1st RWC 2023 semi-final Argentina v New Zealand

First topic message reminder :

I think we assume that the final now is NZ v SA but can anyone make a case for Argentina? Unable to beat 14 man England I am struggling to do so after the Ireland performance. Maybe we should just fast forward 2 weeks?

Gardner been poor I think but it's made no difference. NZ just far too good. That's it really.

Erm NZ were looking very shakey coming into this wc. There's a lot of unconscious bias coming from the likes of Gardner. Sam Cane has absolutely run riot at ruck time. It's also damaging the game to have such 1-sided games all the time. This is not a vintage NZ team with an unfancied coach being escorted out of the job in a week.

NZ though just improved each game pretty much since loss to France. As for any bias, that's rather hard to prove.
My point is regardless of who ref was NZ just far too good for Argentina. Most thought that before kick off, game has confirmed it.

Mcsweens wrote:Erm NZ were looking very shakey coming into this wc. There's a lot of unconscious bias coming from the likes of Gardner. Sam Cane has absolutely run riot  at ruck time. It's also damaging the game to have such 1-sided games all the time. This is not a vintage NZ team with an unfancied coach being escorted out of the job in a week.

Which is why I said "usually dominant"... Also a "poor performing" NZ side is still the team to beat. They won the RC coming into this after all.

mountain man wrote:NZ though just improved each game pretty much since loss to France. As for any bias, that's rather hard to prove.
My point is regardless of who ref was NZ just far too good for Argentina. Most thought that before kick off, game has confirmed it.

Well, by definition, it's impossible to "prove" that the result would be the same with a better ref. I mean, it would undoubtedly be the case 9/10 ten that NZ would win. But that's not the point. People don't watch sport to second guess the result. Gardner has absolutely ruined the spectacle.

Mcsweens wrote:Erm NZ were looking very shakey coming into this wc. There's a lot of unconscious bias coming from the likes of Gardner. Sam Cane has absolutely run riot at ruck time. It's also damaging the game to have such 1-sided games all the time. This is not a vintage NZ team with an unfancied coach being escorted out of the job in a week.

The 1 defeat?

Mcsweens wrote:

mountain man wrote:NZ though just improved each game pretty much since loss to France. As for any bias, that's rather hard to prove.
My point is regardless of who ref was NZ just far too good for Argentina. Most thought that before kick off, game has confirmed it.

Well, by definition, it's impossible to "prove" that the result would be the same with a better ref. I mean, it would undoubtedly be the case 9/10 ten that NZ would win. But that's not the point. People don't watch sport to second guess the result. Gardner has absolutely ruined the spectacle.

NZ win this game 100/100 with any ref...

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:Erm NZ were looking very shakey coming into this wc. There's a lot of unconscious bias coming from the likes of Gardner. Sam Cane has absolutely run riot  at ruck time. It's also damaging the game to have such 1-sided games all the time. This is not a vintage NZ team with an unfancied coach being escorted out of the job in a week.

Which is why I said "usually dominant"... Also a "poor performing" NZ side is still the team to beat. They won the RC coming into this after all.

If you want to be so pedantic, you didn't say "usually dominant", you said "usually NZ is completely dominant coming into world cups".

It must be so boring being a Leinster fan.

Mcsweens wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:Erm NZ were looking very shakey coming into this wc. There's a lot of unconscious bias coming from the likes of Gardner. Sam Cane has absolutely run riot  at ruck time. It's also damaging the game to have such 1-sided games all the time. This is not a vintage NZ team with an unfancied coach being escorted out of the job in a week.

Which is why I said "usually dominant"... Also a "poor performing" NZ side is still the team to beat. They won the RC coming into this after all.

If you want to be so pedantic, you didn't say "usually dominant", you said "usually NZ is completely dominant coming into world cups".

It must be so boring being a Leinster fan.

I don't see what them being a Leinster fan has to do with it, especially since they are right

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:Erm NZ were looking very shakey coming into this wc. There's a lot of unconscious bias coming from the likes of Gardner. Sam Cane has absolutely run riot  at ruck time. It's also damaging the game to have such 1-sided games all the time. This is not a vintage NZ team with an unfancied coach being escorted out of the job in a week.

The 1 defeat?

The record defeat, about 1 week before the comp started? The series loss to Ireland last year? The win % down by about 20% in this cycle.

