Referees vs the All Blacks

Gregor Paul in the NZ Herald notes that the All Blacks are drawing a lot of yellow cards, which is putting them under pressure in matches.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11310240

He allows that this might simply reflect growing indiscipline in their play but he is also drawn to the theory referees have it in for them these days.

Dominant teams don't normally incur the wrath of officials: the benefit of the doubt usually sits with the side which has the momentum and control of the contest...[P]erhaps they could be justified in wondering whether they are victims of an unconscious refereeing conspiracy.

All Black coach Steve Hansen gave the impression after the 12-all draw in Sydney that he's not yet sure to which school of thought he subscribes. "The first thing you have to find out is whether they [yellow cards] are correct decisions and if they are not you can't do much about those ones," he said. "I know some of them weren't right because the referees have apologised for them."

This line of argument will not find many supporters outside New Zealand, where many hold the belief, rightly or wrongly, that All Black infringements have been overlooked for years. England would very much like to have seen referees with a penchant for carding New Zealanders during their three match series in June.

Gregor Paul is right that decisions often go with the team on top during a match. However, if you are going to judge whether the All Blacks are receiving undue focus, then you probably need a bigger sample size than the one he looks at. You also can't look at supposed unjust cards without considering offences which went unpunished. If the officials had spotted the offence, Andrew Hore would have seen red against Wales in 2012, which is perhaps the highest profile escape under Steve Hansen.

I don't know where the truth lies but, as England found in the early days of Martin Johnson's reign, when you get a reputation for infringing, referees police you more closely. Biltong has often made the same point about the Springboks, so I doubt he will have much sympathy here.

I find yellow cards an infringement in the spirit of fair competition, I know many won't agree with me as they believe cynical play and repeat offenders should be carded.

The problem is not just yellow cards but the interpretation of laws are inconsistent.

The problem with "repeat" infringements and "cynical" play is completely up for debate, who knows exactly what the motivation of the referee is or his exact reasoning at the time.

Foul play on the other hand is more clear cut and hence the outrage when a referee gets that completely wrong.

My issue is with incorrect yellow cards no matter the team, and of course the over reaction of referees when SA is involved.

This past weekend Argentina closed the gap at every line out, only once did the referee stop the line out and ask for them to open up, but not once did they get pinged for it, at scrum time Argentina have this new tactic where when the referee calls set, they close the gap sothat there is no hit when they engage, completely negating the Boks scrum, again nothing was done about it.

But I have now learnt that I should blame the Boks for (a) not talking to the referee about it or (b) adapting to it.

As for yellow cards this past weekend, I would be more inclined to complain about the last ten minutes and the fact that Australia collapsed every scrum and got away with it.

Another journalist - can't remember who - thought the All Blacks ought to have better plans for playing with 14 men.

I think they have done pretty well on that count, as their win-loss record testifies. Wales would have had a big advantage if Hore had been sent off in 2012 but no-one can say with any certainty they would have won. After all, 14 man Wales almost defeated France at the World Cup, and probably should have done. 14 man Ulster ran Saracens very close in the Heineken Cup. Going down to 14 doesn't mean the short-handed team rolls over.

The effect of cards aren't always the same.

It depends who the opposition is, it depends on the referee, it depends on the conditions.

The timing of a card also has a huge influence.

You guys know I'm a pedant. I keep track of the penalties and cards to see if I can determine a pattern (and read any rugby stats reports I can find on the subject).

My take. Cards are generally given against the visiting international side. This is true for the All Blacks as well. Going on the period since the last world cup it's unlikely an AB will be sent of in NZ. There's a reasonable chance someone will be sent off when away. I think it's one of these things.

I think the penalty count is something they need to look at. By my count they've had significant penalty count issues in 9 games since the last world cup and benefited once. There's a trend with penalties as there is with cards. I haven't really got an opinion on why. Probably a combination of factors: referee, the team, home crowds. I think it's probably up to Hansen to adjust.

We've had 4 games under Peyper since 2011, and my take so far is, more than most, you want him to be your ref at home, but not away. Each game (Australia in NZ, Argentina, France and Australia away) saw the visiting side penalised 5 more times than the home side. He's quite new and I haven't been through everyone elses stats, so it might be just a statistical quirk.

I think the AB's have been at the top for a while and people do tend look at what teams when this happens. SA had a great year in 2009 and much was made of off side running from chasing backs with Garry Owens. England had a great run in 03 and much was made of obstructing at rucks. I think it goes with the territory. Refereeing is such a subjective process and the game is always evolving.

It's interesting with cards. I've been recording reasons. It seems to me that all things aren't equal. Some activities, punching, dangerous tackles, deliberately knocking a ball down, throwing the ball away when you've been penalised are more likely to be shown a card than multiple offences. That assumes ref's actually seen the offence.

I think you're right that assessment on the basis of offences missed would be great. However, the issue is that there's always and element of subjectivity that comes into it. Whilst Hore's actions might have been clear cut. There are plenty that are grey.

The nature of the beast is we'll always see the oppositions offences in a different light. Pretty clearly saw this at my kids game on the weekend. Both sets of parents unhappy with the refs, when it was the opposition coach.

