Ted think losses are Match Fixing

[Mank]

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.

What if he was correct?

 

[BPC]

What if he was correct?

At this stage, whether he is correct doesn't come into it. If he doesn't have the evidence to back up an assertion that Barnes (presumably) deliberately threw the match, then it is a rubbish act to suggest it, demand and inquiry and hope that some evidence comes out in the wash. How would you feel in your neighbours or a competing business could accuse you of illegal acts and you were subject to a lengthy and invasive investigation on no more than their say so to see if there was something to their complaints?

Or, to be more succinct, put up (the evidence) or shut up.

 

[Mank]

At this stage, whether he is correct doesn't come into it. If he doesn't have the evidence to back up an assertion that Barnes (presumably) deliberately threw the match, then it is a rubbish act to suggest it, demand and inquiry and hope that some evidence comes out in the wash. How would you feel in your neighbours or a competing business could accuse you of illegal acts and you were subject to a lengthy and invasive investigation on no more than their say so to see if there was something to their complaints?

Or, to be more succinct, put up (the evidence) or shut up.

I asked a very specific question which you have avoided answering. What if Henry was correct?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

If he's correct, then the very fabric of the game is severely damaged.

However, if Henry (or anyone else for that matter) has specific allegations to make, then let's get them on the public record and have them investigated. I don't like someone's reputation being damaged based on heresay. It's very hard to recover from that.

 

[Braveheart81]

I asked a very specific question which you have avoided answering. What if Henry was correct?

Then he got incredibly lucky because he is just speculating.

Regardless, it is a ridiculous accusation to make because it is just his opinion without any evidence to back it up.

Saying that his team weren't awarded penalties they deserved is not evidence.

 

[Bullrush]

At this stage, whether he is correct doesn't come into it. If he doesn't have the evidence to back up an assertion that Barnes (presumably) deliberately threw the match, then it is a rubbish act to suggest it, demand and inquiry and hope that some evidence comes out in the wash. How would you feel in your neighbours or a competing business could accuse you of illegal acts and you were subject to a lengthy and invasive investigation on no more than their say so to see if there was something to their complaints?

Or, to be more succinct, put up (the evidence) or shut up.

OK......let's get this shit straight. Henry analysed a game where the ref missed (by his reckoning) 40 penalties against his team and didn't award one in their favour for the last 60min of the game. When they had 60% possession and territory. That's before we even start talking about the yellow card and the forward pass. We're not talking about one controversial call or two. Those kind of stats are simply unheard of in our game. How many games can you think of where the incompetence of a ref is so biased towards one team? (The SA's can probably think of one.) Even under a referees review, they found 16 (I think) penalties that were clearly missed in the second half. That is a bit more than just Henry's 'say so' or complaint. Or saying they weren't awarded a few penalties they should have been.

He went to the IRB and asked if there was any protocols in place to look at a bizarre game like this. At the time, he did want to pursue it but was told by the NZRFU not to - he would blow any chance he had of coaching the ABs again if he did. So he dropped it.

Now he's telling the truth about what happened at that time in his biography. If anything, the IRB should have a process in place, if for nothing else, so that any kind of doubts about match-fixing can be 'put to bed'.

Oh, but I forgot......rugby is above that possibility ever happening........

 

[Mank]

BPC: You're also exaggerating what actually happened, which suggests that you have an inflexible view on the situation. He didn't "demand" anything from what I can tell. This is the first I've heard of the incident, and he asked the NZRU, quietly, with no scene, to press it further because he believed something was wrong.

If the NZRU looked at it, and deemed it didn't merit further investigation, then so be it, but if Henry genuinely believed something was suspicious, what were his choices? How should he have handled it differently?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

OK..let's get this shit straight. Henry analysed a game where the ref missed (by his reckoning) 40 penalties against his team and didn't award one in their favour for the last 60min of the game. When they had 60% possession and territory. That's before we even start talking about the yellow card and the forward pass. We're not talking about one controversial call or two. Those kind of stats are simply unheard of in our game. How many games can you think of where the incompetence of a ref is so biased towards one team? (The SA's can probably think of one.) Even under a referees review, they found 16 (I think) penalties that were clearly missed in the second half. That is a bit more than just Henry's 'say so' or complaint. Or saying they weren't awarded a few penalties they should have been.

He went to the IRB and asked if there was any protocols in place to look at a bizarre game like this. At the time, he did want to pursue it but was told by the NZRFU not to - he would blow any chance he had of coaching the ABs again if he did. So he dropped it.

