Rolland apologises to the All Blacks

They are just taking the p*$$ now

World Rugby boss Alain Rolland admits to All Blacks that Aaron Smith yellow card was wrong.

The confusion and anger continues.

The latest fallout from the match against Ireland in Dublin last weekend is that World Rugby referees chief Alain Rolland spoke to All Blacks supremo Steve Hansen this week, and told him Aaron Smith should never have been yellow carded.

That might provide some clarity to those viewers who wondered exactly what referee Jaco Peyper was referring to when he accused halfback Smith of spoiling ball at the breakdown in the first half.

That is not the only thing the All Blacks are annoyed about.

Hansen has already called for consistency. Behind the scenes you can imagine his crew may also be wondering whether Peyper lost the plot at Aviva Stadium, during the All Blacks' 21-9 win.

The Irish will laugh, saying it is rich for the New Zealanders to complain when they should have first rights at firing all the arrows, given they believed Malakai Fekitoa and Sam Cane should have been sent off for high tackles.

They got it half right. The judiciary said Fekitoa committed a red card offence with his bell-ringer on Simon Zebo, and banned the All Blacks centre for a week. Cane was exonerated.

Now it is the All Blacks' turn to return serve.

They had no issue with Peyper penalising them 14 times, but feel they were marginalised because he failed to scrutinise what the Irish were doing.

They say it doesn't make sense that the Irish could only concede four penalties, especially with a fast defensive line, swift advances around the ruck fringes and, like everyone, the desire to slow ruck ball.

Former England and British and Irish Lions midfielder Jeremy Guscott has given referees the hot tip. It's time to watch the All Blacks' more closely, he whispered. They're getting away with too much, you blokes with the whistles need to take it up a level.

Hansen says things need to be taken up a level alright, but it has to be when the refs are scrutinising their opponents.

The All Blacks get caned as much, if not more, than other teams, says Hansen.

He wants that habit to stop, for the referees to ask if the side in black, or black and white as will be the case when they meet France in Paris on Sunday morning (NZT), is the one really at fault.

Or is the perception, fuelled by Guscott and friends, becoming reality? In rugby, where the lawbook is so confusing, that is a dangerous thing.

The All Blacks can do their bit, too.

At training this week they have spoken about the need to lower their tackles, to give the officials fewer excuses to punish them. That in turn will, possibly, lead to them to start winning the PR war.

There is little doubt the All Blacks play some of the most attractive rugby on the international stage. You don't record 18 consecutive wins by operating by a kick-and-grind code.

Following their match in Dublin they have received a decent kicking.

Some of it was deserved, a lot has been unfair.

This All Blacks team is tired, and ready to go home. A win without any ugly incidents at Stade de France would be a suitable way to farewell their 2016 season.

Les Bleus might want to try their luck, to see if they disrupt with fist and niggle. Discipline may never be so important for the All Blacks.

I imagine that there's plenty of private conversations after games where coaches and officials pick apart decisions moving forward. I really doubt Hansen will be smarting more counting his lucky stars overall.

I've always considered myself to have a somewhat extensive knowledge as to how play the game of rugby.

When Smith was yellow carded I couldn't understand for the life of me what he had done to deserve such a penalty. It is with great relief that I now know that the referee doesn't either.

aucklandlaurie wrote:I've always considered myself to have a somewhat extensive knowledge as to how play the game of rugby.

When Smith was yellow carded I couldn't understand for the life of me what he had done to deserve such a penalty. It is with great relief that I now know that the referee doesn't either.

Says more about you then, given it was a split second decision than was marginally wrong compared to the ones he didn't properly penalise later in the game.

I suppose they would still be reading the list of apologies the Irish are owed for the ones he got wrong there

Can I pass the Whinger baton back to New Zealand now?

I enjoyed having it here in Ireland for a few days. Gave me an ego boost. But I guess you can't hold onto these titles forever.

SecretFly wrote:Can I pass the Whinger baton back to New Zealand now?

I enjoyed having it here in Ireland for a few days.  Gave me an ego boost.  But I guess you can't hold onto these titles forever.

The best one is Hansen yapping about how few penalties Ireland gave away

The Irish are very similar to the All Blacks. They can do no wrong but if they perceive a slight against then Christ on his Cross never had it so bad.

munkian wrote:The Irish are very similar to the All Blacks. They can do no wrong but if they perceive a slight against then Christ on his Cross never had it so bad.