No disrespect to NZ... but the refereeing is not to standard.

NZ were always going to win that but it might have been a bit more interesting with less asymmetric officiating ...

neilthom7 wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:Erm NZ were looking very shakey coming into this wc. There's a lot of unconscious bias coming from the likes of Gardner. Sam Cane has absolutely run riot  at ruck time. It's also damaging the game to have such 1-sided games all the time. This is not a vintage NZ team with an unfancied coach being escorted out of the job in a week.

Which is why I said "usually dominant"... Also a "poor performing" NZ side is still the team to beat. They won the RC coming into this after all.

If you want to be so pedantic, you didn't say "usually dominant", you said "usually NZ is completely dominant coming into world cups".

It must be so boring being a Leinster fan.

I don't see what them being a Leinster fan has to do with it, especially since they are right

Right about what though? The referee shouldn't be stacking the deck, intentionally or otherwise. Of course NZ was the better team. That's not up for debate. What is also not up for debate is that the match was spoilt by the ref.

I'm not sure the point of stating that NZ would win 100/100. This isn't maths. It's meant to be a fair contest and it wasn't

Argentina never looked like they believed they could win this.

Mcsweens wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:Erm NZ were looking very shakey coming into this wc. There's a lot of unconscious bias coming from the likes of Gardner. Sam Cane has absolutely run riot  at ruck time. It's also damaging the game to have such 1-sided games all the time. This is not a vintage NZ team with an unfancied coach being escorted out of the job in a week.

Which is why I said "usually dominant"... Also a "poor performing" NZ side is still the team to beat. They won the RC coming into this after all.

If you want to be so pedantic, you didn't say "usually dominant", you said "usually NZ is completely dominant coming into world cups".

It must be so boring being a Leinster fan.

I don't see what them being a Leinster fan has to do with it, especially since they are right

Right about what though? The referee shouldn't be stacking the deck, intentionally or otherwise. Of course NZ was the better team. That's not up for debate. What is also not up for debate is that the match was spoilt by the ref.

I'm not sure the point of stating that NZ would win 100/100. This isn't maths. It's meant to be a fair contest and it wasn't

I don't think the match was spoilt by the ref and I definitely wouldn't say it wasn't a fair contest. Did he make wrong decisions, yep. Where they anything that spoilt the match No. Even when NZ were down to 14 they scored a try. The idea that the ref was somehow cheating which is what you are strongly hinting at it is a bit ridiculous.

Gardner had one of his better games I thought. When your backrow is beaten by a winger at the breakdown you know you aren't winning diddly squat. Total demolition job by NZ and no complaints about any decision.

Yoda wrote:Gardner had one of his better games I thought. When your backrow is beaten by a winger at the breakdown you know you aren't winning diddly squat. Total demolition job by NZ and no complaints about any decision.

For the penalty Telea got at the breakdown he was tackler and made no release right in front of Gardner, thought he was really poor.

Mcsweens wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:Erm NZ were looking very shakey coming into this wc. There's a lot of unconscious bias coming from the likes of Gardner. Sam Cane has absolutely run riot at ruck time. It's also damaging the game to have such 1-sided games all the time. This is not a vintage NZ team with an unfancied coach being escorted out of the job in a week.

The 1 defeat?

The record defeat, about 1 week before the comp started? The series loss to Ireland last year? The win % down by about 20% in this cycle.

No disrespect to NZ... but the refereeing is not to standard.

Ah right fair enough. So SA were looking shakey too.good to know the level.

neilthom7 wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:Erm NZ were looking very shakey coming into this wc. There's a lot of unconscious bias coming from the likes of Gardner. Sam Cane has absolutely run riot  at ruck time. It's also damaging the game to have such 1-sided games all the time. This is not a vintage NZ team with an unfancied coach being escorted out of the job in a week.

Which is why I said "usually dominant"... Also a "poor performing" NZ side is still the team to beat. They won the RC coming into this after all.

If you want to be so pedantic, you didn't say "usually dominant", you said "usually NZ is completely dominant coming into world cups".

It must be so boring being a Leinster fan.

I don't see what them being a Leinster fan has to do with it, especially since they are right

Right about what though? The referee shouldn't be stacking the deck, intentionally or otherwise. Of course NZ was the better team. That's not up for debate. What is also not up for debate is that the match was spoilt by the ref.

