Tony Johnson
Before we start treating an All Blacks victory in Brisbane as a fait accompli its worth considering a few things.
It is true that the Wallabies are in a state of disarray, and must be vulnerable.
Their legacy of player power has come back to bite them, and it is extraordinary that their captain should be publically defending a repeat offending player ahead of the team unit, and by extension the coach.
Ewen McKenzie has tried to take a firm line in the past, but despite his strong actions on the end of year tour last year has been unable to instil a sense of no nonsense in the team.
Sky Sports
From this distance it’s hard to tell whether it’s a case of him losing the support of his team, or whether the team is split with some for and others against.
He not only has to deal with that, but also a media contingent that pushed his case relentlessly during the Deans era but appears already to be clearing a path for his replacement by Waratahs coach Michael Cheika.
Yes, it looks like a very dysfunctional family right now, and one can only imagine there are two possible outcomes in Brisbane. Either they fire in defiance and cause the All Blacks all manner of bother, even win the game, or they continue to implode and cop a hiding.
You would suspect the chaos in the Wallaby ranks might have the All Blacks licking their chops at the prospect of an easy kill, but I rather suspect the state of affairs will have the coaching staff a little uneasy.
They’re expected to win, and if they don’t it will be damaging. Back to back losses right now would not be a good thing a year out from the World Cup.
They will have to be very careful to manage what cricket coach David Trist used to refer to as “arousal issues”.
This game is sandwiched rather awkwardly between an energy sapping, gut busting, rapid fire round the world trip to Argentina and South Africa and an end of year tour that starts enticingly in Chicago.
Already this year they have produced a sub-par effort in Australia and it cost them a win. They will need to be well up for this, regardless of the perceived state of the Wallabies.
On another matter there has been much talk since the Johannesburg test about the TMO call against Liam Messam and the role of the TV director in bringing the incident to the attention of the crowd, the players and the referee via a succession of replays on the big screen.
In the end it was a fair penalty, but the danger is in ensuring that incidents are treated consistently.
The case that leaps to mind is that of the Millennium Stadium and All Black tests in 2009 and 2010.
In 2009 Dan Carter made a desperate try scoring tackle that was shown at least 6 times on the big screen. It was high without being life threatening, and worthy of a penalty, which did not happen at the time. However passions were so inflamed after the repeat screenings that the citing commissioner was leaned on heavily to cite Carter and he was duly banned for a game.
And yet a year later, when at the very same stadium, in a game covered by exactly the same TV company, Andy Powell swung a full blooded roundhouse, closed fist, into Richie McCaw’s face near the end of the game, in the guise of a “tackle”, it was neither replayed on the big screen, nor acted upon, despite being a far more injurious act than that committed by Carter.
My point is if such incidents are to be treated in the same inconsistent and clearly parochial manner as seen in the Cardiff tests in particular, then we will have a new type of bush justice.
It might be best that replays on the big screen for anything controversial should only be aired at the request of the ref, his assistants, or the TMO.
It is their job to run the game, not the crowd, and not someone in a TV van.
It is NOT the job of rugby match officials (who are inept at doing their own job) to prescribe to the media how to do their job.
BTW, what happened to those two teams of FIVE match officials (referee, assistant refs, TMO & citing officer) in the 2009 & 2010 matches mentioned by Tony who failed to see what happened, or failed to properly interpret & then punish what they saw, or subsequently when reviewing the match, failed to do the right thing. Probably nothing, eh? And nothing is being said about that failure that gives rise to this polemic?
Don’t crucify the messenger – a fearless messenger constrains & partially deters cheating, dirty play, ineptitude, cowardice by match officials & match fixing.
I agree with Johnson on this one, same stance as I took after the match at Ellis Park.
Just because the outcome this time favored our team doesn’t make the situation right.
There are 2 clear camps on this debate, and that’s all good and well, but lo and behold a TV producer costs us a match in future, then I sincerely hope those that agree with the way the call was made stick by their beliefs and laud the call that costs their team as well.
