite any player for an act of foul play which in his opinion warranted the player concerned being sent off. This is known as "the red card test"

• The Citing Commissioner may issue Citing Commissioner Warning (formerly known as an Off Field Yellow Card) for an act of foul play that went unpunished (or was punished only with a penalty) and which in his opinion warranted the player concerned being temporarily suspended. This is known as "the yellow card test"

• Citing Commissioners act independently of the match officials; for example a player who receives a yellow card during the course of the match can still be cited if the Citing Commissioner believes the yellow card was an insufficient punishment and the offence met the red card test.

​

[/TEXTAREA]
As for the Franks incident, here is my last word on this.

There is no doubt that Franks should have been cited for his actions, and I am somewhat pissed off that he hasn't been, mostly because it was stupid on his part and deserves punishment, partly because not being cited is not a good look for the game.

However, I am also pissed off because the lack of a citing brings all the whacko conspiracy theorist nut-jobs like Brendon Gallagher and Mark "un" Reason crawling out from their slime pits.

The "cloak of invisibility" is a myth, as is the spurious idea that there is some kind of "special treatment" given to the All Blacks. This is the same allegation that creeps into any sport when one team has a dominant period of time and is certainly not unique to rugby. In NFL, the Dallas Cowboys had to put up with this type of media BS when they were dominant; when they fell off the pace, and the New England Patriots became the Tall Poppy that everyone wanted to chop down, they had to put up with it too. In football, Manchester United have had to stomach this crap for years as have Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal in their time at the top. Brazil, Argentina and Germany have been in that same firing line for many years, and the Aussie cricketers were forever being accused of getting the rub of the green from umpires.

The reality is that the people who whinge about special treatment for the winning teams or sportsmen, are invariably the losing teams or sportsmen and their supporters. Its simply a case of professional jealousy... nothing more, nothing less.

So, how could things be improved to give us more consistent citing procedures and outcomes?

Firstly, there needs to be some public accountability... the Citing Commissioner for each match should be named along with all the match officials and the match observer.

Secondly, at least at International level, WR should list the incidents that the Citing Commissioner is looking at, and he should have to justify his reasons for citing, not citing, or the issuing (or not) of a Citing Commissioner Warning. Those lists and justifications should be made public.

In this case, if the Citing Commissioner believed that Franks' actions did not meet the criteria for a RC, then he needed to explain how he came to that conclusion, and the rugby public have the right to know.

If the citing procedure was made more open, we might see some better consistency. We also might see why certain decisions have been made, and hopefully, this would allay suspicions and minimise the chances of unbridled speculation.

As to the argument over Hansen., I cant be arsed arguing over this any more. I'm never going to be convinced to change my opinion, and I think Roostah is of the same mind. Its an impasse, and pointless to continue.

I'd agree with everything you said except Manchester United DEFINITELY had the rub of the green . I think the referees were intimidated by sir Alex and Old Trafford . It's no secret they had twice as many penalties especially at home .....

One that springs to mind is when Michael Owen scored against Man City if my memory is correct in the 98th minute when there was only supposed to be 4 minutes of extra time . There's no explaining that ....

But that's for another forum

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Thanks Cookey. My last word on it is that I was whinging on here not because I have anything against ABs. I was also disgusted that Huget got away with not being cited before the RWC for his stamp. It's the process that needs to be made more transparent as you said so we can void these inconsistent application of the laws.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

First, SC, thanks for the detailed explanation.

The "cloak of invisibility" is a myth, as is the spurious idea that there is some kind of "special treatment" given to the All Blacks. This is the same allegation that creeps into any sport when one team has a dominant period of time and is certainly not unique to rugby. In NFL, the Dallas Cowboys had to put up with this type of media BS when they were dominant; when they fell off the pace, and the New England Patriots became the Tall Poppy that everyone wanted to chop down, they had to put up with it too. In football, Manchester United have had to stomach this crap for years as have Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal in their time at the top. Brazil, Argentina and Germany have been in that same firing line for many years, and the Aussie cricketers were forever being accused of getting the rub of the green from umpires.

That is not exactly true. It is questionable at best and for every case you show me i can easily come up with another one where there is at least partial evidence to support a claim for bias.

And to be frank, i haven't seen many people here blaming the all blacks in general or use terms like "cloack of invisibility" or "special treatment". What i have seen is a very specific situation compared to what looks like very similar incidents that rendered very distinct outcomes.
I am not saying he got away because he is an AB. I am saying he got away, period. I would say the same thing had he been representing Australia, Scotland, Argentina or Tonga.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Surely the big game of Round 3 is the losers of the previous round playing each other as the Aussies look to kickstart their presence on the scoreboard.
The Boks will be licking their wounds after the Pumas rubbed Salta in to it (I'll get my coat)
The Boks will be looking to make the most of their home advantage and the Wallabies will be looking to kick their run of defeats to the curb.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

If Cheika picks the right team I'll back the Aussies to win. If he sticks with the set up he's got ATM then the Boks will take it.

Oz Team I want to see selected:

1. Sio
2. Polota-Nau
3. Kepu
4. Mumm
5. Douglas
6. Fardy
7. Pocock
8. McMahon
9. Genia
10. Cooper (Oh God.)
11. Kuridrani
12. Hodge
13. Kerevi
14. AAC
15. Folau

16. Moore
17. Slipper
18. Ala'alatoa
19. Simmons
20. Hooper
21. Phipps
22. Foley
23. Haylett-Petty

 

[Larksea]

He's already played there a fair bit for the All Blacks. Never quite nailed it there for whatever reason though.

his last few tests at 13 he was brilliant...