I'm not sure the point of stating that NZ would win 100/100. This isn't maths. It's meant to be a fair contest and it wasn't

I don't think the match was spoilt by the ref and I definitely wouldn't say it wasn't a fair contest.  Did he make wrong decisions, yep.  Where they anything that spoilt the match No.  Even when NZ were down to 14 they scored a try.  The idea that the ref was somehow cheating which is what you are strongly hinting at it is a bit ridiculous.  

No, I'm saying the opposite. I'm ruling out cheating, and, ruling that out, trying to work out how he could then be so ridiculously one-eyed.
What some people seem to be saying, incredibly, is that it's OK to be spoil the game if it helps the team that are already overwhelming favourites, as doing so "wouldn't affect the result". I'm politely suggesting, as a wild alternative, that crap reffing should be called out.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:Erm NZ were looking very shakey coming into this wc. There's a lot of unconscious bias coming from the likes of Gardner. Sam Cane has absolutely run riot  at ruck time. It's also damaging the game to have such 1-sided games all the time. This is not a vintage NZ team with an unfancied coach being escorted out of the job in a week.

The 1 defeat?

The record defeat, about 1 week before the comp started? The series loss to Ireland last year? The win % down by about 20% in this cycle.

No disrespect to NZ... but the refereeing is not to standard.

Ah right fair enough. So SA were looking shakey too.good to know the level.

Were SA playing tonight?

Mcsweens wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:Erm NZ were looking very shakey coming into this wc. There's a lot of unconscious bias coming from the likes of Gardner. Sam Cane has absolutely run riot at ruck time. It's also damaging the game to have such 1-sided games all the time. This is not a vintage NZ team with an unfancied coach being escorted out of the job in a week.

The 1 defeat?

The record defeat, about 1 week before the comp started? The series loss to Ireland last year? The win % down by about 20% in this cycle.

No disrespect to NZ... but the refereeing is not to standard.

Ah right fair enough. So SA were looking shakey too.good to know the level.

Were SA playing tonight?

No. They play tomorrow. They're in the other semi final vs England.

Mcsweens wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:Erm NZ were looking very shakey coming into this wc. There's a lot of unconscious bias coming from the likes of Gardner. Sam Cane has absolutely run riot  at ruck time. It's also damaging the game to have such 1-sided games all the time. This is not a vintage NZ team with an unfancied coach being escorted out of the job in a week.

Which is why I said "usually dominant"... Also a "poor performing" NZ side is still the team to beat. They won the RC coming into this after all.

If you want to be so pedantic, you didn't say "usually dominant", you said "usually NZ is completely dominant coming into world cups".

It must be so boring being a Leinster fan.

I don't see what them being a Leinster fan has to do with it, especially since they are right

Right about what though? The referee shouldn't be stacking the deck, intentionally or otherwise. Of course NZ was the better team. That's not up for debate. What is also not up for debate is that the match was spoilt by the ref.

I'm not sure the point of stating that NZ would win 100/100. This isn't maths. It's meant to be a fair contest and it wasn't

I don't think the match was spoilt by the ref and I definitely wouldn't say it wasn't a fair contest.  Did he make wrong decisions, yep.  Where they anything that spoilt the match No.  Even when NZ were down to 14 they scored a try.  The idea that the ref was somehow cheating which is what you are strongly hinting at it is a bit ridiculous.  

No, I'm saying the opposite. I'm ruling out cheating, and, ruling that out, trying to work out how he could then be so ridiculously one-eyed.
What some people seem to be saying, incredibly, is that it's OK to be spoil the game if it helps the team that are already overwhelming favourites, as doing so "wouldn't affect the result". I'm politely suggesting, as a wild alternative, that crap reffing should be called out.

That is nonsense with respect. No-one has said "its OK to spoil the game" or even implied it.

My point was and I think others said similar is that NZ were so much better than Argentina they were winning anyway. Even if the so called bias was reversed and Gardner was unconsciously biased towards Arg they would still win. I certainly do not think he favoured NZ, he may have made mistakes, which ref doesn't, but he didn't do it with bias. Can anyone actually prove that? No but we have to believe that Int refs(and all others) are non partisan.

By all means call out crap reffing but try not to paint it as bias or that others think crap reffing doesn't matter.