Apparently Hansen subbed Crockett at the end of his period in the bin, as he felt Peyper was singling him out for special attention.

I dont think New Zealand gets harder done by all that often, if any country has casue for complaint I'd have thought it was South Africa.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Apparently Hansen subbed Crockett at the end of his period in the bin, as he felt Peyper was singling him out for special attention.

I dont think New Zealand gets harder done by all that often, if any country has casue for complaint I'd have thought it was South Africa.

He wouldn't be the first. I think Crockett has his doubters. With Woodcock out for the season, and others having moved on. I think we're a bit short this year. Could be a blessing in disguise if players come on.

One of the issues Australia have going forward is still their scrum. I felt they had issues. They tend to get covered up when playing in Australia. I think they'll face a big test in their three away games. I thought some of their line out work was dodgy early on as well. I think it's going to be hard for them to get to get to the next level consistently without a really solid tight 5 performance. I'm in I remain to be convinced camp.

I am one of them, in fact I don't doubt Crockett, I rate him as the number one illegal scrummager out there, I am yet to see him scrum straight, how he doesn't get pinged all the time just for his scrimmaging is beyond comprehension.

The problem with NZ's game is that they compete heavily at the ruck, more than anyone else. That draws penalties and cards when you're playing at the margins.
 
I think the card on Crockett was right, I think the one to Barrett was harsh but maybe it was due to continuous infringement which lets be honest, NZ were constantly getting pinged and infringing come ruck time.
 
I think McCaw got away with a lot, he generally does but then again thats his job, thats the job of a 7. Others often pay for his infringements as referees eventually give cards to the next man on continuous ruck infringements.

Im guessing that NZ's card per penalty rate is still lower than most teams.

GunsGerms wrote:Im guessing that NZ's card per penalty rate is still lower than most teams.

I doubt there is a correlation between the no of penalties and yellow cards. Primarily because multiple offending is only one criteria. I've looked at pretty much every yellow card over the last 3 years in the lead up to the series. There are other offences that you are as likely, or more likely, to be carded for.

Biltong wrote:I am one of them, in fact I don't doubt Crockett, I rate him as the number one illegal scrummager out there, I am yet to see him scrum straight, how he doesn't get pinged all the time just for his scrimmaging is beyond comprehension.

Interesting I just pulled up his career (http://www.espnscrum.com/statsguru/rugby/player/15301.html?class=1;template=results;type=player;view=match click on details for the matches and NZ stats if you can be bothered). When he does get pinged in games he does seem to get pinged multiple offences. Scrum.com doesn't tell me what for. If I was Henson I'd be trying to find another option.

Basically to take the cynical stance every team plays to the limits of the law to see what they can get away with. NZ are at the top of the tree so naturally they are the biggest cheats. It's a trend-remember England getting scrutinised during their great run, the Wallabies getting all their backline play construed as obstruction by media teams etc etc.

NZ were on the back foot for a lot of the game and infringed. They got duly punished. But I agree with Biltong in that Australia's scrum, while being impressive in the first half, gradually got worn down and should have been pinged multiple times, possibly meriting a card in itself.

Peyper's interpretation of the scrum engagement laws perplexed me and p!ssed me off-never heard what he was talking about before in a game. I don't rate him as a top ref anyway-was at Paris in November and he kept pinging NZ for offside. Of course I was biased but NZ were behind the hindmost foot every time and had great line speed. His positioning was rubbish which said to me he was using guesswork.

Crockett's a weird one and is a classic case for interpretation of the laws differing. Either he should be on the field all the time wreaking havoc in the scrum, or he shouldn't even be on the field because, much like a bowler with an illegal action, he should get pinged every time you feel. Hansen was right to keep him off-a prop like that with a yellow already could jeopardise the team.

A red for Hore may not have impacted NZ that much-remember at one stage in that game NZ were up 33-0.

NZ do attack the ruck-turnover ball is their main weapon and their strike rate from turnovers is absolutely ridiculous. But since it's such a grey area and open to interpretation they definitely come across as being more cynical. Maybe another thing is that they feel and know they can score from anywhere-any turnover will see the ball spread no matter where they are on the field. So maybe when they are deep in their own half they aren't necessarily being cynical-i.e. their intent is not to kill the ball for the opposition, but turn it over for themselves as there is a chance to break out down the other end. Fullbacks invariably come up into the line when a team has momentum-if their team turns it over that can spell trouble.

Just a couple of things to mull over anyhow.

Crockett didn't get carded for his scrummaging right?
 
But yes overall a terrible scrummager. Whenever Piote referees NZ Hansen should keep him as far away from the team as possible.

disneychilly wrote:

Peyper's interpretation of the scrum engagement laws perplexed me and p!ssed me off-never heard what he was talking about before in a game. I don't rate him as a top ref anyway-was at Paris in November and he kept pinging NZ for offside. Of course I was biased but NZ were behind the hindmost foot every time and had great line speed. His positioning was rubbish which said to me he was using guesswork.

