Rosco1971 says...

Mikenz1

Spot on mate.

Posted 15:00 30th July 2012

startledwombat says...

@hay05 - thanks, yours are well-balanced comments.

Leaving aside all the comments using Henry's comments as an excuse to put the boot into New Zealanders as a species, the fact remains -

that in the game we love, the IRB as its custodians did not then, and still do not, have in place a system or process to review games that are, frankly, shockingly weird.

Questions like this will come up again. The France-NZ game was a statistical oddity. The tackle count was an amazing statistic, so was the penalty count.

Rugby's rules are deliberately designed to allow for all sorts of games and permutations. There will be other weird anomalous games in future years.

In order to squelch theories of last resort (because things don't seem to make sense any other way) such as match-fixing, the IRB ought to have a process. Then they can take the lead rather than be on the back foot.

when they do have a process, it ought to be applied sparingly. As a species we have a common trait of blaming others faults rather than our own team's shortcomings when our team loses. This is known among all sports followers and is the subject of academic research. It's part of being human, it seems.

Anyway, such a process should be triggered by exceptional statistical aberration rather than, say, a sense of entitlement resulting in an outpouring of emotion by bitterly disappointed fans.

Posted 14:11 30th July 2012

APV1 says...

@ cuw3100 - you seem to have your facts about cricket and players being banned a little muddled. But I understand your point, so I shan't let facts get in the way of a good rant. You crack on, sunshine!

This is nothing more than an attempt to raise the profile of his book and sell more. I'm also fairly confident that this is probably the only interesting bit in the book. If we don't want to, we don't have to buy it. I shan't, but if it ends up in my Christmas stocking, I'll have a read.

Yes, I have a romantic view of Rugby and believe that those associated with it are, by and large, honourable people. That's based on experience and rugby-tinted specs - I don't want to think that the sport I love might be corrupt. I was devastated when the cricket match-fixing scandals hit the headlines, be they Saffa, English, Pakistani, or where-ever. I don't want our sport rocked by this PR in a cynical attempt to sell books. If there's suspicion, investigate. If proof is found, punish hard. But don't tarnish my beloved sport with rumour and conjecture, just as a PR exercise to make more cash. It smacks of greed and a lack of appreciation for what really makes the sport great - the ethos and philosophies of respect and fairness, which underpin it.

Posted 13:44 30th July 2012

BokAvenger says...

Oh yes, when the fabled All Pacific lose it can only be match fixing, either by a crooked ref or a waitress who lives a double life as a CIA agent named Suzie. All very logical in the land of the long white cloud. Of course, when their sworn enemies the "yarpies" say it was match fixing by New Zealanders Bryce Lawrence (NZ ref of the year 2011) and Paddy O'Kickback that knocked us out of the RWC then it's sour grapes. The hypocrisy is just astounding.

Posted 13:08 30th July 2012

Dingbat32 says...

Interestingly, according to stats I have dig up from google searches (so apologies if any innaccuracies), NZ only conceded 7 penalties in the same game. This is also a very low count, and would point more towards a lenient ref than match fixing.

The same teams played in November and the penalty count was 5/7, also very low.

The penalty count is not the only unusual stat in this game. The tackle count by France and Dusatoir was unbelievable. Watch the game again and see an absolute masterclass in tackling. I think France chose not to target too much turnover in rucks as McCaw makes it difficult for teams to do this. Putting aside ref issues, France were outstanding on the night, and Henry knows it.

Posted 12:45 30th July 2012

Jazz says...

Mhmmm... So they got Bryce to fix the injustice. And rewarded him with the NZ ref of the year award for his "efforts". Maybe even slipped him the old brown envelope. Who knows?

Posted 12:07 30th July 2012

Dangerous says...

Accusations or not Henry does Have a point about there not being anything in place to monitor match fixing. The problem is where do yo begin with something like that. Surely that's like war on terrorism. There are too many variables. It also takes away from romantic view that corruption can't occur in rugby. But does that mean it should be left alone?

Posted 11:54 30th July 2012

kahui says...

Chancer - What u need is to learn how 2 win

Posted 11:02 30th July 2012

heathy says...

Crikey, I think some of us have taken this whole saga to another level. @bk47 - I agree. This is actually the media that have spun this more as it makes a good story. GH didn't actually accuse anybody of match fixing. The stats were so heavily stacked in the Kiwi's favour that he just asked the question, nothing more. In truth the AB's were void of ideas and direction in what was a tight game. The French played very well. The ref had a shocker. It happens. It has happened since (Boks v Aussies 07). I'm not really sure about the 2011 final as yes, Joubert didn't have his best game but the French had their chance to win it. GH is a miserable bastard but when you get chatting to him, he is actually a funny guy and very smart. He must be delighted with this as this will help to sell his book. You will then read it and be disappointed as to what he 'actually' says and does. Put everything into context and then we can calm down a bit. There was no match fixing and I really don't believe there has ever been. Just bad refereeing. Barnes is actually a good ref in general but does drop the odd howlers. All refs have bad games. Listen to Hansen and we can just move on. This is silly stuff.

Posted 10:44 30th July 2012

mikeNZ1 says...

bokvebok - 1995 food poisoning is a fact. Only whether it was intentional or accidental is up for pointless unprovable debate.

1999 - I don't recall anyone blaming the ref. French were awesome in the 2nd half.

2003 - Jon Mitchells poor selections gets the blame for that one. Had he not left Umaga at home we might've had someone to cope with Mortlock who was immense that day.

2007- I think you'll find most Kiwis agree that the officials were incompetent that day not corrupt. Most also realise that it was stupidity that cost us that day not the ref. So much time camped inside the 22 & no drop goal still has me shaking my head in disbelief. Also Henry tinkering with the 2006 squad (the best ever imo) still annoys me.

It's a bit much for a Saffa to sarcastically use the term fine losers when your lot have been blaming refs & POB for years with alleged conspiracy theories. Pots & kettles my friend.

As for Henrys comments. I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to ask if the IRB has systems in place to investigate sports betting. Especially with statistics as one sided as those in that match combined with the emotion of losing such an important game.

I'll never believe there's corruption in rugby until proven otherwise but no sport is immune to the possibility.

Posted 10:17 30th July 2012