No TV producer ever costs anyone a game – that power lies with the match officials.
@ nortie:
it was not the tv producer lol it was the referee. and we get our fair share of BAD calls.
I haven’t made any comments at the time but the Messam tackle took place in the middle of the field – about 35 metres away from the assistant referees (AR). Had it been right in front of (one of) them, the specific AR could have been blamed for not seeing it. IMO it was difficult for them to have a proper view of the incident.
Barnes was much closer but his view was obscured by the one sub – I think one of the Franks’ brothers.
I don’t want to debate the issue but I am merely stating a few of my observations
@ nortie:
hmmm … nortie
You were the 1st to post on this thread; what happened to that post?
@ MacroBlouBul:
Yes MB, the ref gave the penalty, but the issue was how it was brought to his attention. During normal play he didn’t see anything wrong, or didnt perceive anything wrong.
@ Angostura:
I took it off because I simply don’t have the time or the mood to rehash this debate again.
As I mentioned in post 2, there are 2 groups who hold different views as to this issue.
Some agree and think it’s good, others don’t.
I’m just in the group who don’t like a TV producer or crowd dictating the outcome of a match.
@ nortie:
But the tv producer didn’t, the ref did 😆
I think I am over this debate as well, It is just when you say, “it might come back to us”. and you are keeping it in your pocket for use later (if it does in anyway).
If the tv producer costs us in the future and it is the right decision then fine, if it is wrong whichever way, its baaaad.
@ nortie:
WE WERE ON A BREAK! 😆
nortie wrote:
88
Ja, ou nortie – but YOU did rehash the debate; it was you that posted this article, & it was you that posted (the now missing 1st comment) that moved me to respond to your comment.
I guess you had the time, mood (& inclination) for the ‘final say on the matter’, but not for the contrary responses it would inevitably elicit.
Btw, when you remove a comment which you had previously posted (thereby at own volition altering the record of proceedings), are you acting as player, partisan spectator, referee (or other match official), or as producer? My guess is the last capacity … 😯
Oh, to those who said the TV replay thingy has’nt happened before… just look at this article, fellas!
The moment Rugby Union starts prescribing to TV audiences what they may or may not show or see or display on TV or on Stadium Big Screens, is the day the death knell for the Sport of Rugby Union will be felled!
Let the TV producers go ahead as they are, video footage does not lie… it just frames the truth!
10 @ Angostura:
I was tempted to restore Nortie’s comment…
PS! Like you, I still do not get the hoohaaa about the Ellis Park incident… the right conclusions were reached and acted upon. How the alert was achieved (and no it was not contrived), is immaterial!
As far as I’m concerned the hoohaa was just some selfrighteous blowing up a huff and a puff of “nothing” in the bigger perspactive of things.
Fairness and the truth must prevail… that is what we expect and demand!
… and it was achieved!
MacroBlouBul wrote:
@ Angostura:
@ grootblousmile:
You can restore.
All it said what I said in post 2, that I agree with Johnson.
And I stand by that, my view.
What I’m not in the mood for Angos is the chagrin that my view seems to elicit from some.
Nortie can remove his comments?
The life of a prefect.
Why stop at one though ?
😆
@ Angostura:
Indeed you can’t run with the hounds and hunt with the fox
😆
10 @ Angostura:
11 @ grootblousmile:
Good posts Angos and GB…
13 @ nortie:
Hey Norts…
Bud… you keep referring to the reactions your comments elicit from ‘some’ others… and ‘some’ others who don’t allow you to post your opinions… etc…
firstly… i haven’t read a single instance of anyone suggesting you are not entitled to your opinion… or to post it… but maybe i missed those adverse posts…
and secondly… none of us possess the power of the delete button like you and GB… 😉
also… isn’t that the whole point of the blog…? to post, react to, challenge and learn from each others opinions and insights…? interrogate ourselves and maybe even change our own opinions when someone provides a more insightful perspective…? or still disagree but just agree to disagree and move on…?
don’t take it so personally if ‘some’ hold a different perspective to yours… they’re equally entitled to theirs… no one’s suggesting you’re not entitled to your opinions… they just countering with their own…
we all have our foibles and quirks that some find interesting… and others find irritating…
and also have to say that i don’t know of any blog on any subject that has created a space where people can participate in robust debate on subjects they’re passionate about… in such a civil and, indeed, friendly way…
sheesh norts… compared to bun-fights on voldy old dough… exchanges on RT are positively respectful and polite… even when disagreeing vehemently…
now, on your tea break, go and order yourself a concrete milkshake…!
