Sorry, this story is unavailable
@safehands, sorry, just couldn't resist a last observation: you realise your description of "pulling a France" could easily be applied to SBW...
(I guess, in your world-view, any negative character traits must be the result of having spent a season at Toulon. After all, anyone who grew up in Mount Albert couldn't possibly be flawed)
Posted 18:38 07th August 2012
@rugby rockstar just shows with your post your are not up with the play and your views as expressed show your own myopic bias.
To inform you of the situation you have no worries.
First Walsh is a NZ er who has moved to Australia after having his contract revoked by the NZRFU. However as the IRB has a policy of so called neutral referees it has already been made known that Walsh will not be appointed to any games that NZ play. How long this ban lasts remains to be seen. Secondly the referees for the Rugby Championship have already been appointed and the referrees for the NZ vs SA games are Clancy,unfortunately, in NZ and Rolland in SA. For the NZ and Argentina games it is Poite in NZ and Peyper in Argentina.
Walsh does receive two appointments in the SA vs Argentina as he cant referee either NZ or Australia. Seems the new selection panel have confidence in Walsh, rugby rockstar even if you don't. However they also have confidence in Clancy even if I think he is a shocking referee. lol. Although this year, though, he doesn't have Muewessen to lead him astray.
Posted 13:17 07th August 2012
@safehands. No worries! It's your world-view, as you say. And interesting to see it so clearly stated, with no attempt to dilute it. Thank you.
My personal interest is in how people come to believe what they believe. Call it my weakness (or research field). Social scientists in the 1970s broadly outlined 2 aspects of human nature and the universal processes of cognition. 1st, people are generally rational, and their thinking is normally sound. 2nd, emotions such as affection, fear, and hatred explain most of the occasions on which people depart from rationality. And then, of course, there are the well documented "heuristic traps" of availability, pareidolia, texas sharpshooter, and so forth, which affect us all.
Might I suggest you read the article "Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases" by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. It's only 10 pages, but it's something of a classic in the field, having attracted comment in over 300 scholarly articles last year alone, despite having been written in the early 1970s. Oh, and it also won its co-authors the Nobel Prize!
Hand in hand, one cannot overlook the role of the media. People are known to mistake the relative importance of topics by the ease with which they can be retrieved from memory - which itself is mostly determined by the extent of coverage in the media. In turn, what the media choose to report corresponds to their view of what is currently in the public's mind. And public interest is most aroused by 1) dramatic events and/or 2) celebrities. Put both together and you have a perfect storm! Again, if you allow, there was a really short but interesting speech given by Noam Chomsky in 2003 at the 15th anniversary dinner in NYC of the Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting Society. It is transcribed as "Journalist from Mars". I fear we are all part of the "bewildered herd"
Happy reading :-)
Posted 10:04 07th August 2012
@Rosbif.....yup...it's my new catchphrase which I will use for every sport around the world for when a team either;
(a) doesn't perform consistently well in a competition, comes from way behind and ends up in a final, or far worse by comparison
(b) simply can't be bothered to play for the love of their country and somehow end up in a position to actually be able to achieve something great, ala France in the RWC 2011. Suddenly they then decide to 'turn it on' and sneak a win against more fancied opposition and accept all the plaudits for being the heroes who downed the favourites for the title.
And the only reason they turn it on is for their own personal glory and not for the privilege of representing their country, ala the shambolic ¿stars¿ of the most recent French soccer and rugby national teams....of which I am glad success came to none of them. I don't believe in French flair champ, just French arrogance...so sue me!!
Now before all the Sharks people get all hot under the collar, I agree they were one of the top sides in the latter stages of the S15 (they are better than the Bulls, Reds and Stormers anyway imo), but in the early rounds they were pants and that is why they were forced to travel. More consistency = home final and a better chance of success. I do wish them luck next year as they have knocked on the door 4 times now without much luck and have the most congenial supporters in SA.
Posted 06:01 07th August 2012
There are a number of issues here. Lets look at them all.
Yes there were a number of off the ball incidents but these were not confined to the Chiefs. Sorry John you only saw what you wanted to see and come across as another whining kiwi.
However I too found it strange that Walsh did not penalise those infringing and asking Cruden to pass on a request to another team mate to stop infringing is bizarre. I too do not believe this is the way to manage a game. However the suggestion that he did not see the infringement by Tameifuna because he didnt want to is an indictment on that writer. I suppose that his assistants Craig Joubert and Keith Brown also decided not to flag the incident because they too decided they didn't want to.
