Sir Graham Henry's biography...

[Dixpat]

...says that he thought that the semi final in 2007 referred by WB may have been subject to match fixing!

Now lets see how that is "accepted" by the rugby world

 

[damo]

...says that he thought that the semi final in 2007 referred by WB may have been subject to match fixing!

Now lets see how that is "accepted" by the rugby world

I suggest we wait and see what the book actually says. This may be a storm in a teacup, designed to drum up interest in his book. The book may say nothing of the sort, especially since one report I have read appears lukewarm on the idea:

In his biography, 'Graham Henry Final Word', by veteran author Bob Howitt, Henry reveals he briefly contemplated match-fixing as the only logical explanation for the All Blacks' upset 20-18 loss.

He analysed the game on video for his report to the rugby union and found Barnes had awarded only two penalties to New Zealand during the game.

His gut feeling, according to his biography, was that the video "would confirm that referee Wayne Barnes and his touch judges, Jonathan Kaplan from South Africa and Tony Spreadbury from England, hadn't exactly covered themselves in glory at the Millennium Stadium, that they had missed an obvious forward pass when France scored its match-winning try - a pass so forward everyone in the stadium had witnessed it except the referee - and that Barnes had been pretty lenient on the French at the breakdowns, probably costing the All Blacks the game".

His analysis was that France deserved to be penalised up to 40 times.

The video had three different angles and featured statistical breakdowns of lineouts, scrums, penalties, tackle counts, territory and possession. On those statistics, the All Blacks dominated. They had an overwhelming 73 per cent territorial advantage, winning 166 rucks to France's 42 and making only 73 tackles compared with France's 331.

Hell, I briefly considered match-fixing too! Doesn't mean I still do. I just think Barnes was inexperienced and froze under the pressure and did not want to award a game deciding penalty, no matter how obvious. This is a trait I think we saw from him in the 2011 RWC as well.

 

[Dixpat]

Another article

http://www.espnscrum.com/newzealand/rugby/story/167769.html

 

[dave_clark]

does the book make any comment on why the team didn't attempt a drop goal with their 97% possession, or is it easier to blame others for the loss?

 

[Davet]

Maybe it was just a simple bout of food poisoning?

 

[Ian_Cook]

It would have been most inconvenient and upset the iRB suits terribly if the hosts had gone out of the RWC at the quarter-final stage. How lucky it was for them that this didn't happen! :sarc:


However, they had better be prepared for a host to not even make it out of the pool stages in 2019, because that is what will happen.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Ian - and in 2015 before that :biggrin:

 

[Cave Dweller]

Yes 95 was food poisoning and 2007 match fixing. NZ never gets beaten by the better team on the day....

What a crock of shit

 

[Bryan]

Yes 95 was food poisoning and 2007 match fixing. NZ never gets beaten by the better team on the day....

What a crock of shit

It's not just the Keewees. Dont forget that Bryce is a dead-man-walking in the biltong paradise after the Oz v SA 1/4-Final. I'm sure that will blow over quickly; the Rainbow Nation isnt one for holding a grudge...

Oh, and match fixing didnt stop England from beating the host nation in 2003, despite the work of the civil engineer to penalize england at the scrum!

See, it's conspiracy theories everywhere you go! Frankly I'm surprised the Italians havent done so well; I thought the catholic church controlled the world!

 

[Cave Dweller]

It's not just the Keewees. Dont forget that Bryce is a dead-man-walking in the biltong paradise after the Oz v SA 1/4-Final. I'm sure that will blow over quickly; the Rainbow Nation isnt one for holding a grudge...

Oh, and match fixing didnt stop England from beating the host nation in 2003, despite the work of the civil engineer to penalize england at the scrum!

See, it's conspiracy theories everywhere you go! Frankly I'm surprised the Italians havent done so well; I thought the catholic church controlled the world!

Just because a few disgruntled fans called him up and said they are going to ring his door bell and run away doesn't mean its sour grapes from SA. We have accepted the loss and would have been beaten by NZ anyways. But we take responsibility for our own losses. But the food poisoning thing of 95 really takes the cake. Now this. Now why would the IRB go sabotage their favorite son?

