Ted think losses are Match Fixing

[I like to watch]

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?

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..

If Ted just asked what is the protocol for looking at games like this. What was the point in poring over a video of the game frame by frame to identify any decisions that were unfavourable?
It defies logic that he spent a week or whatever, with no intention to do anything with it.
I'll go with BPC's version.

 

[Bullrush]

If Ted just asked what is the protocol for looking at games like this. What was the point in poring over a video of the game frame by frame to identify any decisions that were unfavourable?
It defies logic that he spent a week or whatever, with no intention to do anything with it.
I'll go with BPC's version.

He actually did both. When he was told that there was/is no current protocol, he asked the NZRFU to pursue but they wouldn't and he would lose any chance of coaching the ABs again if he continued to.

If we take Henry out of the frame though, is it a bad idea to ask this question and look at some sort of process?

 

[Hawko]

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?

There's a lot in this post.

1. Some of the worst examples of match fixing have come in national football competitions and have involved team management and referees. China and Italy have probably had the worst of it but Eastern Europe has not been squeaky clean either. It actually does happen and every major sports organisation should have protocols to guard against it and review systems to identify it.
2. If there is such a process its kept as such a big secret that even high ranking officials don't know about it. But given there have been a lot of other anomalous performances, there probably is not a process to review anomalous results. There has been no whisper of such a process despite Kaplan's appalling record against the Tahs, the refereeing of the Samoan's in the WC game a few years back or Bryce Lawrences performance in the last WC game SA vs Aust. No one appears to have investigated Bryce Lawrence's "who do I like today?" method of reffing at all. That speaks to me of utter naievety amongst the top management of the IRB. It might be harder to engineer a result in rugby but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened or won't happen.
3. Coming back to Henry's role, he was right to raise it the way he did then. It was wrong of the NZ Board not to take it further. It could have been done in-confidence, especially if the right protocols existed within the IRB. Who knows, maybe there was a nasty illegality behind the anomalous performance, we'll likely never know now.
4. But Henry should not have raised the matter again. The right time to do it was when the incident happened. To raise it now just besmirches people's reputations as nothing can now be done to deal with it. You need to obtain hard evidence and its way too late to gather any now.

I return to the point I made a few pages back. The referee review system not only has to work (I would argue it doesn't anyway) but it has to be seen to be working for there to be confidence in the whole process. This Super season we have seen Lyndon Bray try to do this with after-game pronouncements on controversial decisions. But the end result has been less than satisfactory because the pronouncements have been ad-hoc and other than a few commisserating words, nothing really seems to have been done. Despite his match-changing blunder in round 1, and knowing that there was already history from last year, Ian Smith continued to be appointed to AR roles at Waratah games. That doesn't make sense. There were plenty of alternative games he could have done to continue his development without the appearance that the review process had given him a clean bill of health.

Until the review process is better and more transparent, the game will continue to be stuck with anomalies and innuendo. Some people (especially those with close involvement) might not like more openness in the process but the game would be better for it.

 

[BPC]

He actually did both. When he was told that there was/is no current protocol, he asked the NZRFU to pursue but they wouldn't and he would lose any chance of coaching the ABs again if he continued to.

If we take Henry out of the frame though, is it a bad idea to ask this question and look at some sort of process?

There probably should be some sort of review process, although not limited to match-fixing/fraud as that is too narrow. For example, it might pick up systemic problems such as the twit who deliberately cut himself to get a blood-bin interchange, teams that deliberately fake injuries to slow a game (like the Cheetahs/Tahs a few years ago), tanking to get a better finals draw or abnormally bad refereeing that requires intervention (any match with Bryce Lawrence).

I just don't feel comfortable with Henry losing the match, seeing a number of errors and leaping from that to match-fixing by a referee.
Henry apparently that that he briefly contemplated match-fixing as the only logical explanation. That is the part I have trouble swallowing as error is far more likely.

I think that it was not unreasonable for Henry to express a concern privately to the NZRU who took a more dispassionate view and reached the correct conclusion that it was not a matter to pursue. I do have a problem with Henry, years later, spilling his guts publicly on this issue. It was a concern that was considered and rightly excluded in 2007 and for Henry to now bring it up, with no supporting evidence of fraud on the part of Barnes, just reeks of bitterness and an attempt to deflect blame.

I would have been happier if Henry had said that he was very disappointed in the quality of the refereeing and thought it should be investigated as to whether Barnes was up to it/the appointment system didn't work without going so far as to allege match-fixing.

 

[Bullrush]

I agree - error is far more likely.