The issue would be that they felt an apology was needed for shown a yellow in error when there was none for not sending Fekitoa off. Smacks of trying to appease the ABs

I was under the impression that the yellow card was for cumulative incidents as much as for the one at the particular moment he got done.

munkian wrote:The Irish are very similar to the All Blacks. They can do no wrong but if they perceive a slight against then Christ on his Cross never had it so bad.

Spoken by a Welshman? Have you no shame, sir?!

lostinwales wrote:I was under the impression that the yellow card was for cumulative incidents as much as for the one at the particular moment he got done.

It was, think it was the third time he was deemed have done it

SecretFly wrote:

munkian wrote:The Irish are very similar to the All Blacks. They can do no wrong but if they perceive a slight against then Christ on his Cross never had it so bad.

Spoken by a Welshman?   Have you no shame, sir?!

lostinwales wrote:I was under the impression that the yellow card was for cumulative incidents as much as for the one at the particular moment he got done.

Wash out your mouth with soap!  And apologise to the ABs this instant! ....or as soon as you clear your mouth of bubbles.

lostinwales wrote:I was under the impression that the yellow card was for cumulative incidents as much as for the one at the particular moment he got done.

if he wanted to put an All black in the bin so much why didnt he just send one of the reserves?

marty2086 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I was under the impression that the yellow card was for cumulative incidents as much as for the one at the particular moment he got done.

It was, think it was the third time he was deemed have done it

Took the words out of my big mouth, and the team offences by the ABs didn't stop there! I don't see any quotations in the article but if this story is true then I'm mystified. These guys are making it easy to dislike the ABs which would be a shame as I enjoy watching them.

"The All Blacks get caned as much, if not more, than other teams, says Hansen." True except they don't get yellow/red carded for it, nowhere near as often as the rest of us. Some have a word please.

uncle_nigel wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I was under the impression that the yellow card was for cumulative incidents as much as for the one at the particular moment he got done.

It was, think it was the third time he was deemed have done it

Took the words out of my big mouth, and the team offences by the ABs didn't stop there! I don't see any quotations in the article but if this story is true then I'm mystified. These guys are making it easy to dislike the ABs which would be a shame as I enjoy watching them.

"The All Blacks get caned as much, if not more, than other teams, says Hansen." True except they don't get yellow/red carded for it, nowhere near as often as the rest of us. Some have a word please.

Is that fact or opinion - because if its fact you can quite easily back it up.

Am I the only one being mildly annoyed by the fact that when Hansen and his cronies see a problem with a ref decision it actually requires a proper official apology from the very head of world rugby referees?
what's next? AB player wrongly sent off: pope need to apologize ?!
and after some people on here are surprised there is talk about double standards

really, I would not really want to be wayne barnes on Saturday! those ref aint paid enough with all the pressure they must sustain.

munkian wrote:

uncle_nigel wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I was under the impression that the yellow card was for cumulative incidents as much as for the one at the particular moment he got done.

It was, think it was the third time he was deemed have done it

Took the words out of my big mouth, and the team offences by the ABs didn't stop there! I don't see any quotations in the article but if this story is true then I'm mystified. These guys are making it easy to dislike the ABs which would be a shame as I enjoy watching them.

"The All Blacks get caned as much, if not more, than other teams, says Hansen." True except they don't get yellow/red carded for it, nowhere near as often as the rest of us. Some have a word please.

Is that fact or opinion - because if its fact you can quite easily back it up.

What are you referring to exactly? If it is receiving less card's than other teams despite committing as many offences then it is backed up. The investigation is a little outdated now but as far as I can tell not much has changed since then.

whocares wrote:Am I the only one being mildly annoyed by the fact that when Hansen and his cronies see a problem with a ref decision it actually requires a proper official apology from the very head of world rugby referees?
what's next? AB player wrongly sent off: pope need to apologize ?!
and after some people on here are surprised there is talk about double standards

really,  I would not really want to be wayne barnes on Saturday! those ref aint paid enough with all the pressure they must sustain.

