Ted think losses are Match Fixing

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Maybe to make a few bucks on the punt on the way through as well.

I'd lay odds on this explanation (pun intended) if there were any credence to the theory.

 

[Bullrush]

Pretty much just to fuck up Ted's legacy to the AB's.
Maybe to make a few bucks on the punt on the way through as well.

I have to admit that this made me chuckle

 

[Athilnaur]

or it could just be Barnes wasn't fit enough having spent years following ponderous NH teams around

 

[Hawko]

Two posters in particular have said or implied those things.

And yes, I will defend him in both countries because that game is a complete anomoly in terms of the stats and the reffing.

We lost to better teams on the day in 1995, 1999 and 2003. Gregor Paul and Wynne Gray can maintain that line for 2007 if they want but I don't see why Graham Henry can't ask if there is a protocol or procedure for examining games like this. Gregor Paul thinks that match-fixing in rugby is "so obviously an outlandish and baseless notion". He's welcome to that opinion.

Kiwis big concern is that they don't want to be seen as 'poor losers' or as having 'sour grapes'. And some just like to hate on Henry. Me - I think the reffing was absolute shit that day but we've had to suck it up and take it on the chin. We've endured all the choker jokes and tags and names for YEARS - I couldn't care less if the rest of the world thinks we're poor losers over this.

The problem here is that bad performances by referees do make a huge difference to outcomes. I would cite:

1. Barnes in the 2007 NZ-France match.
2. SA vs Aust at the 2011 world cup.
3. Joubert blowing Baxter out of international rugby when it was clear the problem was the NZ loosehead's hinging.
4. Most of the games that Kaplan has refereed involving the Waratahs including the final in Christchurch.

The biggest problem for the rugby community is that bad performances are not judged for what they are. Barnes was publically supported to the hilt by referees management despite the evidence in front of their eyes. Like when Bryce Lawrence was told he was a great referee and given a Super final while Mark Lawrence was ignored into retirement. It is the judgement of the adjudicators that is called into question. Because Barnes had a bad day in a crucial game and he was a favourite at the time, he was supported by the referees management. Stuart Dickenson had a bad day out in Italy vs NZ and was pilloried by referees management because he wasn't a favourite. Up till rcently Kaplan has been supported to the hilt. I still don't know what Mark Lawrence did, but it wasn't reffing badly.

And when bad performances aren't pulled up and referees retrained and made to re-prove themselves, what arises is a set of conspiracy theories just like this. Trust me, it wasn't match fixing, it was just incompetence. IMO the NZ team has been an overall beneficiary of poor refereeing, notwithstanding 2007. But I don't subscribe to match fixing as the reason. I put it down to unrewarded bad performance by the referees, for which the referees management is to blame.

 

[Mank]

The problem here is that bad performances by referees do make a huge difference to outcomes. I would cite:

1. Barnes in the 2007 NZ-France match.
2. SA vs Aust at the 2011 world cup.
3. Joubert blowing Baxter out of international rugby when it was clear the problem was the NZ loosehead's hinging.
4. Most of the games that Kaplan has refereed involving the Waratahs including the final in Christchurch.

The biggest problem for the rugby community is that bad performances are not judged for what they are. Barnes was publically supported to the hilt by referees management despite the evidence in front of their eyes. Like when Bryce Lawrence was told he was a great referee and given a Super final while Mark Lawrence was ignored into retirement. It is the judgement of the adjudicators that is called into question. Because Barnes had a bad day in a crucial game and he was a favourite at the time, he was supported by the referees management. Stuart Dickenson had a bad day out in Italy vs NZ and was pilloried by referees management because he wasn't a favourite. Up till rcently Kaplan has been supported to the hilt. I still don't know what Mark Lawrence did, but it wasn't reffing badly.


And when bad performances aren't pulled up and referees retrained and made to re-prove themselves, what arises is a set of conspiracy theories just like this. Trust me, it wasn't match fixing, it was just incompetence. IMO the NZ team has been an overall beneficiary of poor refereeing, notwithstanding 2007. But I don't subscribe to match fixing as the reason. I put it down to unrewarded bad performance by the referees, for which the referees management is to blame.