I was at the pub with an Aussie mate. he was as perplexed as I was. I just assumed it's an Australasian/South African interpretation thing and that I was drinking. He's certainly the AB's bogey ref at the moment. It'll be interesting to see how Mssr's Hansen and McCaw adapt next time we have him. Not to fussed as I thought we didn't play that well and didn't deserve to win it.

Fa, I think Crockett's a big part of the AB's loose play and picks up the odd ruck penalty as well. Obviously the case on the weekend. Unfortunately, I'm not a props A^%%$$*^, and it's only having a child playing there that's giving me any appreciation whatsoever of the dark arts. My take is the fatties are there to make the backs look good, the further out the better.

why is he a bogey ref.
 
6 NZ matches (5 wins and a draw right)?
 
Given that he only officiates against non SA teams it makes a NZ loss that much more unlikely mind.

The biggest problem I have with New Zealand at ruck time is their coming in from the side, and their "falling over" not being able to stay on their feet.

FOr me the ruck should have less laws, and allow players more freedom at the breakdown, but within reason, stay on your feet and contest the ball in that manner from the hindmost feet.

It is the holding onto the ball and tackled player where daylight is a grey area, let it go, allow the tackled player to hang on, and allow the tackler to hang on as long as he is on his feet, let the big men fight it out.

the only real law you need for a ruck be to fair is everyone on their feet and access to the ball, if the ne tem decides not to put enough bodies there to secure the ball, then they don't deserve to hold onto it in the first place.

blackcanelion wrote:

disneychilly wrote:

Peyper's interpretation of the scrum engagement laws perplexed me and p!ssed me off-never heard what he was talking about before in a game. I don't rate him as a top ref anyway-was at Paris in November and he kept pinging NZ for offside. Of course I was biased but NZ were behind the hindmost foot every time and had great line speed. His positioning was rubbish which said to me he was using guesswork.

I was at the pub with an Aussie mate. he was as perplexed as I was. I just assumed it's an Australasian/South African interpretation thing and that I was drinking. He's certainly the AB's bogey ref at the moment. It'll be interesting to see how Mssr's Hansen and McCaw adapt next time we have him. Not to fussed as I thought we didn't play that well and didn't deserve to win it.

Fa, I think Crockett's a big part of the AB's loose play and picks up the odd ruck penalty as well. Obviously the case on the weekend. Unfortunately, I'm not a props A^%%$$*^, and it's only having a child playing there that's giving me any appreciation whatsoever of the dark arts. My take is the fatties are there to make the backs look good, the further out the better.

  

As a loosehead prop I struggle to understand why there is such a need to "scrum in" by looseheads these days.

I Never felt the need to scrum in, went in as straight as a dye and came out straight as a dye.

It's more that NZ gets pinged off the park when he's got the whistle FA, we struggle to come to grips with his interpretations. It's not the stats-but just as Australia could say there were situations where NZ could have won the game if they had gotten the benefit of the doubt from a call. So you could say it cost NZ a win.

I think Peyper needs to be more consistent and NZ needs to adhere to what he's trying to communicate more. However that's easier said than done.

Biltong wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

disneychilly wrote:

Peyper's interpretation of the scrum engagement laws perplexed me and p!ssed me off-never heard what he was talking about before in a game. I don't rate him as a top ref anyway-was at Paris in November and he kept pinging NZ for offside. Of course I was biased but NZ were behind the hindmost foot every time and had great line speed. His positioning was rubbish which said to me he was using guesswork.

I was at the pub with an Aussie mate. he was as perplexed as I was. I just assumed it's an Australasian/South African interpretation thing and that I was drinking. He's certainly the AB's bogey ref at the moment. It'll be interesting to see how Mssr's Hansen and McCaw adapt next time we have him. Not to fussed as I thought we didn't play that well and didn't deserve to win it.

Fa, I think Crockett's a big part of the AB's loose play and picks up the odd ruck penalty as well. Obviously the case on the weekend. Unfortunately, I'm not a props A^%%$$*^, and it's only having a child playing there that's giving me any appreciation whatsoever of the dark arts. My take is the fatties are there to make the backs look good, the further out the better.

  

As a loosehead prop I struggle to understand why there is such a need to "scrum in" by looseheads these days.

I Never felt the need to scrum in, went in as straight as a dye and came out straight as a dye.

 
Straight as a dye!!!! whatevers BB, I always thought your were as bent as an ANC vote counter!!! Only joking... girlfriend!!!

fa0019 wrote:why is he a bogey ref.
 
6 NZ matches (5 wins and a draw right)?
 
Given that he only officiates against non SA teams it makes a NZ loss that much more unlikely mind.

Relative penalty count/free kicks/Yellow cards (+ve good/-ve bad)

Australia 2014 Sydney -5 Penalties -2 Free Kicks -2 Yellow cards
England 2014 Dunedin -2 Penalties -1 Free Kicks 1 Yellow cards
France 2013 Paris -5 Penalties 0 Free kicks 0 Yellow cards
Argentina 2013 La Plata -5 Penalties 0 Free kicks 0 Yellow cards
Australia 2013 Wellington 7 Penalties -1 Free Kicks 0 Yellow cards
Argentina 2012 La Plata -5 Penalties 0 Free kicks 0 Yellow cards

Playing away with him in charge seems to be a bit of an issue for us. Team has to adapt. I think I posted earlier that NZ had 10 penalty counts (out of 32 games) that significantly favoured one side since the last world cup (9 overall to the opposition and one for the AB's). 5 of those games involved Peyper.