If Barnes is smart he will do what he's told and behave himself.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

whocares wrote:Am I the only one being mildly annoyed by the fact that when Hansen and his cronies see a problem with a ref decision it actually requires a proper official apology from the very head of world rugby referees?
what's next? AB player wrongly sent off: pope need to apologize ?!
and after some people on here are surprised there is talk about double standards

really,  I would not really want to be wayne barnes on Saturday! those ref aint paid enough with all the pressure they must sustain.

If Barnes is smart he will do what he's told and behave himself.

And ask Big Steve how he would like him to ref the game

aucklandlaurie wrote:


If Barnes is smart he will do what he's told and behave himself.

He's going to be a confused man, laurie. Who is he going to listen to? Rolland, Hansen or orders from the AB captain on the field?

But you may have hit the nail on the head. The weeping Rolland Public Apology bit wasn't designed to give a damn about the Dublin game at all (it's water under the bridge) but to help perhaps influence the game coming.

I can see the Soldier Field game being either annulled or awarded to New Zealand over the next few days.

I would imagine the World Rugby scribes are already amending the record books while the Adidas and AIG lawyers loom menacingly in the background.

SecretFly wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:


If Barnes is smart he will do what he's told and behave himself.

He's going to be a confused man, laurie.  Who is he going to listen to?  Rolland, Hansen or orders from the AB captain on the field?

But you may have hit the nail on the head.  The weeping Rolland Public Apology bit wasn't designed to give a damn about the Dublin game at all (it's water under the bridge) but to help perhaps influence the game coming.

Drat Fly dont suggest things like that, this is all to do with Rolland being seen driven round Auckland last week with a real estate agent. mentioned something about Ireland becoming a dangerous place.

whocares wrote:Am I the only one being mildly annoyed by the fact that when Hansen and his cronies see a problem with a ref decision it actually requires a proper official apology from the very head of world rugby referees?

Paddy O'Brien once apologised for the way Stuart Dickinson refereed NZ at the scrum against Italy, so that's at least twice. I genuinely cannot remember the head of referees ever apologising to any other team. Even World Rugby's public correction of Joubert's penalty against Scotland at the World Cup didn't include any form of apology.

Either every team gets mea culpas from time to time but only NZ go public with them, or else World Rugby has a strange policy.

Cyril wrote:I can see the Soldier Field game being either annulled or awarded to New Zealand over the next few days.

What game?

NZ are a dirty team. They need to get their own house in order. If they continue to tackle high and spear tackle people they should continue to get red cards. Wait a minute

I lived with a girl at university, Amanda B. We'll call her AB.
AB was seriously high maintenance, complained about everything. She had questionable hygiene, Even when AB got her own way which was most of the time due to her tantrums, AB would find a reason to complain in a mealy mouthed way that just got on my wick. AB was graceless, entitled and spoiled.
Eventually, in order to avoid AB's constant whining, we started to play up to her, making sure we avoided the bitching by doing the washing up etc. But that just made it worse and us more miserable at having to live with AB. We enabled AB to be a Muppet.
It's called appeasement and we all know where that leads.

And that Rolland is head of anything is discouraging and hardly the greatest person to be deciding when a red card is appropriate.

munkian wrote:The Irish are very similar to the All Blacks. They can do no wrong but if they perceive a slight against then Christ on his Cross never had it so bad.

Stones and glasshouses, munkian, stones and glass houses

The Stuff article is a click-bait re-write of a more accurate article in the NZ Herald.

Rolland did not apologise to Hansen. Nor did Hansen say he did. He said that Rolland confirmed to him that Smith shouldn't have got a yellow card. (Interestingly, I recall that Hansen said immediately after the game that he thought the card that Smith received was fair enough but that the refereeing hadn't been balanced. )

Hansen went on to say that:

"The penalty count [in Ireland] was 14-4 and I don't think the four was a fair reflection - I don't think that was consistent. The 14 were spot on and we can't argue with that because when you look at them they were obvious penaties apart from Nugget [Aaron Smith's] sin-binning which was a no-brainer: the ball was out and he kicked the ball.

So Allain Rolland confirmed that with me on Monday that it shouldn't have been a yellow card. It shouldn't have been a penalty. What he did was fine.