Now he's telling the truth about what happened at that time in his biography. If anything, the IRB should have a process in place, if for nothing else, so that any kind of doubts about match-fixing can be 'put to bed'.

Oh, but I forgot..rugby is above that possibility ever happening....

On the face of it, you'd be suspicious. But surely if you feel strongly enough about it you'd push for an investigation, as either Henry himself or the NZRFU?

 

[Bullrush]

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.

While I would like to believe this as well (and I do actually believe it), I'm not naive enough to believe that it's a total impossibility. Who would have thought Hansie Cronjie would have thrown matches?

 

[Athilnaur]

If he's correct, then the very fabric of the game is severely damaged.

However, if Henry (or anyone else for that matter) has specific allegations to make, then let's get them on the public record and have them investigated. I don't like someone's reputation being damaged based on heresay. It's very hard to recover from that.

Or to put it another way TBH;

'the encounter could create a time paradox, the results of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space time continuum, and destroy the entire universe! Granted, that's a worse case scenario.' - Dr Emmett Brown.

 

[I like to watch]

What if he was correct?

If it's a choice between a fuck up(or incompetence) and a conspiracy, choose the fuck up as the explanation every time.

ps It's not like the ref hasn't continued that form since that game.

 

[Dam0]

Barnes is not a bad referee in general. I think he does a very good job normally, and deserves to be somewhere near the top tier of reffing .He suffers from one flaw that I have noticed and mentioned a few times to people around the place including fellow referees. Interestingly it is a flaw that I also share as a ref although I am working on it.

The flaw is that he very often bottles big decisions. I think we saw this in the recent World Cup where in 2 big games (one was the SA v Wales pool game, the other eludes me) he fails to award penalties late in the game that he would have done earlier. It was almost as if he froze and was afraid of making a game changing decision, regardless of how obvious it was. There are also more than a few occasions where he has awarded YC for obvious RC's and where he has just penalised instead of awarding YC's that I can recall discussing on other forums.

I really think that in that quarter final we saw his usual flaw exaggerated due to the pressure.

 

[Dan54]

I actually thought it was quite acceptable to accuse refs of cheating, hell at least twice a week we see refs accused of being biased/cheating to one team or another, or letting Richie/ABs get away with any amount of misdemeanours. The only thing I really know about this (heard on NZ radio last week, where they got stuck into him) apparently in an excerpt from his book he said the thought that the match had been fixed crossed his mind for a few moments after the game, haven't heard what he has said since then. So I wait to actually hear interview or read what was actually said, still it good for a bit of internet outrage and we all now know his book coming out soon!!
He should be like the Samoan Prime Minister who reportedly said he would not approve of Samoa playing at Apia Park again until they had TV, so IRB etc could see the incompetent/unfair refs that are sent down to ref them to stop them beating top teams.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

He should be like the Samoan Prime Minister who reportedly said he would not approve of Samoa playing at Apia Park again until they had TV, so IRB etc could see the incompetent/unfair refs that are sent down to ref them to stop them beating top teams.

I love it!

 

[Dam0]

He should be like the Samoan Prime Minister who reportedly said he would not approve of Samoa playing at Apia Park again until they had TV, so IRB etc could see the incompetent/unfair refs that are sent down to ref them to stop them beating top teams.

And that it's OK to throw a rock to hit the ref on the head.

Don't forget that he is also head of the Samoan Rugby Union. Seems like they do things strangely over there, here we try to stamp out referee abuse, but in Samoa it is encouraged at the very top levels.

 

[I like to watch]

Barnes is not a bad referee in general. I think he does a very good job normally, and deserves to be somewhere near the top tier of reffing .He suffers from one flaw that I have noticed and mentioned a few times to people around the place including fellow referees. Interestingly it is a flaw that I also share as a ref although I am working on it.

The flaw is that he very often bottles big decisions. I think we saw this in the recent World Cup where in 2 big games (one was the SA v Wales pool game, the other eludes me) he fails to award penalties late in the game that he would have done earlier. It was almost as if he froze and was afraid of making a game changing decision, regardless of how obvious it was. There are also more than a few occasions where he has awarded YC for obvious RC's and where he has just penalised instead of awarding YC's that I can recall discussing on other forums.

I really think that in that quarter final we saw his usual flaw exaggerated due to the pressure.

Great post, makes sense to me.

 

[Dan54]

And that it's OK to throw a rock to hit the ref on the head.