That's a good post.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you say above, however, I'd say most of the posters on this thread have a Pavlovian response to mention of match fixing, and that's the part I disagree with. Why is it not ok to broach the issue, talk about it, have a look, whatever you want to call it? Why must it be called sour grapes? What if Henry has a point that the refereeing was just so ridiculously lop sided that he genuinely believed it could be match fixing. It seems to me all he did was, quietly (and that's important), suggest a further look. How does that "shit on the game", or any of the other stuff some of you are saying? Surely if he believed there was something sinister going on then it's actually in the best interests of the game to get it looked at. I'm trying to see the other side to this, really I am, but putting myself in Henry's shoes, I would have done the same, if I believed it was something more than incompetence.

Now, you can debate him being wrong about it, that's a completely different matter, but if he genuinely believed it was worth a further look, then I can't actually see he's done anything wrong.

 

[Bardon]

The big problem I have with match fixing claims, especially where betting might be involved, is that any cases of it in sport have necessitated collusion by players from the favourite side that loses. Betting syndicates tend to make absolutely sure their bet will be successful and nobbling a referee in isolation wouldn't do that. They would have also had to nobble a few key AB players. Since I don't believe any AB players would be involved in anything like that I just can't believe that match fixing took place in that game.

As for the officials, although occasionally they might have a bad game and there are some poor refs on the international panel, overall the standard is higher than a lot of other high profile sports and I've never seen anything that would lead me to question the integrity of our top referees.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think IS you best to just knock it on head mate ,you starting to get ridiculous, who has talked about campo, and ABs and wallanies didn't even play in final.

i think you may need to check the draw for 1991: my *ironic* point was that australia's passage to victory in 1991 might have looked rigged, since we won against Ireland against all odds in the final seconds having lost the lead in the final minutes and in the final the poms claim they would have scored to win it if campo had not "deliberately" knocked down guscott's (?) pass.

The real point is that this shit happens all the time but you only see it happening to your team: a coach should be above that parochial approach because it stuffs your judgment. Take Ricky Stuart for instance: he's always blaming the ref for everything and whats he won: 1 premiership 10 years ago.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

1. Joubert blowing Baxter out of international rugby when it was clear the problem was the NZ loosehead's hinging

If you are prepared to add Kaplan to this we are kindred spirits

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The big problem I have with match fixing claims, especially where betting might be involved, is that any cases of it in sport have necessitated collusion by players from the favourite side that loses. Betting syndicates tend to make absolutely sure their bet will be successful and nobbling a referee in isolation wouldn't do that. They would have also had to nobble a few key AB players. Since I don't believe any AB players would be involved in anything like that I just can't believe that match fixing took place in that game.

As for the officials, although occasionally they might have a bad game and there are some poor refs on the international panel, overall the standard is higher than a lot of other high profile sports and I've never seen anything that would lead me to question the integrity of our top referees.

This has to be right: I would back the ABs to beat most if not all teams even if the ref had been paid.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Match fixing in team sports is very hard to do, even if it involves the ref. Spot fixing, not quite as hard. In a sport like rugby, where the best laid plans can and do go awry so easily, I'd find it hard to believe that you could coordinate it unless you had an entire team on board. At the top level, you'd have to believe someone would either speak out or refuse to participate.

 

[Athilnaur]

While I don't buy into the match fixing thing re Barnes, you do not need a whole team to see a match go the wrong way, or even any players. Refs can and do regularly make immense differences to games just by preferring a playstyle, let alone having a prejudice, a political influence or financial influence. We all know this. We can all point to games - and referees - where we have shook our heads and said WTF due to the sheer scale with which the wheels fell off.

I again reiterate I am not saying that match fixing was the case here, but nor do I underestimate the pressures that can be brought to bear in major tournaments like the RWC.

