Not Using Ones Best Efforts To Win

So is some interesting parallel in the Olympics today about the 8 players disqualificate from the Badminton because they didn't use the best effort to win, and "acted in a way detrimental to the sport".

Many times in rugby competition there is the suspect that a weaker than possible team is named, or that the team play in a way where winning not the objective.

Probably the most famous recent example was France in the RWC pool when they name the weak team and get pounded by NZ. They do this for the same reason to the Badminton players - manipulate the side of the draw and in their case it worked! And they make the final and have top players fresh to try to play tired NZ with injuries who chosing not to rotation the combinator.

Now! should rugby follow this example and punish teams who behave this way or name rotation squads and lose?

No it's completely different, the World Cup is a squad competition and it would be nearly impossible to win the world cup if you played the same XV each game. In the badminton there were only two competitors and they were trying to avoid the other Chinese pair to make sure that China got a medal, the players who played for France put in a great deal of effort to beat New Zealand rather than deliberately lose, rugby is a more physical and painful game than Badminton and as such players will need to rest, it is ridiculous to compare the situations.

But the players concern make the same argument, that they are "conserving energy". It's the same thing exactly.

AWOP - France didn't rest players to avoid playing France, so it is a totally different thing. Also in a team sport like rugby how can you prove who your best XV are. Some players are lesser players but work better as a group that others etc. Also if you were to say that the best XV are, then you do not allow for fluctations in form, fitness and the likes. It is neigh on impossible to say that a team is feilding a deliberately weak side in order to lose, and even harder to prove it.

But the media in NZ report that it was a weak team. Everybody knew it even though some people try to deny it. http://www.theroar.com.au/2011/09/22/france-slammed-for-weak-team-to-play-nz/

It was called a "farce" and an "insult" to the All Blacks, which they duly proved with the 37-17 hiding, only kept reasonable because the all blacks made so many changes themselves in the second half.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/8784678/Rugby-World-Cup-2011-New-Zealand-v-France-live.html

Now, a vastly different France team get named for the final even though the same players were fit to play. So that proves they play to lose and take the easier road to the final past Eng and Wal, rather than face, Aus, SA.

anotherworldofpain wrote:It was called a "farce" and an "insult" to the All Blacks, which they duly proved with the 37-17 hiding, only kept reasonable because the all blacks made so many changes themselves in the second half.

Strip the All Blacks of their title, they didn't give their best effort to win the game by the most possible points, and they took players off and replaced them with lesser quality players.

anotherworldofpain wrote:Now, a vastly different France team get named for the final even though the same players were fit to play. So that proves they play to lose and take the easier road to the final past Eng and Wal, rather than face, Aus, SA.

Or the other way you could look at it was they knew their first choice side would lose (which it did in the final) so they decided not to risk injuries as the outcome was no different.

Yes, match fixing!

Yes but the Rugby world cup is a squad event. The French rested their best players, not to lose but to rest their best players knowing that the likelihood was that they would not win with the game and that having not yet qualified it wasn't worth it and potentially three more emotionally and physically draining games to go.
The French players didn't deliberately lose, in theory that team could have won they didn't throw lots of interception passes or miss kicks in front of the post. You also have to remember that the coach was Marc Lievremont and therefore we cannot be sure that he believed it was a weakened team.

Well, to tell the truth we haven't been doing our best for the last 4 years.

Was like having Dubya with his finger on the button for 8 years eh Biltong...

Yes, straight back into isolation until you can get it together to name the actual best 15 biltong.

I'm old enough to remember the Swedish boxer Ingemar Johansson being disqualified for "not trying" at the 1952 Helsinki Olympics. He protested that he was following his coach's instructions, but that didn't save him.

Only seven years later he knocked out Floyd Patterson to win the professional world heavyweight championship! The American fell to Johansson's great right hand, which the press dubbed "Hammer of Thor" or "Ingo's Bingo".

Unfortunately for Ingo, in the return bout Patterson became the first man to regain the heavyweight title.

Scotland in the 2007 WC against the ABs. It was stated in the official review as another contributing factor (not excuse) why the ABs flopped. We just coasted through pool play and then came up against a determined France and Wayne Barnes. The Barnes thing I just said there was tongue in cheek by the way.