So you then say how many of the other 13 were avoidable? Well, the high tackles were avoidable unless they are a collision like Sammy's [Sam Cane] one. But the other ones were too high and as a result we have a player not selected, so of course we have got talk about it. The other area that we are giving away too many free kicks is on the edge of the ruck - stepping forward offside too early. We have talked about that as well because it allows teams to stay in the game and the difference between applying and absorbing pressure is sometimes those penalties.

And in Ireland we had to absorb a lot of pressure because we let them off the hook with poor discipline. We wouldn't be doing an honest review if we didn't deal with that."

"Physically, it was one of the hardest games that we've had in my time with the All Blacks."

Pot Hale wrote:...Rolland did not apologise to Hansen.  Nor did Hansen say he did...

Yes, it sounds like the normal kind of post-match conversation which takes place. No special apology or absolution

Rugby Fan wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:...Rolland did not apologise to Hansen.  Nor did Hansen say he did...

Yes, it sounds like the normal kind of post-match conversation which takes place. No special apology or absolution

i suspect that Rolland won't thank him for making the conversation public, because it throws Pepyer into the water without warning.

Like I said...it's designed to apply pressure for the French game.

SecretFly wrote:Like I said...it's designed to apply pressure for the French game.  

It puts pressure on New Zealand, not on anyone else, I would have thought.

Nope, I'm not clear why Hansen giving out about balance applies pressure on his players.  In my opinion it's him implying that refs need to be more balanced in their penalty counts.  It's saying Hansen expects 'fairness' in terms of balance of penalties.... i.e. not 14 - 4.  

That's an attempt to pressure the refs to keep count in the interests of 'balance'. Meaning that if there is not balance (like in the Dublin game) that assumes the ABs are a dirty side. So he's suggesting the penalty count itself implies his side are dirty and of course, he hates that suggestion.

whocares wrote:really,  I would not really want to be wayne barnes on Saturday! those ref aint paid enough with all the pressure they must sustain.

Nice, talk about pressure due to precedent in a fixture! France ever so slowly look like they're threatening to fulfill their potential, but they play so (self destructively) unstructured that the All Blacks should pick them apart, at exits, set pieces etc., and particularly loose kick returns. Australia capitalised on these areas. However, if they can get the fire in them, then wow, could be a proper game, as Barnes' refereeing of the breakdown will, I imagine, favour the French, in typical NH style.

As for the All Blacks, they are astounding, no doubt. They're the best team in professional sport. They're also quite incredibly, gracious winners. However, when that mantle is threatened, then we see an ugly side, on the pitch against Ireland (to an extent), but moreso in the very Alex Ferguson-esque cold war away from the pitch. This is quite a clear aknowledgment of that: the "PR" war.

Now, everyone does this, in a way: England have the greatest power in this regard, with a very London centric press dominating the media sphere, so I understand in part NZ's desire to not be bullied by mythology and perception. I don't think they're dirty, just as I didn't think Richie McCaw was a "cheat": it's just a stupid classification, to pick a team or player out in a sport that is full of similar actions and attitudes, to just have a go at the most successful.

That being said, it still doesn't make this pandering 'right'. I think in the past there has very much been an awareness that when you're playing the All Blacks, you're also playing the referee's fear/respect/understanding of their shirt, and all that comes with it. Just this Summer, when Wales played down there, the (SH, possibly Australian, possibly SA?) referee was adjudicating a careless challenge by I think Savea or Naholo under the high ball. It was probably a yellow card due to no malice, not a red, and a penalty would have been very lenient. As it as, it was decided to be just a penalty, and the referee- in telling this to Read- said "is that alright?". Clearly a slip of the tongue, but revealing nonetheless that that should come out having had the benefit of stopping the clock to review a decision: in the heat of the game, this attitude/fear can see them get away with a lot more than other teams (of course that is also down to them being a very good rugby team).

As another poster highlights above, the hypocrisy is rank; you've got away with one red card, and one nearly red card almost certainly yellow card decision, and yet you complain about the yellow card you did receive. We're in danger of getting into the Mourinho and Ferguson teritory of football of using the press as another arm to instill systemic fear, and therefore gain favour, of and for your team. I know everyone does this, sometimes successfully- think Wales a few years ago with the "we've chatted in the week to 'clarify' the scrum interpretation of the ref"- and sometimes not- Rowntree coming out after the game and blasting the referee over the scrum. The idea that any team could be adjudicated according to their public perception- for good or bad- is one that annoys me, and I hope it doesn't become a big facet of the game. What goes on behind closed doors, out of the media spotlight, is perhaps even more worrying. Rugby should be decided on the pitch, and one of those elements is a referee who doesn't go in with overly preconceived ideas about what may or may not happen.