 

[Bee]

My two cents :
The ref's clear view on the incident from two yards away was (another) blatant proof of the special treatment the All Blacks get. Simple as that.
It just makes Rugby look ridiculous.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I'd agree with everything you said except Manchester United DEFINITELY had the rub of the green . I think the referees were intimidated by sir Alex and Old Trafford . It's no secret they had twice as many penalties especially at home .....

One that springs to mind is when Michael Owen scored against Man City if my memory is correct in the 98th minute when there was only supposed to be 4 minutes of extra time . There's no explaining that ....

But that's for another forum

fergie time has been statistically proven to be true

 

[Larksea]

owen franks had a rough game all around, penalized a couple times at scrum and i can't believe he avoided anything there (mainly that it didn't go to TMO) but hansen is right we didn't have all the angles

Owen Franks had one of his best games ever around the field, watch the game again and look at some of his defense and link play. The scrums were a mess, kinda out of the control of any one person mostly the Aussies looking to make any aspect of the game they could messy. but other than that he had a huge game.

- - - Updated - - -

He did coach Wales. Took them into the 1/4s and scared England a bit in 2003 World Cup. Later on that Wales team went on to win multiple 6 nations ***les and the Welsh coach at the time (Ruddock?) credited Hanson for the work he had done.

Hanson is the most successful All Blacks coach. Yes he was appointed by Henry, but behind the scenes how do you know if it was Henry creating all the systems in places or was it a collaborative effort between Henry, Hanson and Smith?

Fact is Hanson has morphed this team AB to be the best ever. Some say coaching ABs is the hardest job in NZ, the expectation is sky high. You get criticised heavily for the losses and criticised even when you win. It's no easy gig to coach the All Blacks, just ask all the previous coaches.

The difference between the Henry Era and Hansen Era is that AU and SA simply aren't as good now as they were. While the AB's have maintained their strength through the transition of promoting Hansen to head coach and losing a group of great players.

Personally while I still see some of Henrys work in the current success I think its wrong to focus on a couple of names. There is a big coaching team and management behind it all that deserve credit, if anything you would say that it all started with Henry being appointed head coach, but maintaining it all has been very well done and a lot of people deserve credit for it.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I've had a look at it and it is about as blatant as you will see in the modern game, hell you can even see him readjusting where his hand is 3 times to ensure it goes over the Aussies eyes! Considering Ashton and Francis got big punishments for much less, anything short of Franks being banned for a good few weeks will just reinforce the view that NZ get special treatment.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

I've had a look at it and it is about as blatant as you will see in the modern game, hell you can even see him readjusting where his hand is 3 times to ensure it goes over the Aussies eyes! Considering Ashton and Francis got big punishments for much less, anything short of Franks being banned for a good few weeks will just reinforce the view that NZ get special treatment.

Rage - Franks has already gotten away with it. World Rugby have confirmed they will not intervene. Not even a citing. End of story.

 

[Larksea]

Franks Clearly Gave him a facial in clear view of the ref, literally right in front of him, the ref clearly saw it told him to stop and he did. I don't think Franks is stupid enough to stick his fingers in the eyes of another player in clear view of the ref and all the cameras. And I also believe that if franks did actually get his fingers in the eyes the Ref would have carded him on the spot.

maybe you could argue that because romain poite saw the whole thing it saved Franks somewhat.

If anything I think the Argentinian incident this is being compared to was harsh. But as we all know everything around World cups is looked at and ruled differently. There are lots of situations where Penalties become cards, yellow becomes red and things that would normally be let off become bans simply because its during a world cup. The exception to that seems to be the final stuff that happens in the final seems to get swept under the rug if possible and the refs get whistle shy.

Outside of a WC that incident would have probably ended the same as this franks incident.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

The Francis and Ashton incidents weren't in World Cups. One in the 6 Nations and one in the Prem, both of which are lower profile comps than the RC. I see the point you're making, but there are cases (the 2 I mentioned) that disprove it. This is also far worse than what either of those players did. I suppose you could argue that Ashton's record had a part to play in his, but Francis was pretty clean. Franks should be banned for at least 8 weeks (the length of time Francis got).

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Franks Clearly Gave him a facial in clear view of the ref, literally right in front of him, the ref clearly saw it told him to stop and he did. I don't think Franks is stupid enough to stick his fingers in the eyes of another player in clear view of the ref and all the cameras. And I also believe that if franks did actually get his fingers in the eyes the Ref would have carded him on the spot.

maybe you could argue that because romain poite saw the whole thing it saved Franks somewhat.

If anything I think the Argentinian incident this is being compared to was harsh. But as we all know everything around World cups is looked at and ruled differently. There are lots of situations where Penalties become cards, yellow becomes red and things that would normally be let off become bans simply because its during a world cup. The exception to that seems to be the final stuff that happens in the final seems to get swept under the rug if possible and the refs get whistle shy.

Outside of a WC that incident would have probably ended the same as this franks incident.

So Franks feeling all over the Aussies face and bein repeatedly told to stop before he finally does somehow makes the whole thing ok? His fingers were over the Aussies eyes longer than Ashton or Francis had theirs over their opponents eyes AND he intentionally repositioned them multiple times to ensure they went over the eyes (intially they weren't), there is no reason why he should have been let off. Ashton and Francis got no warnings, it was straight off the pitch and then bans.