No team can play their best XV in every match.

The badminton problem was players deliberately losing points. They weren't conserving energy, they were actively losing points. That's an immeasurable difference

True, Scotland in 2007 certainly didn't throw the game, so retract that statement. They just fielded a weaker side to conserve players, fair enough. The ABs and most other teams do that all the time.

Apparently FIFA has came out and said it's ok to throw a game for field advantage after the japan woman's team were instructed not to beat SA.

Yes Wales should be punished for not trying to win the last 5 games v Aus

AWOP you seem post a lot of mischief posts to stir things up a bit,also you seem to have a considerable knowledge of NZ rugby.Little if any inferior to mine and that is saying a lot as I have over 60 years knowledge of it.I dislike RWC`s intensely for many reasons not least it`s cut and dried format.BUT the RWC is a SQUAD game for teams like NZ or the Boks they expect to be able to field a side that can beat anyone.BUT that does not mean playing a full strength team in every match.For teams with lesser expectations it makes sense to target teams you think you can beat.THAT does`nt mean the team fielded isn`t trying to win.France versus Tonga seems a case in point I thought and stated that France were`nt really trying in that match.I retract that I think they UNDERESTIMATED Tonga and got bitten badly.The whole RWC set up makes match fixing easier IF that was ever tried.IF the teams did`nt know what they had to do. Because the next round went into a draw each time at random it would concentrate the mind profoundly.

Despite the aspects of stirring, I think this is a valid and interesting topic for discussion that has been brought up, though, emack

It'd be pretty obvious and difficult to deliberately 'lose' a game in rugby wouldn't it? I've never seen it to be honest. Also, the beauty of rugby is that draws are pretty rare and therefore you'd struggle to fix one up without it being very obvious.

I've seen football teams play for draws a few times, players just nudging the ball between themselves with no attempted tackles. The crowd booing away. It's crazy that FIFA appear to endorse this.

An AKL rugby league team just this morning got kicked out of their local competition (semi final stage) for fielding a weakened team to fix a better opponent. They were thought to be bringing the game into disrepute. Sponsers didn't like it.

I don't know, it should be pretty easy to halfheartedly tackle throughout the match. The trouble is in rugby not committing to contact properly (or scrummaging properly) leads to injuries, and deliberately giving away penalties is difficult as the ref is likely to miss them anyway!

On a a slightly different topic much is made of Referee`s having bad matches. But what about a referee who has a down on a player because he thinks he is
performing illegaly.Stuart Dickenson for the best part of a season whistled Wyatt Crockett out of the game,it was so bad Crockett was thinking giving the game away.Mike Cron the World`s leading Scrum guru said Crockett was binding legally Dickenson thought differently.Cron helped Crockett modify his binding technique but that was`nt the point.The Player could`nt be picked if Dickenson was officiating presumeably other Refs think the same way about some players.

Its easily done, down in these parts we call it "tanking", heres a recent example of it Auckland sport.


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/league/news/article.cfm?c_id=79&objectid=10823618

Scotland vs NZ in the 2007 RWC pool game was the worst incident of this kind for me - a 2nd XV selected to keep the best players for the Must-win Italy game. Don't agree with chucking in any circumstance

emack2 wrote:On a a slightly different topic much is made of Referee`s having bad matches. But what about a referee who has a down on a player because he thinks he is
performing illegaly.Stuart Dickenson for the best part of a season whistled Wyatt Crockett out of the game,it was so bad Crockett was thinking giving the game away.Mike Cron the World`s leading Scrum guru said Crockett was binding legally Dickenson thought differently.Cron helped Crockett modify his binding technique but that was`nt the point.The Player could`nt be picked if Dickenson was officiating presumeably other Refs think the same way about some players.

To actually support the view the Dickenson had it in for Crockett, you cant use one of the kiwi coaching staff as an expert opinion. With that sort of relationship involved, its just an opinion.

To me, there is still a difference between putting out players in a RWC still considered to be amongst their nation's top 32 players and deliberately clunking points in a match. When Scotland put out that team vs. the All Blacks in 2007, does anyone think those players did not want to win? Players good enough, competitive enough, and who worked like dogs their whole lives to get to this point all of a sudden pack it in?
No possible way.