What suggesting is it's starting to look like a bit of a trend and the AB's need to adapt. You have to assume it's a technical thing. The obvious choice would be things like entry into rucks and mauls. If that's the case modify the technique.

blackcanelion wrote:

fa0019 wrote:why is he a bogey ref.
 
6 NZ matches (5 wins and a draw right)?
 
Given that he only officiates against non SA teams it makes a NZ loss that much more unlikely mind.

Relative penalty count/free kicks/Yellow cards (+ve good/-ve bad)

Australia 2014 Sydney -5 Penalties -2 Free Kicks -2 Yellow cards
England 2014 Dunedin -2 Penalties -1 Free Kicks 1 Yellow cards
France 2013 Paris -5 Penalties 0 Free kicks 0 Yellow cards
Argentina 2013 La Plata -5 Penalties 0 Free kicks 0 Yellow cards
Australia 2013 Wellington 7 Penalties -1 Free Kicks 0 Yellow cards
Argentina 2012 La Plata -5 Penalties 0 Free kicks 0 Yellow cards

 
Take out the ARG games as they're not competitive enough and penalties are often given against attacking sides etc for a number of impatient fouls, that would mean you're penalty count prior to the weekends match was 0 relative to 1 match each vs. ENG, AUS & FRA and you had 1 less yellow.
 
Is that really a referee who is being biased towards NZ?
 
One where over the course of 3 competitive matches he has penalised NZ only as much as the other teams and dished out one less yellow?

fa0019 wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

fa0019 wrote:why is he a bogey ref.
 
6 NZ matches (5 wins and a draw right)?
 
Given that he only officiates against non SA teams it makes a NZ loss that much more unlikely mind.

Relative penalty count/free kicks/Yellow cards (+ve good/-ve bad)

Australia 2014 Sydney -5 Penalties -2 Free Kicks -2 Yellow cards
England 2014 Dunedin -2 Penalties -1 Free Kicks 1 Yellow cards
France 2013 Paris -5 Penalties 0 Free kicks 0 Yellow cards
Argentina 2013 La Plata -5 Penalties 0 Free kicks 0 Yellow cards
Australia 2013 Wellington 7 Penalties -1 Free Kicks 0 Yellow cards
Argentina 2012 La Plata -5 Penalties 0 Free kicks 0 Yellow cards

 
Take out the ARG games as they're not competitive enough and penalties are often given against attacking sides etc for a number of impatient fouls, that would mean you're penalty count prior to the weekends match was 0 relative to 1 match each vs. ENG, AUS & FRA and you had 1 less yellow.
 
Is that really a referee who is being biased towards NZ?
 
One where over the course of 3 competitive matches he has penalised NZ only as much as the other teams and dished out one less yellow?

Biased is a strong word. At the moment I'd say there is something about the AB's technique that he doesn't like. Probably it's things like entry to the ruck. 4 out of 6 games heavily penalised by him relative to the opposition (they are high counts by anyones standards). My take is you assume it's justified and the onus is on Hansen and co to modify their technique. It's a complicated game, no one can, or should, apply all the rules so it's a matter of adapting to the ref.

blackcanelion wrote:

fa0019 wrote:why is he a bogey ref.
 
6 NZ matches (5 wins and a draw right)?
 
Given that he only officiates against non SA teams it makes a NZ loss that much more unlikely mind.

Relative penalty count/free kicks/Yellow cards (+ve good/-ve bad)

Australia 2014 Sydney -5 Penalties -2 Free Kicks -2 Yellow cards
England 2014 Dunedin -2 Penalties -1 Free Kicks 1 Yellow cards
France 2013 Paris -5 Penalties 0 Free kicks 0 Yellow cards
Argentina 2013 La Plata -5 Penalties 0 Free kicks 0 Yellow cards
Australia 2013 Wellington 7 Penalties -1 Free Kicks 0 Yellow cards
Argentina 2012 La Plata -5 Penalties 0 Free kicks 0 Yellow cards

Playing away with him in charge seems to be a bit of an issue for us. Team has to adapt. I think I posted earlier that NZ had 10 penalty counts (out of 32 games) that significantly favoured one side since the last world cup (9 overall to the opposition and one for the AB's). 5 of those games involved Peyper.

What suggesting is it's starting to look like a bit of a trend and the AB's need to adapt. You have to assume it's a technical thing. The obvious choice would be things like entry into rucks and mauls. If that's the case modify the technique.

Clearly the 3 yellow cards in the last two games means that there is bias against New Zealand. They should be able to kill plays and infringe at least a half dozen times during a game before there is any mention of a card. I usually find the cards come from a couple of factors;

- Has the ref repeatedly told you to stop doing something but you just ignore his calls and continue anyway?
- Have you been conceding those penalties while defending in your own half or 22?
- Was there an obvious tactical advantage if the play wasn't killed (serious numbers advantage or try scoring opportunity)?