Anyways the criticism started from NZ not from SA and on their tv. Lawrence admitted into making mistakes. We have not waited 4 years in a attempt to sell a book.

 

[Account Deleted]

Henry's comments are very very stupid. Not aa surprise from a bad winner let alone a bad loser. Daft thing is that, one on one, he's a nice guy.

 

[Cave Dweller]

Really good teams have a plan B when things do not go your way. From 95 they were caught out with one. Plan B is when decisions do not go your way or your tactics is not really working. 2007 McCaw was still a bit green as well but 4 years later he showed how much he learned from it

 

[Dixpat]

Perhaps the bigger question in all of this [and what Sir G may be putting on the table] is what protocols etc. do the IRB have in place to detect match fixing either by a team or by an official.

We know match fixing has occurred in other sports so is rugby immune - I think not!

 

[Account Deleted]

Of course rugby is not immune. I would be foolish and naive to suggest otherwise. Henry's comments hardly put a reasoned investigation "on the table".

 

[chief]

Leave it to Graham Henry to get in the gutter. This is a classic example of someone looking to avoid consequences for his actions.

The facts of the day is that Wayne Barnes had a good game. He refereed it well. Not even Paddy O'Brien denied that. Yes he missed a forward pass but he is not exactly to blame for that as he was far behind play. The problem was communication between Assistant referees and referees and the what it's role should take place as was blurred. Still is today. An assistant ref should have spotted that. It was clear as day.

Wayne Barnes referees the ruck differently to a lot of referees, he doesn't like attacking teams leaving their feet. The AB's had never even had Wayne Barnes, he has always refereed like that. And still does today.

As for Wayne Barnes being afraid to call the penalties that is absolute nonsense. There is only one referee who didn't call penalties at the end of the day and that is Craig Joubert. Who let the All Blacks infringe off the park in the RWC final missing the most blatant penalty. I wouldn't even accuse Craig Joubert of match fixing, I just accuse him of being weak.

To suggest match fixing is an absolute riot, and shows what a joke he is.

There comes a time when accountability really needs to come to the forefront of rugby. And we never seem to see it. Whether it be Robbie Deans staying as Wallaby coach. Or whether it be Craig Joubert not being sacked yet Wayne Barnes is. Or whether it be Bryce Lawrence being appointed to a game where he is so obviously out of his depth. Or whether it be Lyndon Bray acting as judge and jury. Or Paddy O'Brien apologising to his own national side but not even continuing the precedent he set. I mean seriously, no wonder why no one has faith in any rugby institutions anymore. Because they continue to ensure that absolute clowns are continued to be picked.

I mean seriously. Match fixing. This is actually really quite funny.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Henry's comments are very very stupid. Not aa surprise from a bad winner let alone a bad loser. Daft thing is that, one on one, he's a nice guy.

Shows how little you know about Ted.

He is a person who, like a lot of kiwis, does not pander to snobs, the politically correct and those who are afraid to say what they really think. During his time as the Headmaster of Auckland Grammar, the boys were given no favours for who they were (or who their parents were). He was only interested in what they they could achieve, and how hard they were prepared to work to achieve it. Like a lot of Kiwis, he will say what he thinks, and not giving a monkeys whose feelings might be injured, or toes might be trod on in saying it. He doesn't call a spade a spade, he calls it a shovel!!!

If you haven't read his book (and I have) you might be better to read it first before you indulge in idle, ill-informed and misguided speculation. A lot of the bollocks that has been quoted in the media about what he said has been taken entirely out of context. IMO, this was the right time for him to put his feelings and perceptions in print. He has now won a world cup, and has retired from the game; there is no unfinished business. I find it refreshing to read a sports biography that doesn't gloss over the uncomfortable issues and sweep the controverial things under the rug. He is telling HIS story, the way HE sees it, and I applaud him for doing so without fear or favour.

Technically, his analysis of the 2007 quarter-final is right on the money. It was extraordinary (and unprecedented) that a team who spent three quarters of the last 50 minutes of a match defending, much of it within their own 22, could do so without being penalised even once. Not even a free kick or an advantage call. His suggestion that Wayne Barnes was too inexperienced to be refereeing a match of that magnitude, and that he essentially folded under pressure, was also correct. It was clear and obvious to ANYONE watching the game that he was refereeing only one side, and completely ignoring material offences by the French that were occurring right in front of him. The parallels between that match and Bryce Lawrence's abysmal effort in the Australia v South Africa semi in 2011 are remarkable; but at least BL had the courage and fortitude to come out after the game and admit how badly he got it wrong.

