new_j4a says...

@RiverBlues77, Thank you for providing a reference. This episode of The Breakdown will go down in rugby history as the most dishonest piece of Ozzie-Irish propaganda. It has been discussed many times and in my view the claims cannot be put down to mere ignorance on the part of the commentators. Like many, I believe that they purposefully set out to deceive their audience....not great journalism, just sensationalism and a massive disservice to rugby....but then the perennial losers are often the spoilers, aren't they.

And before a whole lot of conspiracy theorists start asking how come I think I know more than the "exalted commentators," I do, but that is beside the point. Craig Joubert's performance has been minutely scrutinized and applauded by the IRB. He does make a mistake. It's at min 4:30. This piece of tape is constructed (jumps around from incident to incident with no boundary) to confuse and blow smoke....it is dishonest.

@jamesliveinhope, thanks for the analysis. I assume that you are right. This camera angle makes any claim to be better positioned than the ref a bit absurd...

BTW, my memory fails me, can anyone remind me of the names of the commentators....especially the sanctimonious Australian prat?

Posted 04:36 02nd August 2012

jamesliveinhope says...

@riverblues and @new_j4a - juts watched the link with the sound off (I find that commentators make the situation even worse)

Kanu came through the ruck (on-side as far as I can see) and lost the ball as he fell forward. It could be open to interpretation but it could be argued that the counter ruck was good and he had every right to pick the ball up.

The ref, although very close would not have seen the knock-on as his view was obstructed by a Frenchman. The player "coming in at the side" was not therefore coming in at the side because, in the ref's opinion the ball had left the ruck.

I'm not sure exactly what happened next (sound off) but the French took the ball back into the ruck which would not be a scrum France - I wonder therefore whether a linesman had called the knock on.

This is all with the benefit of TV replay in close up and slow motion - we can all be experts after the event in these situations but the ref relies heavily on the quality of his positioning and his line judges - Henry noted 40 penalty infringements apparently - can anyone remember 40 penalties ever being given in a match at that level? 30 maybe between the teams but never 40 to one.

Posted 14:52 01st August 2012

new_j4a says...

@RiverBlues77 who says.."Just ask Kano, after he went off his feet over the top of the ruck in the 2011 RWC final, spilled the ball forward," Your description doesn't make sense: If Kano ends up spilling the ball forward, then he was the ball carrier, right? If he was the ball carrier, then how could he go off his feet over the top of the ruck, bearing in mind that the ball has to be on the ground for a ruck to exist? In this little fantasy scenario of yours, were you playing with 2 balls? Was Jar Jar Binks the ref? It might interest you to know that Craig Joubert reffed the real RWC final we all saw....and he understands and plays advantage. Post the exact minute if you really think that you have a case to make rather than an incoherent whinge.

Posted 05:58 01st August 2012

StunTheMullet says...

@ RiverBlues77 - Yes, and it was a good thing that the match officials, citing commissioner and IRB did nothing about Rougerie eye gouging McCaw.

Same the year before when Dylan Hartley elbowed him in the face and Andy Powell tackled him the face on consecutive weekends.

Good thing I'm not a conspiracy theorist like P Divvy or I'd think there was bias against the All Blacks.

Posted 21:47 31st July 2012

7ton says...

Munster30

No I certainly did not miss the point of your speech where you clearly indicated NZ get special treatment from the officials against every other country.

I pointed out that I have heard the same said about Munster. In fact many other teams as well when they are winning. Yes and loads of times we here the cry "Fix"

South Africa/Australia in the 2011 WC being just one example.

Rather rich of you to lecture Henry while at the same time have a big moan about the NZ/Irish game of which rucking kiwi as answered your complaints in the other article.

My own take of 2007 like many others is that while there may have been some poor officiating and the penalty stats may have been odd NZ still had chances to win that game but didn't. And yes credit has to be given to France for their effort on the day.

Any disproportional comments here has come from you.

Posted 19:17 31st July 2012

RiverBlues77 says...

Of course match fixing happens in every sport EXCEPT rugby. This is a totally rational and logical presumption - after all, the rugby referee has about 500 opportunities in each game to shift momentum or affect the outcome of the match. He'd never do that.

Just ask Kano, after he went off his feet over the top of the ruck in the 2011 RWC final, spilled the ball forward, and an All Black player came from the side to tackle the scrum-half - all directly in front of Craig Joubert, who awarded.. a scrum. Good thing France didn't get a penalty 30 odd meters out in the final quarter with New Zealand under pressure, that would just have been cheating.

Posted 15:22 31st July 2012

munster30 says...

@7ton

you missed the entire point of my post. I didnt say that this is why NZ win. My point was that other teams never go around saying its a fix when NZ get all their dubious decisions. But suddenly when the decisions swing the other way the fix must be in, NZ needs to grow up. They act like spoiled children when they lose. Don't go looking for some ridiculous match fixing route. Human error did come into it as it does in all matches. And lets not forget an excellent defensive display by the French might have been a small factor in the loss.

Queue a disproportionate response full of vitriol from some NZ fans because i dared to not bow and tug my forelock to the mighty ABs.

Posted 13:37 31st July 2012

Rosbif says...

@new_j4a. hehehe, as a rule I try to only bet with other people's money (and charge 2 and 20 for it), but a little "fun money" has been known to flutter from time to time....

And by the way, you're spot on with the love/hate thing methinks. A world of rugby without the French wldn't quite be the same. (I imagine the Argies will come to occupy a similar place in our collective hearts as we get to know them better over the next few decades).

:-)

Posted 16:05 30th July 2012

colvin says...

You know, when that bloodgate business happened in England ( was it 2008? or 2009?) that was a pretty blatant attempt to cheat. You never would have believed it if they hadn't been caught redhanded.

When the cricket fixing scandals started, who would have believed that?

Look at the measures adopted to prevent doping at the Olympics.

Other sports, football, boxing, tennis, baseball, horse racing all have had their corruption problems.

It would be naive to believe that it couldn't happen in rugby.

So the IRB should get its act together and set up a structure to deal with the risk.

Even worse, the IRB has to deal with inaccuracy of its match officials which can give rise to potential suggestions of corruption

Posted 13:14 30th July 2012

Dingbat32 says...

'Independent Review of the 2007 Rugby World Cup Campaign' - commisioned in NZ and available online is probably a more accurate picture of what happenend.

Posted 10:54 30th July 2012