Players who give up in matches should be tossed to the wolves.
This is very different. At least, to me.

doctor_grey wrote:To me, there is still a difference between putting out players in a RWC still considered to be amongst their nation's top 32 players and deliberately clunking points in a match. When Scotland put out that team vs. the All Blacks in 2007, does anyone think those players did not want to win? Players good enough, competitive enough, and who worked like dogs their whole lives to get to this point all of a sudden pack it in?
No possible way.

Players who give up in matches should be tossed to the wolves.
This is very different. At least, to me.

Good point, Dr_G, I can't apportion any blame to the players on that occasion, it was all the fault of Captain Haddock and his coaching team

If I was taking a squad of 30 players
to NZ to play in possibly 7 games in 6 weeks with the likelyhood of injuries how would I manage my resources? No brainer.

I shall call for NZ to be stripped of their WC title if they play anything less than their full XV against Scotland at Murrayfield in the AIs. I don't care that their 2nd XV can probably still win by 30 points......

Rugby and Olympic badminton entirely different. Should a team take the field and try to lose a game in any sport, they should be barred. It cheats the paying public. Squad rotation is a different kettle of fish, particularly in modern rugby when players are expected to play non-stop every weekend for 15 years.

Scotland in 2007 was squad rotation. I hated it and thought it was completely the wrong thing to do, but it shouldn't be punishable. You get to name a squad of players for the WC and the objective is to go as far as possible. It is interesting though - what if we had played Al Kellock at stand-off in order to preserve Dan Parks?? Apart from Kellock probably passing the ball better, should that be punishable?

funnyExiledScot wrote:I shall call for NZ to be stripped of their WC title if they play anything less than their full XV against Scotland at Murrayfield in the AIs. I don't care that their 2nd XV can probably still win by 30 points......

Rugby and Olympic badminton entirely different. Should a team take the field and try to lose a game in any sport, they should be barred. It cheats the paying public. Squad rotation is a different kettle of fish, particularly in modern rugby when players are expected to play non-stop every weekend for 15 years.

Scotland in 2007 was squad rotation. I hated it and thought it was completely the wrong thing to do, but it shouldn't be punishable. You get to name a squad of players for the WC and the objective is to go as far as possible. It is interesting though - what if we had played Al Kellock at stand-off in order to preserve Dan Parks?? Apart from Kellock probably passing the ball better, should that be punishable?

If you do that, it should go to the next ebst side. France always play weak sides so that rules them out. Australia didn't play a full strength side versus Scotland so that rules them out. Yay Wales can be RWC champions after all.

Surely having Rob Howley as your assistant coach also counts as "not using ones best efforts to win"??

Didn't a French team deliberately loose an Amlin cup game because they were trying to win the league or qualify for the HC or something and the IRB ripped them to shreds. I can remember the player breaking through the line got about 5 meters from the try line then realised what he was doing then just stopped, that is the same as the Olympics not fielding supposedly weaker sides as the players are all employed to play for a team and it is up to the coach who he picks for any game.

Reckon the ABs were trying to throw that 11 WC final. DC, Slade and Cruden injured themselves. McCaw was knackered, but bless his heart, he didn't quite grasp the concept and kept playing on that one foot. Also, who left Stephen Donald's jersey in the drier too long, someone tried to cut his blood supply off!!!

LD, that's a hard case situation you describe there, can just picture it. That sounds like exactly the kind of thing this thread is on about. It just doesn't really happen that often in rugby I reckon.

I think it's more noticable when BOTH sides do it in the same match(!) - like in the badminton.

In a more complex team game like rugby one side could relax by 5% or so to lose the game without it being so obvious. Dropping off a few tackles, not being competitive in the chase and missing a few kicks could make all the difference.

sugarNspikes wrote:I think it's more noticable when BOTH sides do it in the same match(!) - like in the badminton.

In a more complex team game like rugby one side could relax by 5% or so to lose the game without it being so obvious. Dropping off a few tackles, not being competitive in the chase and missing a few kicks could make all the difference.

I can think of a fair few games where it's certainly felt like both rugby teams were trying to lose!!

BOXING
How about 'falling over' 6 times in one round, to avoid actually errr.. boxing ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/19088420

Also the ref was later expelled from international boxing association.