Also, Rolland can just get ****ed regardless.

Does Hansen want other sides to be as dirty as the ABs so that the penalty count is equal? Is he a complete idiot as that strategy would put his players at risk of career-ending injuries?

He just wants his team to win. He's trying to appeal to the seemingly sensible suggestion that if a team is playing 'spoiling' tactics, trying to slow the opposition down, they ought to necessarily be penalised as least as frequently as the team trying to play the 'progressive' rugby. The problem is, what seems to 'make sense' on the surface of things doesn't always turn out to be what actually happens- i.e. the spoiling team might just be very good at doing it within the paramters of the law- particularly when NZ are rattled and respond with and extremely physical and confrontational gameplan that will necessarily see them concede penalties as a result.

He's not stupid. He's just asking for preferential treatment, seemingly, for his extremely talented group of players to be able to express themselves, and if they can't, then the other team should be penalised frequently for not allowing them to.

On the panel directly after the match Shane Horgan said that NZ are thin skinned and can't take external criticism (comments ironically missed by those bleating about the nasty biased Irish commentators and that 'woman' who dared question their coach on his bullschmidt). That may be true but there is method to their referee dealings.

New Zealand are the best team in the world. Not just now but generally. With their standing in the game, what they say about a referee can advance or harm their career. They use that to their advantage. Influencing the ref is part of their rugby culture.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/opinion/9701212/Mark-Reason-Bullying-to-blame-for-referee-crisis

The Great Aukster wrote:Does Hansen want other sides to be as dirty as the ABs so that the penalty count is equal? Is he a complete idiot as that strategy would put his players at risk of career-ending injuries?

From an NZ perspective he wants consistency from the referees. I thought Ireland played well in both games this year. They could potentially have won if things had gone differently for them. I think it's reasonable for Hansen to comment on the refereeing. The refereeing has been complained about in the Irish and UK press and the AB's have been fingered as a dirty team by the same people.

Here are some of my thoughts:
If I was playing the AB's I'd pick Peyper my referee if I could. He consistent. lt has a relatively high penalty count against the AB's. This year he's refereed the AB's 4 times. The pernalty/free kick count is 49 to 25 in favour of the opposition. In no case has the penalty count significantly favoured the AB's. In the game in the weekend he had assistants and a TMO from France and Wales.

The AB's area heavily penalised team. Only in the game against Argentina did they get an advantage in the penalty count. So it's not as though they're not penalised. The relative /Free kick count was the greatest Ireland had this year and the worst NZ had. With the exception of NZ, Ireland haven't had a significant advantage.

There's a complaint that the AB's get away with high tackles and that if high tackles should have been penalised to the letter of the law the AB's would suffer. I've counted the high tackles in this game. There is a higher rate than I would have expected. Both sides are going for ball in all tackles at times, with one hand over the shoulder (often contacting the neck/head) and the other around the chest. The AB's were guilty of more high tackles. The Irish were guilty of a higher rate of high tackles. The AB's were penalised, the Irish weren't. Given that Fekitoa's tackle was the easily the worst tackle on the day and fully deserved the card.

The reason the AB's were apologized to was that a player was sent off for a non existent offence. The irony is that this isn't only time Peyper made this mistake in this match and that it's an area that the AB's have picked up from Argentina, Australia (and possibly Ireland in Chicago) this year. Essentially coming through the ruck to attack the halfback. These sides have not generally be penalised for offences in this area.

The reality is I think it's relatively easy to test whether the AB's get away with murder and intimidate the refs. Look at the statistical data for penalties for European national and club sides with kiwi coaches and players. If it's true there should be a difference in the number of penalties awarded against these teams (coaches and players aren't going to suddenly become saints). Given the number of matches played it's possible to test the hypothesis using standard statistical techniques. Teams that I would expect to have a higher penalty count include: Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Connacht, Scarlets, Benneton, Pau, Bath and Leicester. Given this information is available (it can be purchased from Opta) and be processed, analysed and assessed and reviewed in an few hours. I'm guessing there is no, or little, difference.