17 @ ufo:
Bwahahaha,
What is a Concrete Mlkshake, UFFO?
One needs robust debate… and yes one needs disagreement too… like you suggested that’s what opinion is all about.
13 @ nortie:
Norts, we respect the opinion you hold.. but respectfully disagree with it, friend…
Rugby is a sport in evolution and technology is part of it, something we can’t leave in the dark ages and keep it there… it will inevitably be used more and more as time goes on and as technology just gets more and more on the button.
In years to come we will be able to choose our own camera angles… live, which cameras we want to see… live… and all sorts of other innovations.
In cricket I just love snicker and the speedcams as well as the overlays of the route the ball would have followed, similarly I greatly enjoy the replays and slomo’s one gets in rugby TV footage… to me it adds to the experience.
My bottomline is that technology is good, even if it elicits decisions (correct ones) against my team!
@ grootblousmile:
Hoert julle RT hiere! Hoessit?
Mooi, moer mekaar, bokker vrede
ufo wrote:
That is EXACTLY what I set out to achieve here on Rugby-Talk when we started!!
That fact that it is indeed perceived to be the end result makes me very, very happy indeed!
19 @ Pietman:
Hello Petrus Padda!
Jinne, jy is al weer op pad sandwêreld toe, more… nê!
@ grootblousmile:
Jip, more vlieg ek terug om te gaan afsluit daar by die Sandgoggas. End van die jaar kom sit ek op my bas en blog op RT voltyds.
Gisteraand ou Cliff raakgedrink, maar die man was nie kapabel vir onderhoude nie. Sal hom wel vang volgende keer.
22 @ Pietman:
Reg so… ek vlieg dalk sommer af vir so ‘n onderhoud en vir ‘n behoorlike kuiertjie met jou!
@ grootblousmile:
I think UFO is suggesting that the head prefect hardenthefuckup.
😆
@ gunther:
He isnt called nortemo for nothing 😀
24 @ gunther:
Herr Gunther,
We all have different personalities.. with differing traits and strong points… diversity is always welcome.
Just like some may need to see that we are not attacking their person, so others like you need to maybe just get a little softer… you sometimes come accross as a bit too abrasive. This is meant in a very friendly way, by the way… and I enjoy your contributions.
Some, like Hondo, needs to keep well away from Racist content… but all in all we all make this place tick!
Regards,
The head-headmaster!
@ grootblousmile:
I have to admit that some (most of it actually) of the comments made on other sites are terrible and personal attacks are the norm and not the exception.
Therefore it is generally a good experience to read the (most of it) comments on this site. It would be very dull if all of us agree about the same subject. As long as we can agree to disagree on matters in a civilized manner – which is the case on R-T – I enjoy this forum.
Thanks again GBS !!
27 @ charlesm:
It warms the cockles of my heart to read that, Charles.
Thanks!
It indicates that it is good here and it gives me the verve to continue as I have done.
As a supporter of a foreign team(s) that comes here every year I am quite used to the “selective viewing” that the panel of studio experts have shown during & after the games & the more I think about it the more I suspect that one (all?) of these experts gave the “instruction” to the TV producer to keep replaying that incident.
You read it here first.
grootblousmile wrote:
88
I advocate reverse hierarchical diffusion
Regards
The anarchist cellar dweller
🙂
Users Online
Total 228 users including 0 member, 228 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,335,874 Page Impressions
_