Bob Francis, one of the selectors who picked WB for that match agreed in a radio interview this morning that, in hindsight, it was a mistake to select such an inexperienced referee for such an important fixture, when there were far more experienced referees available, e.g. Chris White, who was not appointed to referee any play-off matches in spite of his vast experience as an international referee. Instead, he was posted to the TMO Box. What were they thinking??

Having said all that, as Cave Dweller rightly states, Ted and his team didn't have the Plan B they should have had, and if they had, then this whole issue would never have arisen. However, this does not negate the fact the WB should never have been put in the position he was with so little international experience, a position that the iRB clearly did not allow any referees to be put in at the 2011 event, and likely, they will never make that particular mistake again.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The AB's had never even had Wayne Barnes.

Perhaps you ought to do actually some research before you make demonstrably incorrect statements


Wayne Barnes was the referee in the New Zealand v Italy pool match at the same tournament only a month earlier

 

[Cave Dweller]

First off all if you want to fix a match then you need more than the referee to do so. You will need a couple of NZ to be in on it to get you the preferred spread. Then France losing by what less than 7 or win by less to 7 would have been a good bet because they have a habit of producing when it comes to NZ.

The match was in Cardiff if you want the host nation to get far why not make sure they win the group avoiding stiff competition till in the semi's. Which would have been easier to fix.

Then what set the tone McCaw was pinged early by Barnes which told McCaw which is allowed and what not.

Other factors are NZ losing Carter and their reserve fly half plus a yellow card for McCallister who did a foolish thing with a professional foul. Harsh or whether he would have reached the ball doesn't matter it was off the balk and did it on purpose.

NZ spent so many percent in France's half does not say much. France put in over 200 tackles and everyone forgot that the last ten minutes NZ used a pick and drive tactic which meant a lot of possession and more minutes in Frances half. Still don't mean they should have won just that they were going forward slower.

Henry praised his brave NZ after it and his comments were no where near to anything suggesting they were robbed. France stayed close and the conversion that went in of the post were the difference something out of any referees control.

Look at 2011 France looked no where as good and losing to Tonga then getting through to the Final losing by 1 point to NZ at home. Was that game fixed? Was Joubert part of a conspiracy? No. NZ just had a plan B this time and a more experience captain leading from the front and calming his team when it got tight.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Cave Dweller

Too much is being made of GH's comment re: match fixing. Once again, true to form, the media have taken what he wrote completely out of context and have blown it out of all proportion

Here is the quote direct from the book, my emphasis

" (I) briefly contemplated match-fixing as the only logical explanation”

The truth is he does not think that now, but the media are either too stupid to understand what "briefly" means, or they deliberately ignore that part of the quote so that they can sell papers -- I suspect the latter.

Ask yourself if this:

You are watching a Pakistan v South Africa cricket match.

Pakistan needs three runs to win with five wickets in hand.

Pakistan loses all five wickets in the space of two overs, while adding only one run.

Would you "briefly" suspect match fixing?

 

[chief]

Cave Dweller

Too much is being made of GH's comment re: match fixing. Once again, true to form, the media have taken what he wrote completely out of context and have blown it out of all proportion

Here is the quote direct from the book, my emphasis

" (I) briefly contemplated match-fixing as the only logical explanation”

The truth is he does not think that now, but the media are either too stupid to understand what "briefly" means, or they deliberately ignore that part of the quote so that they can sell papers -- I suspect the latter.

Ask yourself if this:

You are watching a Pakistan v South Africa cricket match.

Pakistan needs three runs to win with five wickets in hand.

Pakistan loses all five wickets in the space of two overs, while adding only one run.

Would you "briefly" suspect match fixing?

Trying to connect a 5 wickets in hand and 3 runs to win cricket scenario couldn't have been further off the mark for the relevance between the AB's vs France in the RWC. That scenario couldn't be anywhere close to RWC 07.