I understand that some will always think that Henry shouldn't have 'spilled his guts' but to me, this is just one part of a biography where the point is to tell your story. This is what actually happened, what Henry actually thought and felt at those times. He also reveals that he suffered from depression in Wales, that he took the Lions for the wrong reasons and should never have taken that job and that there was a massive binge-drinking culture in the All Blacks when he took over.

The last one, for me, is massive and something I didn't know until now. Henry took over from Mitchell and Deans who must have known about this culture and seemed to have done nothing about it. Henry came in and was pretty adamant that it had to be stopped. I've said here before that one of the things that Henry talked about early in his AB tenure was his belief that better people made for better rugby players.

Whether he should or shouldn't have 'come clean' on his match-fixing suspicions I don't know. I don't think it really 'taints' anyone as no-one really seems to take him seriously on it anyway but I reckon if Deans took on the same philosophy around some of his players (squashing the binge-drinking), the Wallabies would be better off for it.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

is it a bad idea to ask this question and look at some sort of process?

No and I share his incredulity that there wasn't a protocol for dealing with the potential for it. I wont be including it in my memoirs, though.

 

[I like to watch]

IS,Do you have a release date for your memoirs yet?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

IS,Do you have a release date for your memoirs yet?

NO...I'm waiting for something to happen worth including....maybe the Tahs will ring!

 

[BPC]

I understand that some will always think that Henry shouldn't have 'spilled his guts' but to me, this is just one part of a biography where the point is to tell your story. This is what actually happened, what Henry actually thought and felt at those times.

I appreciate that argument but where he is throwing out an accusation tantamount to criminality, which he now seems to realise is baseless, he should have kept his mouth shut. There are ways to complain about lousy refereeing without calling the referee involved a criminal.

.. there was a massive binge-drinking culture in the All Blacks when he took over.

The last one, for me, is massive and something I didn't know until now. Henry took over from Mitchell and Deans who must have known about this culture and seemed to have done nothing about it. Henry came in and was pretty adamant that it had to be stopped.

Didn't Anton Oliver come out some time ago and slam Mitchell for not just condoning but actively encouraging the drinking culture?

 

[BPC]

Mitchell famously fell out with his All Blacks manager Andrew Martin, who at the time was, technically, his boss; something Mitchell could not and would not accept. Martin delivered an unflattering portrait of Mitchell in his controversial biography.
And Martin wasn't alone, with Cullen, Tana Umaga, Anton Oliver and team doctor John Mayhew all following suit in their respective biographies. All cited concerns around the team's booze culture.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/799906/The-mystery-of-John-Mitchell

 

[Dam0]

The last one, for me, is massive and something I didn't know until now. Henry took over from Mitchell and Deans who must have known about this culture and seemed to have done nothing about it. Henry came in and was pretty adamant that it had to be stopped. I've said here before that one of the things that Henry talked about early in his AB tenure was his belief that better people made for better rugby players.

Didn't Anton Oliver come out some time ago and slam Mitchell for not just condoning but actively encouraging the drinking culture?

Both Mitchell and Deans strike me as the sort of coaches who think that a good court session will solve all ills. Maybe it did 20 years ago or in a "Senior Reserve B" side but these days it is inappropriate.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Mitchell famously fell out with his All Blacks manager Andrew Martin, who at the time was, technically, his boss; something Mitchell could not and would not accept. Martin delivered an unflattering portrait of Mitchell in his controversial biography.
And Martin wasn't alone, with Cullen, Tana Umaga, Anton Oliver and team doctor John Mayhew all following suit in their respective biographies. All cited concerns around the team's booze culture.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/799906/The-mystery-of-John-Mitchell

I have met Andrew Martin. He is a hulking ex prop with a very strong personality, having played first class rugby for a couple of NZ ITM provinces. He moved around from place to place because of his career as an Infantry Officer in the Army and the frequent postings.

I'm not sure that I would want to tussle too much with him. The sessions between Mitchell and Martin must have been rather colourful.

IIRC there were issues with some of the Darkness players around the time of Mitchell involving grog. "Storming Norman" Hewitt springs to mind, and I think there was another lad from Otage who's name escapes me and google ATM. It all seems to fall into place now.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Mitchell famously fell out with his All Blacks manager Andrew Martin, who at the time was, technically, his boss; something Mitchell could not and would not accept. Martin delivered an unflattering portrait of Mitchell in his controversial biography.
And Martin wasn't alone, with Cullen, Tana Umaga, Anton Oliver and team doctor John Mayhew all following suit in their respective biographies. All cited concerns around the team's booze culture.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/799906/The-mystery-of-John-Mitchell

I have met Andrew Martin. He is a hulking ex prop with a very strong personality, having played first class rugby for a couple of NZ ITM provinces. He moved around from place to place because of his career as an Infantry Officer in the Army and the frequent postings.