Considering a ref has to watch so many factors at every breakdown, if he is thinking 'check coming in from the side' that it can be a case that it becomes the 'first' infringement he spots.

To be honest blackcanelion I can't really recall his matches with the ABs bar the last one on the weekend so difficult to tell.
 
Overall I think NZ compete heavily at the ruck, which does tend to draw penalties.
 
I thought NZ were a little messy at the breakdown though, getting bodies on the wrong side, little infringements here and there... and it looked like they were getting under Peypers skin. I recall 5 noticeable ones, Barrett's yellow, Crocketts yellow, McCaw holding on and being on the wrong side , Whitelock making a nusiance of himself at the back of a AUS ruck side and I think it was Crockett again picking the ball up from in front of the gate.
 
A little ill-disciplined if you ask me. Its not the over competing at the ruck, it was the discipline and referees only have so much patience.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

fa0019 wrote:why is he a bogey ref.
 
6 NZ matches (5 wins and a draw right)?
 
Given that he only officiates against non SA teams it makes a NZ loss that much more unlikely mind.

Relative penalty count/free kicks/Yellow cards (+ve good/-ve bad)

Australia 2014 Sydney -5 Penalties -2 Free Kicks -2 Yellow cards
England 2014 Dunedin -2 Penalties -1 Free Kicks 1 Yellow cards
France 2013 Paris -5 Penalties 0 Free kicks 0 Yellow cards
Argentina 2013 La Plata -5 Penalties 0 Free kicks 0 Yellow cards
Australia 2013 Wellington 7 Penalties -1 Free Kicks 0 Yellow cards
Argentina 2012 La Plata -5 Penalties 0 Free kicks 0 Yellow cards

Playing away with him in charge seems to be a bit of an issue for us. Team has to adapt. I think I posted earlier that NZ had 10 penalty counts (out of 32 games) that significantly favoured one side since the last world cup (9 overall to the opposition and one for the AB's). 5 of those games involved Peyper.

What suggesting is it's starting to look like a bit of a trend and the AB's need to adapt. You have to assume it's a technical thing. The obvious choice would be things like entry into rucks and mauls. If that's the case modify the technique.

Clearly the 3 yellow cards in the last two games means that there is bias against New Zealand.  They should be able to kill plays and infringe at least a half dozen times during a game before there is any mention of a card.  I usually find the cards come from a couple of factors;

- Has the ref repeatedly told you to stop doing something but you just ignore his calls and continue anyway?
- Have you been conceding those penalties while defending in your own half or 22?
- Was there an obvious tactical advantage if the play wasn't killed (serious numbers advantage or try scoring opportunity)?

Considering a ref has to watch so many factors at every breakdown, if he is thinking 'check coming in from the side' that it can be a case that it becomes the 'first' infringement he spots.

 
You read Blackcanelion's stats wrong.
 
NZ were +1 vs. ENG meaning they had 1 less yellow card than England received. Meaning overall they received the same number of yellow cards in all prior tests and 1 less vs. England earlier in the summer before this test.

I think much of the medias spotlight post 2011 RWC final has mean`t greater scrutiny
on the AB`s
At every Scrum or Breakdown the Ref can ping EITHER side for an offence and that's
got be a joke.
Hi`Biltong not the old lazy running,blocking,sealing of bit a breakdown AGAIN leave it
out everyone does it.Hi Faoo Illegal scrummaging?from a BOK supporter the 3-4-1
is YOUR invention.ALL the Front Row tricks were devised,practiced by you,and still are
Boring in,twisting and lowering,dropping the shoulder,slipping the bind,tripping the
loose head."Working"the Scrum is a SA artform dating back at least to 1937.
The Front Row Mafia no all the tricks. the "Beast"should be renamed the "Mole"his
habit of dropping the shoulder then popping his opponent up.
EVERY team plays the Ref and Crockett wasn't carded for his Scrummaging,but Ben
Franks is a better alternative to start.

LOL settle down Alan mate I disagree with Franks starting if Crockett is in the team. Obviously a team has less penalties at the start of a match. If a team was going to get carded it'd be near the end so if Crockett came on as a sub and the ref didn't like him the ref would already have given penalties therefore have less patience and tolerance for more penalties. Sounds cynical I know but if you knew you were going to sub a prop put the one that could be a risk out first. That way you've got a plan B instead of being stuck.

emack2 wrote:I think much of the medias spotlight post 2011 RWC final has mean`t greater scrutiny
on the AB`s

At every Scrum or Breakdown the Ref can ping EITHER side for an offence and that's
got be a joke.

Hi`Biltong not the old lazy running,blocking,sealing of bit a breakdown AGAIN leave it
out everyone does it.

Hi Faoo Illegal scrummaging?from a BOK supporter the 3-4-1
is YOUR invention.ALL the Front Row tricks were devised,practiced by you,and still are
Boring in,twisting and lowering,dropping the shoulder,slipping the bind,tripping the
loose head."Working"the Scrum is a SA artform dating back at least to 1937.
The Front Row Mafia no all the tricks. the "Beast"should be renamed the "Mole"his
habit of dropping the shoulder then popping his opponent up.

