tbh though, the main problem I have with the England coaches in this situation is the fact they brought it up with the media. Sure, they have every right to question the ref and the IRB, but they should have kept quiet about it. What's the point in saying a ref had a poor game to media outlets? It just makes a coach look like a sore loser and brings a ref's reputation into question in the public eye when they haven't necessarily done anything wrong or made wrong decisions. I just think the whole situation should have been something that was kept under wraps. The England setup gain nothing from going public about it.
This is a classic case of media distortion. Take the BBC. They started the story under the headline, "Lancaster queries ref performance":
read here. This would give anyone the impression that Lancaster made comments about the general game of Walsh. But when you read the article, you notice that Lancaster never said that Walsh had a bad game, or even commented on Walsh's general game. They were asking about particular incidents.
The BBC must have realised they messed up, because they kept the entire contents of the article, but changed the article headline to, "Stuart Lancaster seeks referee 'clarification'":
read here.
Even now, that article is misleading. It mentions 'clarification' but doesn't expand on what that means. Clarification in the academic sense (they want to better know how to go forward)? The BBC and Guardian posted articles on the same interview. The Guardian article adds something that the BBC one didn't:
Rowntree, meanwhile, has conceded more Welsh players than English ones are likely to feature in the Lions squad in Australia in June and July. "What you can say about that last game is there were more Lions on the field wearing a Wales shirt than an England one, but we'll just have to wait for selection," said the former Leicester prop.
Why didn't the BBC include this?
The Sun's article is hideous:
read here. "Furious?" "Rowntree believes Kiwi Walsh whistled them off the pitch?" Speculation based on tidbits. It's no surprise to me that people are angry when this kind of thing is being printed.
It's worth pointing out that before the story broke, the England coaches had already admitted Wales played better:
read here.
As to why Lancaster and Rowntree went to the media in the first place? Maybe they felt it would put more pressure on the IRB for them to get back to them with an answer instead of sidestepping the issue? More likely, I think, is that the media caught wind of the story and asked them about it. They answered, knowing that they weren't outside of their boundaries in doing so. (They weren't - what they said was perfectly legitimate.) Another theory - it is a deflection of criticism: they lost 30-3 and instead of facing that, they bring a controversial story out which generates so much discussion that it saves themselves from being in the headlights. But there isn't a quote anywhere from them saying that Wales didn't deserve the win, or anything that can be clearly implied that way.
