Graham Henry on 2007 RWC Match Fixing

[Saintjay]

Yes FlukeArtist was wrong in this, but correct in everything else. If as much energy was spent on improving other nations' rugby, as is used in *****ing about NZ, then maybe that 80% winning rate could be reduced.

No he is not right in everything else. A number of the posts point out that at times some NZ fans etc struggle to be gracious in defeat. That NZ lost because we were robbed, poisoned, the match was fixed, the ref was rubbish etc,etc,etc. When at times it is just nice to say on the day we were not good enough if we had been we would have won. Most on this forum admire the All Blacks and the clear talent they have. It is not being a hater by pointing out that some times other teams should be given credit.

 

[Gena_ZA]

No he is not right in everything else. A number of the posts point out that at times some NZ fans etc struggle to be gracious in defeat. That NZ lost because we were robbed, poisoned, the match was fixed, the ref was rubbish etc,etc,etc. When at times it is just nice to say on the day we were not good enough if we had been we would have won. Most on this forum admire the All Blacks and the clear talent they have. It is not being a hater by pointing out that some times other teams should be given credit.

At last a post with some sense, so go on, start hating him now, it seems to be the "in" thing lately

 

[FlukeArtist]

We have LAWS in rugby, tw@t.

Hahaha Semantics now... whatever floats your boat chief

And name calling too! Geez I should take back everything I put in your feedback. You obviously have sound and reasoned arguments.

 

[admartian]

I promise you that if another referee such as Chris White or Tony Spreadbury had been refereeing that '07 quarter final, there is absolutely no bloody way that the French would have gone through the last 60 minutes without giving up a single penalty kick, free kick or penalty advantage.

Yeah I agree -win or lose, I think other referees should've been appointed. I wondered this BEFORE the match and was actually about iffy about the whole thing (and considering our history with France).

Yes FlukeArtist was wrong in this, but correct in everything else. If as much energy was spent on improving other nations' rugby, as is used in *****ing about NZ, then maybe that 80% winning rate could be reduced.

Maybe, maybe not.

No he is not right in everything else. A number of the posts point out that at times some NZ fans etc struggle to be gracious in defeat. That NZ lost because we were robbed, poisoned, the match was fixed, the ref was rubbish etc,etc,etc. When at times it is just nice to say on the day we were not good enough if we had been we would have won. Most on this forum admire the All Blacks and the clear talent they have. It is not being a hater by pointing out that some times other teams should be given credit.

Even though they have some validity- people shouldn't say it and just accept ludicrous things? We can be gracious in defeat if all else things are fair.

See Ricky Januarie last minute shocker try a couple of years back, see French loss 1999 in the RWC, see last minute Australia loss in Hong Kong (I think? We only hated Quade because well,he's Quade but not the way the game went ), see most losses against SA (save 1995); see ANY GAME WHERE THERE ISN'T CONTROVERSY AND you'll see where you're wrong.

You have a point but not really accurate considering.

Tell me what fan, in any sport, in forever; that won't complain after something controversial?

Your cheque is waiting if you can find one.

At last a post with some sense, so go on, start hating him now, it seems to be the "in" thing lately

Oh I get it, it only makes sense because it's not pro-NZ?

Got it bro.

 

[FlukeArtist]

No he is not right in everything else. A number of the posts point out that at times some NZ fans etc struggle to be gracious in defeat. That NZ lost because we were robbed, poisoned, the match was fixed, the ref was rubbish etc,etc,etc. When at times it is just nice to say on the day we were not good enough if we had been we would have won. Most on this forum admire the All Blacks and the clear talent they have. It is not being a hater by pointing out that some times other teams should be given credit.

So Jay - for the record; In your opinion, Was the officating in the '07 France-NZ game pi55 poor or not?

 

[Teh Mite]

Hahaha Semantics now... whatever floats your boat chief

And name calling too! Geez I should take back everything I put in your feedback. You obviously have sound and reasoned arguments.

Grow a pair of ******** and learn some humility. Humourless JAFA.

 

[FlukeArtist]

Grow a pair of ******** and learn some humility. Humourless JAFA.

Humourless?!? Come on now buddy.... I laughed heartily at your last post, what more do you want?

 

[admartian]

Grow a pair of ******** and learn some humility. Humourless JAFA.

This is getting serious since I'm seeing cliched "derogatory" name calling (not that I find JAFA to be all that offensive).



It's business time...

 

[FlukeArtist]

This is getting serious since I'm seeing cliched "derogatory" name calling (not that I find JAFA to be all that offensive).



It's business time...

Na me either bro- JAFA is fine. But humourless.. honestly

 

[Saintjay]

Ok for the record. I am pro NZ and Buck is my all time hero. I am pointing out the views of some on here and they have a reasonable point. It does not make them haters at all, and my post is neither pro or anti. Rugby will be never be fair as such because it involves humans and people will make mistakes others will cheat etc. Look at the McCaw debates to prove that or the Northampton Saints illegal scrum debates.