I'm not sure that I would want to tussle too much with him. The sessions between Mitchell and Martin must have been rather colourful.

IIRC there were issues with some of the Darkness players around the time of Mitchell involving grog. "Storming Norman" Hewitt springs to mind, and I think there was another lad from Otage who's name escapes me and google ATM. It all seems to fall into place now.

if this information was available in published biographies it makes you (well it makes me) wonder why Mitchell was given the gig with the Force. But also Deans was his assistant: my signature below identifies the applicable theme. What did he do to stop it?
Having said that, and in slightly different circumstances, Zac Guilford's performance involving a motor scooter and little else suggest a drinking culture may persist.....

 

[p.Tah]

My opinion of Henry has plummeted lately. The loss in 2007 is a major blemish on Henry's career. He cannot fathom that NZ lost. His ego couldn't accept it, so the 'only logical' conclusion was match fixing. He has now attempted to deflect the criticism by sowing the idea that it was external forces plotting against him and his team, therefore it wasn't his coaching it was the match fixers. He conveniently ignores the fact that for the last 5 minutes NZ had the chance to win the game with a drop goal but they chose to push for a try. A failure of the coach to send the message to the team? No, I'm sure the 'match fixers' use mind altering ray guns that jam any drop goal thoughts by the NZ players.

His latest comment

Sir Graham said he analysed the quarter-final and felt "physically ill" after watching the first half.

"I spewed in the toilets ... I was just bloody amazed," he said.

"It was completely outside anything I had experienced before. And I just thought you know, match-fixing, sports betting - and that's what I put in the book, and it's caused a huge bloody furore."

Sir Graham said he mentioned his "gut feeling" to the New Zealand Rugby Union and was told not to pursue it any further with the International Rugby Board.

"Their advice was right. Otherwise if I'd pushed the point at that time, I would never have coached the All Blacks again.

"To coach the All Blacks again was a surprise to me."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10825340

So he felt strong enough to raise the match fixing conspiracy with the NZRU on a 'gut feeling' but not strong enough to push the point because it would jeopardise his chance of retaining the coaching role. Then after his career is finished he raises the 'gut feel' when he is trying to sell a book. Now that's a man of principles.

 

[Scott Allen]

I love a challenge!

I've now analysed this game frame by frame and by the end of next week will publish a detailed assessment of Graham Henry's view of what happened.

There are some very interesting details that I believe show the claims about what impact decisions had on the score in the game to be ....

 

[Gagger]

Look out!

 

[mark_s]

I love a challenge!

I've now analysed this game frame by frame and by the end of next week will publish a detailed assessment of Graham Henry's view of what happened.

There are some very interesting details that I believe show the claims about what impact decisions had on the score in the game to be ..

frame by frame, sheesh. How many frames are there in a typical game, a zilllion?

 

[Gagger]

it's actually how I like to watch everything - skipping frames kinda sucks

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Stumbled on this whilst looking for something else.

The clever sausages at IRB have already thought about Match Fixing and have provision to deal with it (allegedly) within the Illegal and/or Foul Play and Misconduct provisions of Regulation 17.

REGULATION 17. ILLEGAL AND/OR FOUL PLAY AND MISCONDUCT

17.21 Misconduct

17.21.1 Unions are responsible and accountable for the conduct of their Players, officials and all Persons under their jurisdiction. Unions, Players and Persons must conduct themselves in a disciplined and sporting manner and ensure that they do not commit an act or acts or Misconduct.
For the purposes of this Regulation, Misconduct shall mean any conduct, behaviour or practices on or off the playing enclosure in connection with an International Match, International Tour or International Tournament (excluding Foul Play during a Match) that is unsporting and/or unruly and/or ill-disciplined and/or that brings or has the potential to bring the sport of Rugby Union, the IRB and/or its commercial partners into disrepute.

17.21.2 It is not possible to provide a definitive and exhaustive list of the types of conduct, behaviour, statements or practices that may amount to Misconduct under these Regulations. By way of illustration, each of the following types of conduct is an example of Misconduct:
...snip...
(d) seeking or accepting any bribe or other benefit to fix a Match, International Tour, International Tournament or series of Matches or to achieve a contrived outcome to a Match, International Tour, International Tournament or series of Matches or to otherwise influence improperly the outcome of any dimension of aspect of any Match, Tour, Tournament or series of Matches;

 

[No4918]

Having just seen the book I think the publisher really could have chosen better photos. If you think he looks smug enough on the front wait until you see the back.