I'll add I'm not a NZ supporter (English, sorry) and I watched match as a neutral rugby fan. At no point did it even occur Gardner was biased one way or other. I thought he made mistakes, as did Dickson running line but for me just purely errors missing stuff which happens every single match with every referee.

I found this game was really boring tbh.

Not a classic in any shape or form, but probably inevitable after last weekends fireworks

mountain man wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Mcsweens wrote:Erm NZ were looking very shakey coming into this wc. There's a lot of unconscious bias coming from the likes of Gardner. Sam Cane has absolutely run riot  at ruck time. It's also damaging the game to have such 1-sided games all the time. This is not a vintage NZ team with an unfancied coach being escorted out of the job in a week.

Which is why I said "usually dominant"... Also a "poor performing" NZ side is still the team to beat. They won the RC coming into this after all.

If you want to be so pedantic, you didn't say "usually dominant", you said "usually NZ is completely dominant coming into world cups".

It must be so boring being a Leinster fan.

I don't see what them being a Leinster fan has to do with it, especially since they are right

Right about what though? The referee shouldn't be stacking the deck, intentionally or otherwise. Of course NZ was the better team. That's not up for debate. What is also not up for debate is that the match was spoilt by the ref.

I'm not sure the point of stating that NZ would win 100/100. This isn't maths. It's meant to be a fair contest and it wasn't

I don't think the match was spoilt by the ref and I definitely wouldn't say it wasn't a fair contest.  Did he make wrong decisions, yep.  Where they anything that spoilt the match No.  Even when NZ were down to 14 they scored a try.  The idea that the ref was somehow cheating which is what you are strongly hinting at it is a bit ridiculous.  

No, I'm saying the opposite. I'm ruling out cheating, and, ruling that out, trying to work out how he could then be so ridiculously one-eyed.
What some people seem to be saying, incredibly, is that it's OK to be spoil the game if it helps the team that are already overwhelming favourites, as doing so "wouldn't affect the result". I'm politely suggesting, as a wild alternative, that crap reffing should be called out.

That is nonsense with respect. No-one has said "its OK to spoil the game" or even implied it.

My point was and I think others said similar is that NZ were so much better than Argentina they were winning anyway. Even if the so called bias was reversed and Gardner was unconsciously biased towards Arg they would still win. I certainly do not think he favoured NZ, he may have made mistakes, which ref doesn't, but he didn't do it with bias. Can anyone actually prove that? No but we have to believe that Int refs(and all others) are non partisan.

By all means call out crap reffing but try not to paint it as bias or that others think crap reffing doesn't matter.

I'll add I'm not a NZ supporter (English, sorry) and I watched match as a neutral rugby fan. At no point did it even occur Gardner was biased one way or other. I thought he made mistakes, as did Dickson running line but for me just purely errors missing stuff which happens every single match with every referee.

As England followers and supporters we are used to Dickson's inconsistent officiating.  But I don't think he is biased.  

In the larger picture, I think Rugby must be the hardest sport to officiate.  30 people on the pitch, action around the ball and off the ball.  We tend to share our complaints/concerns about referees frequently, but fewer times when we  actually complement the officials.  My opinion is that either we go the way of the NFL with 8 officials on the pitch (and they still miss a few), or we deal with what we have, which is my preference. And to give the referees better tools to help. But one person trying to manage this kind of melee is nigh on impossible. I think the Steve Walsh type has been purged from Rugby.

I think I have said this on another thread, but I was thinking about apparent bias in referees, and I think it's a lot more subtle than a conscious effort to favour one side.

Refs have to make split second decisions about what they're seeing, and that means that (in psychological terms) they need to rely on patterns they have trained their subconscious to recognise. If a ref is more used to one team's style of play than another's, they will have more rapid responses trained in for that team than their opponents. That can cut both ways,but for positive plays it probably favours the team they are more familiar with.

A really good ref will study what both teams do - ideally from the angles they will see in the game - and prime themselves to look out for particular plays and mistakes. It makes me wonder if international refs have access to the refcam feeds from other games so they can prepare from a ref's eye view.

(As for Dickson, I wonder if part of the reason he is disliked by a lot of the fanbase but still gets appointments is that his long career as a scrum half means that he sees things more as the players do and they understand his calls a lot better than we fans do.)

Refs also seem favour the team on top, so a 50:50 call often goes way of the team who are stronger. At least that often appears to be the case, rightly or wrongly.