Finally the travel I'm at a loss as to how this can be overcome this problem when our countries are so far away from each other. However the on way that it can be overcome is by finishing higher up the order. I did not hear John saying that his team's loss to the lowly Lions in the final series of games was one of the reasons he faced such travel.
However to be fair the fact the Reds were able to gain so much just by being a conference leader does need to be looked at. I totally agree with Fattysock that this rule shafted the Sharks and cause all this travel. Unless a conference leader earns the points they should not get a home play off. Once again O'Neill has shafted us all.
In the end there are a number of issues that can and should be sorted and the first is that of a conference winner getting a home play off despite where they end on the overall table, this year it was an OZ team but it should also apply equally if it is a kiwi or saffa team. Only Walsh can answer why he made some bizarre decisions no doubt his review will make him think about this in his future refereeing. John you do need to be more objective on the team transgressions.
Posted 12:39 06th August 2012
Also have to say that if walsh is appointed to ref a NZ Vs SA, SA vs NZ, Arg vs NZ or NZ vs ARG test match in the coming months then I won't even waste my time watching it because it won't be a sporting competition. Once bitten, twice shy. Nothing against the wonderful All Blacks but everyone already knows who'll win with Walsh blowing the whistle.
Posted 10:58 06th August 2012
Well done Cheifs, their season long game plan was executed well and they won well and deservedly. I totally agree that steve walsh was poor though and kiwi-centric. He's got an extreme veiw of how the game should be played and that makes him a terrible referee if you have two conflicting styles of play colliding on the pitch because the team who plays rugby the way he likes it played will always win. The biggest deal here is that Super Rugby appointed Walsh to ref a SA vs NZ match in the first place. Best referee they said, not in a million years, blatantly obivously NOT the best ref due to his narrow view and prejudices about how rugby union should be played. I also saw him turn a blind eye towards crooked feeding at the scrum and players diving off their feet to seal off ruck ball. the final was a mess from a refereeing point of view. yet more proof that matches are refereed according to the eccentricities of individual referees rather than a consistant world wide approach to the game and thats something the referees association and the IRB need to look at becasue they are failing to deliver fair games. Walsh should not have been appointed so I'm laying the blame at the door step of the tournament organsiers. It probably would have been a much more exciting game if neutrals felt that the Sharks had been given a fair crack at the whip. as it was I think the best team won but thanks to Walshes extreme and kiwi-centric interpretation of the laws the game was never allowed to become a sporting contest. we tuned in for that contest and what we got was a damp squib of a match. a pretty mediocre way to sign off on the 2012 super rugby season. As a neutral I can't see it living on in the memory for very long.
Posted 10:50 06th August 2012
Rugby players, especially backrows and scrumhalfs, push the boundaries until they're pinged by the ref. If he doesn't ping, they push a bit more. And so on.
And the players have to adapt to the ref and the way he's officiating. If all other factors are equal, it'll be the team which adapts best that will win. In this case, other factors weren't equal and the Sharks were well beaten.
Posted 10:14 06th August 2012
@safehands. boy, you really can't help yourself can you? now we have to learn an entirely new lexicon. "Pulling off a France"... which in your psycho-babble means something about cheating/whinging/not being worthy, and is now a universal term that can be applied to any team (club/provincial/franchise/national) facing your beloved countrymen.
I guess "doing a New Zealand" means being rather spiffingly brilliant and dandy at everything you do?
(unless you're Plumtree, in which case, you're some kind of "Taranaki traitor"....)
Posted 09:55 06th August 2012
Funny that Plumtree ans Saffer posters wish to point out refs missed Chiefs potential penalties, the Sharks were ahead of the hindmost foot of the Ruck for the entire first 20 mins, and no body decides to mention it???
Posted 09:21 06th August 2012
agree with plumtree... chiefs have done it all season and refs have only warned them rather than penalised them. While everyone knows the rules re the playoffs .. i agree a 2 week break between semi and final needs to be looked at.. but thats the prize for topping the table i guess
Posted 09:13 06th August 2012
From a nuetral perspective the best team won, however Mr walsh is a bad ref, foul play should be penalised not discussed with players who are not even captain. I am not speaking of minor indiscretions but dangerous tackles, if these go by without any action by the officials then sooner or later someone will die, professional players know the rules, why is there a need to talk about it?