Given refereeing is subjective, I question any time there is a great disparity in penalty counts. Their is so much that could be called up and decisions have an impact on the match. From my perpective. I think Peyper, like all refs, calls it as he sees it. He gets somethings, misses others, comes down hard on some some things and lets others go. My feeling is he's watching the AB's more than Ireland. The result increasing pressure on NZ from a weight of possession and field position.

The penalty count wasn't the problem. It was the fact that Peyper couldn't/refused to control the game, and that favoured the ABs.
The ABs must have known they weren't going to get a red and so went beyond the line. They played the ref. They knew they wouldn't get away with it in Chicago and so they didn't attempt to. Still 12 penalties awarded against them and 4 for Ireland. Was that ref also biased in favour of Ireland? They wont try the same tactics in France either.

Having a very poor TMO also helped the ABs cause.

Munchkin wrote:The penalty count wasn't the problem. It was the fact that Peyper couldn't/refused to control the game, and that favoured the ABs.
The ABs must have known they weren't going to get a red and so went beyond the line. They played the ref. They knew they wouldn't get away with it in Chicago and so they didn't attempt to. Still 12 penalties awarded against them and 4 for Ireland. Was that ref also biased in favour of Ireland? They wont try the same tactics in France either.

Having a very poor TMO also helped the ABs cause.

I disagree. Plenty of infringements by Ireland. They got a wealth of possession and position. The AB's weren't allowed to play the game they wanted. I agree with some of the sentiments of Eddie O'Sullivan. He said it's a big penalty count in Ireland's favour, no yellow cards, no penalty tries to NZ. Also he thought Cane wasn't a yellow card (don't think it was a penalty) and that Smith wasn't a yellow card or penalty.

From my perspective. He allowed Ireland to start high in tackle. that set the standard. In the rucks he pretty much assumed NZ was going to be offside so was looking at that first and ignoring other ruck offences. That set the tone and gave Ireland a huge advantage and allowed them to dictate much of the game.

Essentially your not happy with the referee who penalises a team more than any others this year. Supported by essentially a group of local officials and very one side penalty count with associated sanctions. It seems to me your asking for an insurmountable bias.

Not grey and not a ghost wrote:

Munchkin wrote:The penalty count wasn't the problem. It was the fact that Peyper couldn't/refused to control the game, and that favoured the ABs.
The ABs must have known they weren't going to get a red and so went beyond the line. They played the ref. They knew they wouldn't get away with it in Chicago and so they didn't attempt to. Still 12 penalties awarded against them and 4 for Ireland. Was that ref also biased in favour of Ireland? They wont try the same tactics in France either.

Having a very poor TMO also helped the ABs cause.

I disagree. Plenty of infringements by Ireland. They got a wealth of possession and position. The AB's weren't allowed to play the game they wanted. I agree with some of the sentiments of Eddie O'Sullivan. H e said it's a big penalty count in Ireland's favour, no yellow cards, no penalty tries to NZ. Also he thought Cane wasn't a yellow card (don't think it was a penalty) and that Smith wasn't a yellow card or penalty.

From my perspective. He allowed Ireland to start high in tackle. that set the standard. In the rucks he pretty much assumed NZ was going to be offside so was looking at that first and ignoring other things. That set the tone and gave Ireland a huge advantage.

+


Eddie O'Sullivan is a master of rugby, brilliant insights and perspectives his knowledge of the game is something just to sit back admire and enjoy. Bit like Foxy, ask him a question on rugby and it takes him 10 minutes to complete an answer, the knowledge of these guys is massive.

I'm still amazed, not at the ABs getting away with anything, but at the sheer inconsistency in what is deemed to be not even a penalty and what is cited for a 5 week ban if you happen to be Samoan...

ChequeredJersey wrote:I'm still amazed, not at the ABs getting away with anything, but at the sheer inconsistency in what is deemed to be not even a penalty and what is cited for a  week ban if you happen to be Samoan...

Agreed. Very seldom do you see UK and Irish national sides even penalised for high tackles.

Not grey and not a ghost wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Does Hansen want other sides to be as dirty as the ABs so that the penalty count is equal? Is he a complete idiot as that strategy would put his players at risk of career-ending injuries?