EVERY team plays the Ref and Crockett wasn't carded for his Scrummaging,but Ben
Franks is a better alternative to start.

Hi Alan, I love your comments, they are based upon facts (most of the time) and comes across very authoritative, however the conjecture sometimes comes through.

THe All Blacks are being Checked since the World Cup? Well if that is the case then good on that, all teams should be dealt with in the same manner.

THe breakdown, mate, you have a handful of Kiwi supporters here confirming that the AB's use the ruck as their turnover point for counter attack, hence they put a lot into the break downs which means all those accusations holds water.

As for the scrumming, I can list you a thousand ideas of inventions taken over and improved by other nations, just don't have the time for it.

disneychilly wrote:
A red for Hore may not have impacted NZ that much-remember at one stage in that game NZ were up 33-0.

Don't disagree with you on the potential (non)impact Disney. However, they weren't 33-0 up when the incident occurred. It was 0-0 and 1m15s on the clock

Wasn't the Hore non-sending off the 15-man line-out game?

Had Hore gone we may have been denied seeing that. Swings and roundabouts...

Yeah Pete I get you mate-just Wales were absolute pants that day so you'd like to think that they'd have done better for the game in general!

I'm all for the ABs going hell for leather at the tackle. You can come in from wherever you want before it's a ruck-hence McCaw coming in from the side a lot-he's obviously in constant discussion with the ref about when the tackle becomes a ruck during the game. What I don't like and what NZ need to do better is get out of the road once it is a ruck. They just don't roll away quick enough and often stick a limb out here or there to impede progress. Saw Whitelock come out the Aussie side ever so slowly on Sat and basically make their 9 pass around him which hurts the game. It's bad discipline at times and that's even when there's no pressure on. When a break is made and teams are under pressure there's obviously less time to think about whether or not what you want to do in terms of the ref's view is legal but I suppose you've just gotta give it a crack if it's 50-50 and hope you don't get pinged and that the ref's consistent.

That review of NZ in the 2011 final smacked of hypocrisy as that clown's own side benefited from the worst display at the tournament by a ref-and he didn't mention that, nor 2007 where the French lived by the sword instead of dying by the sword as in 2011.

fa0019 wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

blackcanelion wrote:

fa0019 wrote:why is he a bogey ref.
 
6 NZ matches (5 wins and a draw right)?
 
Given that he only officiates against non SA teams it makes a NZ loss that much more unlikely mind.

Relative penalty count/free kicks/Yellow cards (+ve good/-ve bad)

Australia 2014 Sydney -5 Penalties -2 Free Kicks -2 Yellow cards
England 2014 Dunedin -2 Penalties -1 Free Kicks 1 Yellow cards
France 2013 Paris -5 Penalties 0 Free kicks 0 Yellow cards
Argentina 2013 La Plata -5 Penalties 0 Free kicks 0 Yellow cards
Australia 2013 Wellington 7 Penalties -1 Free Kicks 0 Yellow cards
Argentina 2012 La Plata -5 Penalties 0 Free kicks 0 Yellow cards

Playing away with him in charge seems to be a bit of an issue for us. Team has to adapt. I think I posted earlier that NZ had 10 penalty counts (out of 32 games) that significantly favoured one side since the last world cup (9 overall to the opposition and one for the AB's). 5 of those games involved Peyper.

What suggesting is it's starting to look like a bit of a trend and the AB's need to adapt. You have to assume it's a technical thing. The obvious choice would be things like entry into rucks and mauls. If that's the case modify the technique.

Clearly the 3 yellow cards in the last two games means that there is bias against New Zealand.  They should be able to kill plays and infringe at least a half dozen times during a game before there is any mention of a card.  I usually find the cards come from a couple of factors;

- Has the ref repeatedly told you to stop doing something but you just ignore his calls and continue anyway?
- Have you been conceding those penalties while defending in your own half or 22?
- Was there an obvious tactical advantage if the play wasn't killed (serious numbers advantage or try scoring opportunity)?

Considering a ref has to watch so many factors at every breakdown, if he is thinking 'check coming in from the side' that it can be a case that it becomes the 'first' infringement he spots.

 
You read Blackcanelion's stats wrong.
 
NZ were +1 vs. ENG meaning they had 1 less yellow card than England received. Meaning overall they received the same number of yellow cards in all prior tests and 1 less vs. England earlier in the summer before this test.

Oh, my bad. Thanks for the clarification, makes much more sense now.

I find this an odd discussion to have, NZ were virtually handed a RWC by a very poor (at best) display by Joubert in the final.

Ritchie is sometimes unbeleivably allowed to do what he wants to come ruck time, which included by the way one ruck on saturday where he got up wrong side, stood still then dragged back the ball carrier from the base.

NZ have a ferocious breakdown ethic, and well if you live by the sword...

NZ have also been the masters of knowing when and where to give the penalties away, they are literally penalty machines in the areas where the opposition cannot get a shot at goal, the amount of times they allow you a 3 pointer instead of being opened up for the 7 is crazy.

Now none of this matters too much, to a point, but when they start whinging about being treated unfairly...