Sports people don't complain at erm lawn bowls maybe.

As for the 2007 game. The ref was not great but he can't stop a team running in a clear try or beating a defence.They dominated the first half yet only scored one try in my view that's what cost them not the ref.

 

[FlukeArtist]

Ok for the record. I am pro NZ and Buck is my all time hero. I am pointing out the views of some on here and they have a reasonable point. It does not make them haters at all, and my post is neither pro or anti. Rugby will be never be fair as such because it involves humans and people will make mistakes others will cheat etc. Look at the McCaw debates to prove that or the Northampton Saints illegal scrum debates.

Sports people don't complain at erm lawn bowls maybe.

As for the 2007 game. The ref was not great but he can't stop a team running in a clear try or beating a defence.They dominated the first half yet only scored one try in my view that's what cost them not the ref.

Fair enough Jay, and thanks for the clarification.
I agree the ABs did not play at anywhere near their best that day.
But all you can ask for is a level playing field (or at least something resembling that), and that is not what happened that day IMO.

I think the stats re possession and penalties speak volumes about about the quality of referreeing in that game. And to lose by such a close margin; you can't blame ABs fans for being pi55ed off about the lack of penalties awarded against France. I remember watching that game and seeing a French player put his hands into the opposite side of the ruck and take the ball illegally, RIGHT in front of the touch judge. That kind of 5hit just shouldn't happen. Something was seriously amiss that day.

However, that being said; it's in the past now. just the whole Henry book thing has stirred up the matter.
Or more accurately, the NZ media has stirred it up in their selective quoting of text from Henry's book (as someone on here has already posted)
The NZ media is working hard to become the worst in the world.
AND, on top of that- the vast majoriy of the NZ media sincerely dislike Graham Henry due to him not pandering to them in his dealings with them

 

[admartian]

Ok for the record. I am pro NZ and Buck is my all time hero. I am pointing out the views of some on here and they have a reasonable point. It does not make them haters at all, and my post is neither pro or anti. Rugby will be never be fair as such because it involves humans and people will make mistakes others will cheat etc. Look at the McCaw debates to prove that or the Northampton Saints illegal scrum debates.

Sports people don't complain at erm lawn bowls maybe.

As for the 2007 game. The ref was not great but he can't stop a team running in a clear try or beating a defence.They dominated the first half yet only scored one try in my view that's what cost them not the ref.

Fair enough. Good on you for clearing that.

Fair enough Jay, and thanks for the clarification.
I agree the ABs did not play at anywhere near their best that day.
But all you can ask for is a level playing field (or at least something resembling that), and that is not what happened that day IMO.

I think the stats re possession and penalties speak volumes about about the quality of referreeing in that game. And to lose by such a close margin; you can't blame ABs fans for being pi55ed off about the lack of penalties awarded against France. I remember watching that game and seeing a French player put his hands into the opposite side of the ruck and take the ball illegally, RIGHT in front of the touch judge. That kind of 5hit just shouldn't happen. Something was seriously amiss that day.

However, that being said; it's in the past now. just the whole Henry book thing has stirred up the matter.
Or more accurately, the NZ media has stirred it up in their selective quoting of text from Henry's book (as someone on here has already posted)
The NZ media is working hard to become the worst in the world.
AND, on top of that- the vast majoriy of the NZ sincerely dislike Graham Henry due to him not pandering to them in his dealings with them

NZ sports media is one of the worst. At least in places like the States, there are enough people doing it to produce good noes. Here, we just get ones that are wannabes and say controversial stuff to try and stir up **** instead of actually trying to be good.

See Chris Rattue...

 

[donmcdazzle]

As for the 2007 game. The ref was not great but he can't stop a team running in a clear try or beating a defence.They dominated the first half yet only scored one try in my view that's what cost them not the ref.

For me the issue isn't/wasn't about whether we won or lost, as I said before and like you have just pointed out there are always opportunities regardless of the ref.

However, the ref was horrendous that day plain and simple. That comment though doesn't equal "NZ woz robbed!!11" which I think a lot of people are characterising it as. It is ok to admit the ref had an abortion of a game completely independent from the result.

 

[ahrefony]

Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice.

 

[Senan]

One of the worst parts about that referee performance was McAlister's yellow card.



0:28

Despite the "blatant block" as the person commentating describes it (he also seems to ignore any forward pass, calling it perfect timing >.>), there is next to no way he could have avoided it. He was rushing in defense and then when the kick came in, he had to change his comentum and run back which resulted in a turn, which he did at a slower pace than the player on attacking rushing. Nothing about it looks like a penalty, never mind a yellow card, as there is very little I can see that he could do differently.

Man, you have to look at that video again. If a defender is looking straight at a chasing attacker, both without the ball (as is with this), and runs into him deliberately (as is with this), then that is a totally legit yellow. he knew what he was doing and deserved it.

 

[Sker]

EDIT:

Oh and...