The reality is I think it's relatively easy to test whether the AB's get away with murder and intimidate the refs. Look at the statistical data for penalties for European national and club sides with kiwi coaches and players. If it's true there should be a difference in the number of penalties awarded against these teams (coaches and players aren't going to suddenly become saints). Given the number of matches played it's possible to test the hypothesis using standard statistical techniques. Teams that I would expect to have a higher penalty count include: Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Connacht, Scarlets, Benneton, Pau, Bath and Leicester. Given this information is available (it can be purchased from Opta) and be processed, analysed and assessed and reviewed in an few hours. I'm guessing there is no, or little, difference.

Bit of a flawed way of looking at things. Kiwis are, as I'm sure you are aware, not one homogenised mass of like minded drones (although the All Blacks do seem to have a seamless conveyor belt in every position...perhaps that's the reason...?). Being "dirty" is hardly an essential aspect to New Zealanders who play rugby, as some national identity. Take Wales for instance: Gatland is almost antithetical to the All Blacks' style of rugby. He is highly focused on a low penalty count, low errors, low risk rugby, squeezing out games not through superior skill, but through small micro management of the game, compartmentalising things. The All Blacks, under Hansen in particular, play a far different brand of rugby: it's far more reactive, far more intrinsic and 'natural', and far less reliant on discipline and a low penalty count for success (playing ability of the two countries aside, obviously).

Being an All Black, however, seems to demand a different intensity. It's the mentality of perennial winners. It's the psyche that means you really front up when threatened, and often in the past that's meant being properly dirty. The brutal way you used to ruck, through to the modern examples like BoD, Andrew Hore, and now this Ireland game. The All Blacks demand a level of intensity that means not taking a backward step in the confrontational facet of the game. What many see as outsiders is that you're so much better than everyone else, is there really a need for this manner of living on the edge?

That's a longer question, and I'd argue probably so. It drives standards, competition, which is integral when the greatest challenge to improve yourself is almost always one from within, to develop your own game to stay ahead of the pack, rather than catch anyone up. It also means when teams do go back to the old style of trying to rough up the opposition, you're prepared for it, and give it back. When you're threatened, you kick back, and this is what the Ireland game was: you'd been embarrassed by the Irish, the players were smarting, trying to make sure it didn't happen again, and key to avoiding complacency is firing yourself up to the point of being on that edge that the All Blacks have always shown signs of treading.

The point is, you're good at it. That should be commended at times, because after all, rugby is regulated and artificial brutality on a sporting field. Any idiot can go and thump their opposite number in open play, but what good does it do when your team is down to 14 men for the rest of the game? If you can intimidate and bully and batter the opposition in subtle and novel ways- just as you've always tested the laws and expectations relating to areas like the offside and the breakdown, and the more skillfull elements of the game- that's far better for a winning team.

The problem is, the referee and officials have become part of that trying to gain a small edge for the All Blacks (live all teams, I should add, and so I'm happy to argue about the hypocrisy of many people criticising them alone for this), and it's a game that clearly goes on off the field of play, too, when Hansen makes comments like those quoted earlier in this thread. That should be unacceptable, precisely because, as I mentioned above, on institutionalised talent alone, the All Blacks are ****ing marvelous to watch, when they're in full flow, even against Wales, it never fails to make me happy. It's like watching a Grand Master, or someone at the very peak of their powers and the best in their profession.

You keep pushing what's possible with the rugby ball, and it's wonderful to watch. It should come as no surprise, however, that referees start refereeing games with you in differently, for two reasons, one I mentioned in an earlier post. The first is that, inherently, there is an aura that they feel surrounding the All Blacks, that they're the "best in the world" etc. That can manifest itself in favourable or, in trying to avoid that, unfavourable refereeing. It's a feeling of unease- pressure, in short- that comes from officiating your team, and that means perhaps a referee doesn't relax and therefore behave as they normally would were it a SA vs Aus game. The other element is that, in reviewing games, referees will no doubt receive directives on areas where the All Blacks have "pushed" the laws to gain an advantage, and that has been deemed impossible to allow by the governing body. So they're more atuned to these things when they next referee them; they're watching out for them. Perhaps they then punish the All Blacks where other refs have not, and so it feels 'harsh', or that your team is being unduly done against.