I haven't seen one poster "whinge" on this thread, it has only been a discussion suggested on another website.

'perhaps team could wonder whether they are victims of unconscious refereeing conspiracy'

Thats pretty whingy mate! The whole article is pretty sickly.

I wasn't accusing anyone on this thread BTW, although I dislike the title, it could have read 'Everyone vs the All Blacks and referees' as way more accurate lol

Whilst in Hospital I purchased Rugby World a mag haven't read since 1999 RWC.
There were several articles on refereeing by the refs themselves,the gist of it was.
The laws exist in Black and white many with sub footnotes and IF they were applied
to the letter.
The average game would have so little time in play because of whistle blasts the
stadiums would be empty by half time.
The Ref is wired for sound to the TMO,who supposedly advise on foul play but
its in the definition of foul play.
Man taken out off the ball or in the air how many times is that pinged TMO
could advise on that.
Every team on the planet tries to deceive the ref any law changes are taken
apart by coaching teams and how to negate them.
The Scrum tactics described by me were just examples of the more obvious
ones,new ways of milking penalties now abound.
Every year a new protocol is given refs to be more severe on certain areas
all one can ask is they are applied the same to ALL sides.

Neutralee NZ were the better side for 55 minutes of that final. France had two kicks to take the lead and missed. NZ weren't gifted the RWC.

The question on NZ infringing may not be "What is NZ doing at that ruck", but rather "Is that situation I'm looking at a ruck". Because if the ref doesn't think so the point is lost.

The teams may be indeed playing under different rules. Others play by the ruck rulebook, NZ play by the tackle rulebook-and if the ref deems it a tackle then guess what. It's up to the skip to keep communicating with the ref and his own team about what will and will be seen as legal, and what situations are deemed rucks, tackles or mauls.

One reason this discussion might have kicked off in NZ is the fact that a ruck penalty against McCaw cost the Crusaders the Super Rugby title, so there's more focus on how referees are seeing their teams.

Another reason might be that the alternative explanation for opposition sides getting more competitive is that this squad has peaked. That's a view Marc Hinton has put out, so it's no longer just overseas commentators hoping for the best.

Really, the only way they can answer those doubts is to win the Cup again in England, so the argument won't go away until then.

Apparently winning the World Cup is NZ's answer to everything-but even after 2011 it wasn't enough. The All Blacks are supposed to win out of NZ with a winning margin of 50 points per game. Otherwise they're a crap team.

They haven't peaked-they're still improving. But other teams are improving too-maybe at a faster rate than NZ are at present. But since they're still ahead of the pack they've bought themselves a little more time to innovate and find ways to extend the gap. Not that the gap has ever been that big. As I've said before, NZ have never been miles ahead of the rest. They've just been miles more consistent-and that's what you need to have their record.

I would say though I reckon NZ missed Messam. Kaino doesn't look the same player he once was. A lot of players come back from Japan a little lighter then before, same occurred to Jaque Fourie. It may take him some time to get back up to his peak size and strength.

I disagree. Kaino was a welcome return against England and showed real physicality. He's had enough time to adapt back from Japan. He's got a busted up elbow so he won't be playing this weekend but I certainly hope he's back for Argentina or SA. Messam offers something different to Kaino (his linking up skills from sevens and a bit more pace) but he is too up and down in the physicality stakes. Luatua is a good long-term bet even though I expect Messam to be back in black this Saturday.

All teams supposedly measure themselves by the World Cup but only one team ever wins that and if you don't win, then all that happens in between is conveniently wiped out.

It's fair to say that since the November tour, NZ hasn't really dominated any of their opposition, apart from the 3rd test against England. When it's tighter, the focus inevitably goes on the referees as one call can be crucial in deciding the outcome of the game. There are always calls that go against you and in your favour, regardless of the opposition. Personally I felt Peyper made some strange calls like letting Charles lay head first down in a scrum in favour of the Wallabies but then played three advantages and when McCabe went into touch, he didn't come back for any of them. NZ seemed fine in the opening 15 minutes. The Wallabies' confidence grew and in the second half were the team in the ascendancy or were at least allowed to build multiple phases. When that happens and a team infringes and you see it happen again and the home crowd is there to remind you of it, it's understandable the ref starts looking to send players to the bin.

The great teams allow a cushion for the ref and look to take him out of the game. It's difficult to do that when a team doesn't look dominant. But then again, it's very difficult to do that every game. Consistency is definitely the key dc and NZ will be looking to dominate for larger periods of the game this Saturday.

Yeah Kia I agree with you totally about Kaino. He was the principal reason England didn't have it all their own way in the physicality stakes. He's fitter and faster and his brute strength provides great balance to the loose trio.

Usually I'd be ok with Messam starting against Australia but they really fronted up physically and I think it's a huge test for him. He just can't afford to be a passenger. Read was conspicuous by his silence on Saturday-he must get into the game more too.

It does suck that achievements not in a WC pale in comparison-even the Lions. NZ's had three streaks of 16 or more in the last 5 years-and what is that like only validated because they have Bill in the cabinet? That's rubbish and credit should be given where it's due.

