Posts by Andy Milne

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Speaker: It's the recrimination I don't…,

    Obviously, the first sentence of para 2 should read "significant impact on the result" or possiblly "significant impact on the outcome". I don't really remember what I meant to say actually, hard to type and watch Flight of the Conchords at the same time.

    Christchurch • Since Aug 2007 • 59 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: It's the recrimination I don't…,

    why can't you acknowledge that the referee's performance also had a significant impact on the result?

    Look, I don't want for a minute to come off as a cheerleader for Wayne Barnes. Clearly some of his decisions were marginal at best (yellow card) or very liberal (offside? What's that?) but at least in the latter area he was consistent. I don't mind conceding that it wasn't a brilliant performance from him.

    But referees ALWAYS have a significant outcome on the result. You'll recall that the game we are discussing is rugby union, a game with more laws than many developed nations, and even more possible interpretations. Sometimes the refs get it right, sometimes not so much. Arguments along the lines of "these are professional referees, paid to get it right" are just nonsense. How many other professionals do you know who don't make mistakes? You'll never take the human element out of the officiating unless you have the game refereed by robots. (Tangent: or PLAYED by robots too! Now that would be cool...)

    My point, and I do have one, is that the ABs had only themselves (and a passionate french team) to blame for the loss. To blame Barnes for the final try is to excuse the weak tackling that allowed the pass to be made in the first place. To blame Barnes for not penalising the persistent French offending at the fringes of the ruck is to ignore the fact that the ABs never changed their tactics when it should have been obvious that the hit-ups weren't working.

    I guess what annoys me most about the post-mortem of any major ABs defeat is that, miraculously, its almost NEVER the because they were out-thought or outplayed by a better team. If only the ref hadn't been blind/inexperienced/biased, then the All Blacks would have won. Well, bollocks. The French won and should be congratulated. Simple as that.

    And Warwick, had the French been on the wrong end of a dodgy call that ultimately cost them the game, would you be here bleating about how they'd been stitched up? No of course not, because clearly, the "best team" would have won.

    Christchurch • Since Aug 2007 • 59 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: It's the recrimination I don't…,

    I'm saying the ref had an undue and disgraceful influence on the outcome.

    Exactly right. It was the ref who stopped us scoring tries despite our glut of posession. It was the ref who decided we should let Rokocoko and Sivivatu become passengers in the second half. It was the ref who decided we should persevere in trying to grind out a forwards try when we were 20metres out from the french line and a drop-goal was on. It was the ref who decided McAlister should wait til he was 50 metres out before he remebered the other way to score 3 points. It all makes perfect sense now - WE WUZ ROBBED! Just wait - Barnes will get a gold watch from the Presidend of the French RFU for a job well done.

    Christchurch • Since Aug 2007 • 59 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: It's the recrimination I don't…,

    Hey! I was moving from 'bargaining' to 'acceptance' this morning, and you ruined it by being all mean!

    In hindsight, I think all the cr@p I heard on radio sport yesterday afternoon may have influenced how I read the comments this morning. Yes, yes, I understand listening to Murray Deaker may cause irreversable harm, and I promise never to do it again.

    Christchurch • Since Aug 2007 • 59 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: It's the recrimination I don't…,

    But would you really say that it wasn't the best team who won on the day, is that what you take out of the game?

    Well judging by some of the comments here, thats exactly what people are taking from the game. Wah wah, the ref cost us the game, the french were offside all day, wah.

    Grow up. The AB's lost the game not because of the referee's inadequacies, but their own. Yes the French scored points that a different referee may not have allowed, but the fact is that the ABs failed to respond to the circumstances they found themselves in. So the french defence was "up flat"? Then try chipping over the top and exploiting the space beyond. Carlos McAlister tried that once, successfully, in the first half, and yet the tactic was never repeated. When they were 20 metres out with 3 mins to play, why did they not set for the drop-goal instead of hammering away fruitlessly with pick n goes? The real fault lies with the option-taking and decision making, not the officiating.

    The referee's decisions only appear important due to the AB's inability to score points. Had the ABs made better tactical decisions and converted 70% possesion and 60% territory into points, then one missed forward pass wouldn't have mattered a jot. You can't have 70% of the ball and then claim it was the ref's fault you lost. 70%!!

    The fact is, we were beaten by a superior side. They made the most of the little ball they had, and put pressure on the ABs and didn't allow them to play the style of rugby they wanted to.

    Christchurch • Since Aug 2007 • 59 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: God is in the numbers,

    Personally, I'm feeling quite relaxed about this tournament. What I find most reassuring is that Messrs Henry, Hansen & Smith appear to have learned from the lessons of history, and won't repeat mistakes that have cost us dearly in previous years. For example

    1999: Our best fullback is switched to centre. We lose.

    2003: Our best fullback is switched to centre. We lose.

    2007: Our best fullback is switched to centre.

    So all you pessimists and naysayers can relax, safe in the knowledge that Henry, Hansen & Smith have everything figured out. We've got this one in the bag!

    Christchurch • Since Aug 2007 • 59 posts Report Reply

  • Speaker: Like something out of Braveheart,

    Free whisky? Well, if you insist!

    "RWC 2007. You can't spell Drama.. without DRAM"

    Wassat you say? Not my best work? ah well, best be off then...

    Christchurch • Since Aug 2007 • 59 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Deriving satisfaction from…,

    Opps, I forgot the big B in Brother.

    Thanks Kowhai. But I'm just a brother with a little b. A little brother maybe?

    Sorry, I'll just get me coat...

    Christchurch • Since Aug 2007 • 59 posts Report Reply

  • Hard News: Deriving satisfaction from…,

    Speaking as a Christian, I'm HUGELY relieved the wheels have come off so quickly. The very idea of a "christian" party makes me uncomfortable, with or without Bishop B's involvement. As Colin Espiner pointed out on his blog (i'm too new at this to attempt to link to it but someone might help a brother out?), A "christian" political party kinda implies we all think the same and would vote the same. You know, just like all Maori vote for the Maori party. ;-)

    Christchurch • Since Aug 2007 • 59 posts Report Reply

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Older→ First