The saving grace, I think, is that I imagine the various powers that be realise how easily the game can be ruined globally if bad refereeing performances repeatedly dominate headlines in tournaments.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Match fixing in team sports is very hard to do, even if it involves the ref. Spot fixing, not quite as hard. In a sport like rugby, where the best laid plans can and do go awry so easily, I'd find it hard to believe that you could coordinate it unless you had an entire team on board. At the top level, you'd have to believe someone would either speak out or refuse to participate.

even spot fixing is tough. I would think it easier to plan and execute in league than union (as everything is) and yet look what happened to the dogs and the nth Queensland: they couldn't organize a kick at penalty from right in front!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Dan54]

This has to be right: I would back the ABs to beat most if not all teams even if the ref had been paid.

Actually heard this comment on NZ radio on Sunday, if the match had been fixed it would have to include his own players, as like Shag Hansen said they just didn't play well enough to win.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

As the game gets more global, particularly sevens, it would be naive to ignore the potential impact negative of gambling, spot or otherwise.

In Sevens, the entire game can turn on the result of one tackle, one poor lineout throw, a bad pass, or a poorly executed kick option etc. Unlike traditional XV rugby, the bookies only have to get at one person to impact on the game outcome.

It would be wise for IRB to investigate match fixing scams from other sports, and initiate preventative measures now when the threat is very low, rather than having to react after a situation arises.

It is a fact of life that punters will bet on anything that bookies will offer odds on, and sports governing bodies have very little say in what goes on in that market. IRB can not regulate what bookies offer odds on, so they need to have processes and procedures in place to prevent and investigate claims.

 

[BPC]

It's a bit sad really. Henry, despite his failures with the Lions and the 2007 RWC, developed the winningest team in rugby and won a world cup. The suggestion of match fixture is just pathetic. Match fixing is basically the same as accusing someone of criminality as opposed to mere incompetence (and I am not trying to get back into whether Barnes was incompetent that night or not). Frankly if you are going to suggest criminal behaviour you better have some pretty strong evidence to back yourself and all Henry had was disapointment in the refereeing. From the limited reviews, and I haven't seen the whole book, it seems Henry glosses over any role the triumvirate may have had in the loss such as the infamous 'reconditioning' rotation of players.

I don't think the book takes away from Henry's achievements but it does leave a bit of a stain on his character.

 

[I like to watch]

As the game gets more global, particularly sevens, it would be naive to ignore the potential impact negative of gambling, spot or otherwise.

It would be wise for IRB to investigate match fixing scams from other sports, and initiate preventative measures now when the threat is very low, rather than having to react after a situation arises.

It is a fact of life that punters will bet on anything that bookies will offer odds on, and sports governing bodies have very little say in what goes on in that market. IRB can not regulate what bookies offer odds on, so they need to have processes and procedures in place to prevent and investigate claims.

The thing in favour of the IRB is that there is not the same market when compared to other sports.
You could literally make millions in sports like international cricket or soccer.
bookies might hold $100,000's on a test match, but the hold on 7's would be negligible.

 

[boyo]

In light of this conversation about betting WTF is going on with Fox Sports broadcasting odds, points start, etc.? I realise that Fox Sports is a commercial organisation and that broadcasting of odds, etc. on TV will become illegal in the near future.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Just because bookies aren't holding too much on Sevens at the moment does not mean that will always be the case.

My point is that if anyone wanted to fix a rugby game, it would be significantly easier in Sevens than in the longer form.

In comparison to XV rugby, the Sevens stars pay is currently not much. This may change if a US circuit gets up post olympics, and if (a big if) an IPL type auction for players services is adopted. In the mean time if remuneration stays low compared to Test, French or Japanese rugby, there could be opportunities for a corruptable player to get in cahoots with a bookie syndicate - not just throwing the game but seemingly innocent stuff like pitch conditions, injury reports, advance notice of team lists, Suzie the Waitress sightings etc.

Anti-fixing strategies need to be developed now while there is no genuine threat.

 

[I like to watch]

I can't see the IRB investing much time in finding a solution to what is not yet a problem. It is unlikely to become a problem as well IMO.
The countries where remuneration is low compared to major Tests, French & Japanese Rugby are be definition participating in low interest games(gambling turnover wise)
I think you are jumping at shadows on this one,

 

[qwerty51]

Quade Cooper attempted to fix the quarter final against South Africa, how else would one explain a cross-field kick in your own half?