This is one of the unfortunate results that come from being the best, from constantly innovating from within. Other than the 'choke tackle', almost every other modern facet of the game I can think of has come from NZ rugby, adapting things from league, or martial arts at the ruck, or whatever. Generally speaking, Australia in the backs and SA in the pack have done this too, but always NZ do it far more successfully. That's both the joy and frustration of your team. You're so good, why make imitation of the referee- on and off the pitch- such a big part of your coach's focus, as well as trying to push the barriers that exist on the more physical/confrontational side of the game, when you've innovated enough elsewhere to beat teams, comfortably and in emphatic style? It's why, as I said, you're good winners: when you're winning, and comfortably, you don't do this. It's only when you're threatened. It's only when you've lost that the more uglier and 'pragmatic' self preserving tactics come out, and historically, as now, they can be pretty unsavoury.

As far as I can tell, it's in NZ culture so far as there's an intense level of competition to be "the best" that permeates all levels of the game, and at pro level that's what makes even non All Blacks great players. That doesn't mean they're all dirty, all willing or able to go to the lengths that some All Blacks do/have done when threatened. You won't find that psyche by looking into NZers in Europe, precisely because it's an unquntifiable thing when the whole point of this "living on the edge" is the ability to get away with it.

Not grey and not a ghost wrote:

Munchkin wrote:The penalty count wasn't the problem. It was the fact that Peyper couldn't/refused to control the game, and that favoured the ABs.
The ABs must have known they weren't going to get a red and so went beyond the line. They played the ref. They knew they wouldn't get away with it in Chicago and so they didn't attempt to. Still 12 penalties awarded against them and 4 for Ireland. Was that ref also biased in favour of Ireland? They wont try the same tactics in France either.

Having a very poor TMO also helped the ABs cause.

I disagree. Plenty of infringements by Ireland. They got a wealth of possession and position. The AB's weren't allowed to play the game they wanted. I agree with some of the sentiments of Eddie O'Sullivan. He said it's a big penalty count in Ireland's favour, no yellow cards, no penalty tries to NZ. Also he thought Cane wasn't a yellow card (don't think it was a penalty) and that Smith wasn't a yellow card or penalty.

From my perspective. He allowed Ireland to start high in tackle. that set the standard. In the rucks he pretty much assumed NZ was going to be offside so was looking at that first and ignoring other ruck offences. That set the tone and gave Ireland a huge advantage and allowed them to dictate much of the game.

Essentially your not happy with the referee who penalises a team more than any others this year. Supported by essentially a group of local officials and very one side penalty count with associated sanctions. It seems to me your asking for an insurmountable bias.

Then you must disagree with the AB who stated quite clearly in his post match interview that they played to their game plan, and that he was happy with it.

The ABs themselves deny your analysis.

You blaming Ireland is hysterical. Keep at it though, it's entertaining if nothing else

http://cargocollective.com/alternativerugbycommentary/2655790/Jedi-s-Blog

Jed Thian wrote: Martial arts use colored belts to indicate a hierarchy in the training group, we’re familiar with the concept, at the top there are Black belts, but even within the Black belts there are demarcations to display seniority. It’s a basic way of demonstrating rank.

The big deal is that if you and I had played against each other, then you would remember me. I’m the guy that ran his boot from the top of your shoulders down the middle of your back until the blood from the tag marks stained your jersey. Time and again, until you were too scared to hit the next ruck. Because I wanted to be in that Black jersey, but I was not good enough, I lost out to better players, and the caliber of those guys tells me I’m more than a match for you. This is a big deal for me and for a lot of other people I know too because we believe in that symbol, it gave us purpose and a direction, the light from the Black jersey drew out the best in us, it lit up the pathway, called us home, it was the flame flickering in the window on the Blackest of nights.

Neat demonstration on the culture I was talking about, the driving of standards from within.

What make me laugh most is that even though the game plan was clearly not really about rugby, they achieved their aim which was to beat the Irish, literally, having been outplayed in rugby 2 weeks prior.
Then, having won and knowing how they went about it, the smart move would have been to shut up. But not the mighty ABs, oh no. They then draw heat upon themselves with the characteristic self righteousness. What they should have done is shut up, take the pain and moved on. When a side's own hubris starts to play a bigger role than the side itself you know that they are on shaky ground. mY prediction is England will beat them comfortably at their next meeting.