Yeah Australia I think were the last team NZ dominated-so it's been a while. Some great performances then-but they really haven't laid down a marker and thumped anyone for a while.

Would it be a bit harsh to predict that this NZ team are slowing down in terms of dominance and possibly peaked at the wrong time with the WC coming up next year. Both Australia and SA in the south have improved considerably and based on this years 6N so have Ireland and England with Wales also fairly strong.

As I see it thats four or five teams that are steadily catching up on NZ that will be looking to put in really strong WC campaigns. Pressure will be on to defend their throne.

disneychilly wrote:Apparently winning the World Cup is NZ's answer to everything-but even after 2011 it wasn't enough.

I don't think that's true. New Zealand had a great record going into the 2011 tournament and went on to deliver the title. Whatever critics they had, they answered. Even those who cried foul about Joubert's refereeing had to acknowledge they were deserved winners.

We're now under different management, and there are new faces. However, it's not out of the question that Hansen will rely on quite a few World cup winners to do the job again in 2015. When people ask whether they have enough in the tank to do it, it takes nothing away from the 2011 achievement.

Also, while we haven't had that many tournaments, we've had enough to know that any Cup holder looking to rely on much the same personnel four years later will face similar questions. It's not unique to the All Blacks.

That wasn't a bad scoreline against England in the third test. NZ put a lot of tries on Australia last year but like the SA games, they also leaked a few points as well. 26 - 0 or something like that against France was strangely more of a defensive shut out than an attacking knock out but when you nil an opponent, it stands out more for me than putting 5 or 6 tries on but leaking a few others.

It's certainly not panic stations. They played poorly and despite being a man down for a quarter of the game, they still held out. There weren't many other positives to be taken from the game but that's where it is. This team prides itself on lifting the standard when it dips. I expect a lot more vigour at the breakdown this Saturday and that will have an impact on how the ref sees the game.

NZ doesn't have the firepower to dominate a top side for 80 minutes but normally what they are able to do is find a period where they can amass enough points to ride out any dominance the opposition might experience. In games like the RWC final, the Irish second test in 2012, France last year, England in the first two tests this year and the test last year, NZ weren't able to get that cushion. They look ordinary when they aren't able to tick the scoreboard over as any team does. Then you have the tests against Ireland last year, the Twickenham test in 2012 where they were under the pump and having a cushion put up against them. It's very difficult to fight back from those positions and really I still don't know how we got that win against Ireland.

So a big help you might say NZ have with respect to the ref, is that usually during the game they are able to build a safety cushion on the scoreboard. When the game is not in the balance, psychologically I think it has an influence on the ref. When the game is tight and the scoreboard reflects that, I think when a team starts to dominate NZ in the territory stakes and more infringements occur inside the NZ half, then the ref is more likely to come down hard on NZ. That's my theory anyway.

I agree with the theory that a healthy cushion takes care of a lot of issues when the referee has an influence on the match.

That is where SA have failed in the past where they don't put teams away but rather try to hold on or defend a lead.

Meyer has advocated the Boks play with a mentality of being 9 points behind due to any influence the referee may have on the field of play.

It sounds like sound logic, but what if you are behind on the scoreboard and the influence has already occurred?

Then you're rucked BB.   

fa0019 wrote:The problem with NZ's game is that they compete heavily at the ruck, more than anyone else. That draws penalties and cards when you're playing at the margins.

This explanation makes the most sense to me. NZ are and have always been an extremely competitive side at the breakdown, it's what makes them the best side in the world. With that comes the risk of players going off their feet as they aggressively pile into the breakdown and I think other teams have got better at highlighting this to refs, and refs have become more aware.

The whole "benefit of the doubt" to the attacking team analysis is a little bit difficult to uphold. Either a team is playing within the laws or they are not, and it is not up to the ref to wave away a clear infringement for the sake of attacking rugby.

Richie McCaw is the best openside flanker I have ever seen, closely followed by George Smith. Both great players who compete ferociously hard at the breakdown and will utilise every trick at their disposal in order to capture or slow the ball to their sides advantage. With that sort of competitiveness comes the inevitable flip side of risking getting on the wrong side, or competing when the ref has called hands off.

I don't think NZ are the subject of any sort of conspiracy, and nor do I think they are being unfairly targeted. Every side gets rough decisions, and NZ no more than any other side in my opinion. The quantity of yellow cards awarded against a side is not really relevant. If you commit more infringements you get more yellow cards. The question rightly highlighted by Hansen is whether the yellows are correctly awarded or not. Sure, NZ may have had a duff call at the weekend, but Australia had a couple as well, and I think these things tend to even themselves out.

Take the 2012 test FES and indeed the test last year at Twickenham. England played a strategy of flooding the breakdown as NZ players weren't committing players to the ruck. It was a good strategy with its dangers as if NZ turned over the ball, they could counter-attack quickly with numbers. Joubert admitted after the match last year that there were a few irregular things like sealing off the ball but as NZ wasn't competing at the breakdown, he deemed there wasn't any genuine competition for the ball, so he allowed play to run.

I'm not claiming England were doing it every ruck but it's just an example of how a dominant side can get the rub of the green.