Don't forget that he is also head of the Samoan Rugby Union. Seems like they do things strangely over there, here we try to stamp out referee abuse, but in Samoa it is encouraged at the very top levels.

Yep I forgot that Dam0, he would also get a fulltime siren so crowd would know and could perhaps remind ref with a rock on the head or similar.

 

[BPC]

I asked a very specific question which you have avoided answering. What if Henry was correct?

As I said, "At this stage, whether he is correct doesn't come into it."

If he was correct but could not prove it or at least come up with sufficient evidence to suggest it warranted investigation then it doesn't matter whether he was correct or not. Justice is about process as much as outcome.

Then he got incredibly lucky because he is just speculating.

Regardless, it is a ridiculous accusation to make because it is just his opinion without any evidence to back it up.

Saying that his team weren't awarded penalties they deserved is not evidence.

Exactly.

OK..let's get this shit straight. Henry analysed a game where the ref missed (by his reckoning) 40 penalties against his team and didn't award one in their favour for the last 60min of the game. When they had 60% possession and territory. That's before we even start talking about the yellow card and the forward pass. We're not talking about one controversial call or two. Those kind of stats are simply unheard of in our game. How many games can you think of where the incompetence of a ref is so biased towards one team? (The SA's can probably think of one.) Even under a referees review, they found 16 (I think) penalties that were clearly missed in the second half. That is a bit more than just Henry's 'say so' or complaint. Or saying they weren't awarded a few penalties they should have been.

It is a long bow between missed penalties and match-rigging. You have conceded Henry was not in any way objective as he claimed 40 errors and a review found 16. While 16 errors is far from ideal in any test-level match, what is the link from errors to fraud (match-fixing)? Where is the evidence of motive or intent? Where is the evidence that penalties were deliberately overlooked or awarded falsely? Is it the number of errors that suggests fraud? If so, what is the magic number? 10? 15? Is there any analysis of numbers of errors in other matches and whether the number of errors was so great as to only be explained by intent rather than negligence? All of that is missing. The only thing I draw from Henry's analysis is that there were a large number of errors, therefore it must have been deliberate. That is just juvenile.

BPC: You're also exaggerating what actually happened, which suggests that you have an inflexible view on the situation. He didn't "demand" anything from what I can tell. This is the first I've heard of the incident, and he asked the NZRU, quietly, with no scene, to press it further because he believed something was wrong.

According to the original article, "He told them he believed, given the graphic video evidence available, that the NZRU should pressure the International Rugby Board to institute an inquiry". He made a demand of the NZRU to take it further. Luckily for him, the NZRU had more sense.

So to sum up, assume "cock-up before conspiracy".

 

[Bullrush]

It is a long bow between missed penalties and match-rigging. You have conceded Henry was not in any way objective as he claimed 40 errors and a review found 16. While 16 errors is far from ideal in any test-level match, what is the link from errors to fraud (match-fixing)? Where is the evidence of motive or intent? Where is the evidence that penalties were deliberately overlooked or awarded falsely? Is it the number of errors that suggests fraud? If so, what is the magic number? 10? 15? Is there any analysis of numbers of errors in other matches and whether the number of errors was so great as to only be explained by intent rather than negligence? All of that is missing. The only thing I draw from Henry's analysis is that there were a large number of errors, therefore it must have been deliberate. That is just juvenile.

Henry counted 40 for the whole gameand the referee panel counted 16 over a certain time period I think but that's missing the point. The point is that the ref missed a lot - mostly one way.

You must not watch a lot of rugby if you don't think that these numbers don't look a little strange:

ABs 60% possession and territory.
Nil penalties awarded in last 60 mins.
Minimum 16 penalties missed under a referee review.
Missed forward pass leading to game-winning try.

It's not as if there were just as many poor judgements that were against the French. This was a case of incompetence that largely favoured one team. This is not about a 'magic number' of penalties but about looking at all the facts and saying that this game was quite strange. Trying to reduce it to just counting penalties is juvenile.

Henry asked if there is any protocol for looking at games like this and I don't understand why that is a bad questions. Match-fixing has happened in international cricket, FA Cup football, NBA basketball, UEFA Cup, baseball's World Series......why is it so silly to have some sort of process that looks at rugby for possible instances? How 'incompetent' does a ref have to be before we start to consider the possibility of something more sinister?

 

[fatprop]

I think this all goes back to the All Blacks mind set.

You never actually beat the All Blacks, you just score more points than they do.