Posted 08:57 06th August 2012
Chiefs were all over Sharks after the 1st 15 minutes and well deserved winners. That said, Plumtree's remarks are understandable-- while Chiefs were infringing -holding on to defenders etc Walsh was sporadically asking them please to stop doing it, at one stage even asked Cruden (who was not the captain) to ask his teammates not to infringe. When a player infringes the ref blows a penalty Steve, not only against one side. J du Plessis collected a stiff arm swing to the schnozz and was then penalised for pushing the culprit in the chest! Even the Kiwi commentators were puzzled. Walsh did not see the head -high swing at Kankowski?--chose not to see more like it. Lucky for Steve the last three quarters of the game was so one -sided or we might have seen some hard decisions having to be made.
Posted 07:21 06th August 2012
Btw, is "Cynical Chiefs" Plumtree's assessment or Planet Rugby's?
More clarity, or more care, please.
Posted 07:00 06th August 2012
New Zealanders hate serial jersey-pullers, so I would be very disappointed if the Chiefs were doing it continually. But let's face it, all teams engage in such gamesmanship to a degree; we tend to notice it only when we're its victims. John Plumtree ought to know that any jersey-pulling didn't affect the game.
I am glad, however, that he has brought up the issue of travel. I remember his frequent and eloquent denunciations of what the Crusaders had to endure last season -- over to South Africa for a semifinal and back to Brisbane the following weekend. Oh, did nobody hear Plumtree on that occasion? Strange.
Seriously, if Plumtree wants to avoid the travel, he should get out of the Super XV, or ensure his team don't make the playoffs. Either that or come top.
Posted 06:58 06th August 2012
Are you kidding me Plumtree?? A coach of a saffa rugby side having the temerity to accuse other teams of 'off the ball stuff' and offsides....hahaha....surely you jest sir....SA teams are notorius the world over for all their off the ball nonsense plus rather....uumm....flat defensive lines shall we say!? Surprised the usual saffa whinge about cheating refs hasn't come out yet (probably on its way though)....Walsh was excellent and is most likely the best ref in the world right now. Yup, even better than Joubert. The Chiefs are simply a better team than the Sharks, not just Saturday but all season...FACT!!
Don't like the travel factor Plumtree? Simple solution...get your team to play better during the year, win your group and book a home spot in the finals. Don't play the game knowing the rules beforehand and whine about it after when things don't go your way, cos guaranteed you would have been lapping up all the praises had the Sharks somehow fluked a win against the Chiefs. The fact is your team simply weren't/aren't good enough to beat the Chiefs. case in point...they deservedly beat you at home in this year's comp too...remember?
Sharks were hoping to pull off a France ala the RWC, play crap at the start of the tourny, play a few decent games and then try to snaffle the final away from the better team to look like hereos....well I for one am very pleased that in both cases the lesser team lost.
Posted 06:06 06th August 2012
There is vast difference between 'operating in the grey areas of the law' and deliberately and cynically operating in the black areas of the law in the hope that you won't be caught. Remember that in the modern game, the 'game managers' are the referee, the assistant-referees and the Captains. The players also need to take responsibility and manage themselves on the field.
Posted 05:57 06th August 2012
Yes the Chiefs were on the edge, but so were the Sharks... have a look at the game again and see how many times that Kerr-Barlow was being hauled into the ruck in order to slow the pace of the ball down?
Posted 23:38 05th August 2012
Every team does it in every sport. All players can do is adapt to the referee. There were so few set pieces however it had very little bearing on the game and it's outcome.
Posted 22:09 05th August 2012
PDV version 2.0 :)
Posted 21:38 05th August 2012
|All times are local|
|Friday , May 24|
|Chiefs vs Crusaders|
|Melbourne Rebels vs Waratahs|
|Saturday , May 25|
|Blues vs Brumbies||08:35|
|Western Force vs Highlanders||10:40|
|Southern Kings vs Cheetahs||16:00|
|Stormers vs Reds||16:05|
|Sharks vs Bulls||18:10|
|Friday , May 31|
|Crusaders vs Waratahs||08:35|
|Brumbies vs Hurricanes||10:40|
|Saturday , June 1|
|Highlanders vs Blues||08:35|
|More Super Rugby fixtures|
|All times are local|
|Saturday , May 18|
|Crusaders 23 - 3 Blues|
|Waratahs 28 - 22 Brumbies|
|Bulls 35 - 18 Highlanders|
|Cheetahs 27 - 13 Reds|
|Friday , May 17|
|Hurricanes 12 - 17 Chiefs|
|Melbourne Rebels 30 - 21 Stormers|
|Western Force 13 - 23 Sharks|
|Saturday , May 11|
|Blues 36 - 32 Melbourne Rebels|
|Waratahs 21 - 15 Stormers|
|Southern Kings 34 - 27 Highlanders|
|More Super Rugby results|