Seasons greetings - Super Rugby season, that is!

The Wallabies won and deserved to and the ABs won the final and deserved to, end of story.

Ha, ha, my life is far too good for this to hurt me...

TaylorMan, I do try to be consistent but do admit it can be harder when your team's involved. At the end of the day, it's still just a game of rugby, even a world cup final and there are far bigger issues in the world to get upset about than a bad refereeing call. Australia did suffer from poor decisions in 2008, both times by Alan Lewis, one of which being a non-called forward pass which gave the ABs the match winning try in the Hong Kong (I think) test and the other against Wales where Lewis was very inconsistent in Wales favour in game they came out on top. I wasn't happy, particularly the ABs game but what can you do. It;s not worth dwelling on. I'm curious what the other game you refer too where Oz won due to due to bad refereeing decisions and can only think it was the QF v Sth Africa in 2011. It was an interesting game that one. It's true that if Lawrence wasn't the ref SA probably would have won but on the other hand, even with Lawrence's terrible performance, SA had ample opportunities to win (JDV's forward pass with the line wide open, Steyn's missed kicks) and couldn't take them and winning rugby matches is all about taking your chances so you've got the odd scenario where SA were hard done by but didn't really deserve to win either.

Clarke, I haven't waffled. I've said several times I consider you bias because you wont acknowledge my argument because you don't like the emotive language I use. Discounting an argument because you have an issue with the way it was stated is, in my view bias. You may disagree which is fine but if understanding what I've said is beyond your limited comprehension there's nothing I can do about that, and given the way you've carried on, I couldn't really care less about your opinion. Seriously, you're not a child. Man up, take it on the chin and put your view forward in whatever manner you choose. You can even insult me. I'm a big boy - I can take it but lets face it we're here to debate issues but if your fragile sensibilities can't handle a few emotive words, maybe you should find somewhere else to play where people aren't so mean.

Thanks Mitch, Lot's very useful information here. My prediction for Australian convention is: 1) Brumbies (Least # changes and Larkham improving) 2) Rebels (Most improved over the last 2 seasons and I expect much more this year) 3) Waratahs (due to coach changes and reshuffles slowing down the start of the season) 4) Force 5) Reds Rebels and Tahs could interchange depending on how the Tahs start.

Yes it's a good point Cuw and it depends which matches you refer too to rate them. In the World Cup SA lost by two points, Where Oz were clearly behind at the bell. Does that make them second? But then SA lost to Japan? And at home to Argie. Oz are the only side to beat the ABs this year and in their only meeting beat SA. Based on the year overall... for me... Oz are in fact a clear second with SA then Argie further back, the NH sides a distance back from the four.

" Then in the subsequent 48-72 hours when it emerged that Joubert was probably incorrect in the decision. " there was no "PROBABLY". he was wrong and admitted it himself. IMO he shud have done the same after that Scot v OZ match; would have saved his dignity rather than IRB saying it :)

@ Taylorman "My point is, Cuw, whether unnecessarily or not, is merely pointing out the first view I mention above, where you are expressing his or her right not to hold that view. " my comment was based on the below comment : "The Wallabies were excellent this year and were easily the 2nd best team. Right up until the WC final they were in with a shot of being the best team in the world for 2015. As it was they were close to the best team." it was merely stating the glorious uncertainties of sport - in this case one decision that changed the outcome on the last minute (just like the penalty that won the super cup for waratahs) AND the fact that the powers that be took pains to admit it was a mistake. no one gets 100% accuracy during any game/sport BUT there may be one or two which have an influence on the final outcome. it is also similar to the missed penalty kick by Beale against Lions, whihc could have won OZ the match and saved Deans' job :) the comment that OZ are easily the 2nd best is inaccurate, simply becoz had that decision gone for Scotland they would be somewhere from 3-8. that was my point. it does not matter to me who won. the argument was directed at the assertion that OZ are the clear 2nd best, which is wrong.

Nice work Mitch thanks

Fair comment Wozza, understood and a fair point of view, though I would expect the reaction to be consistent should the shoe be on the other foot in the future. Australia, luckily, have not suffered a loss through bad refereeing in the World Cup and as a fan of one of the three sides that have...oddly involving Oz as the winner in two of them, it will be interesting should that happen, though for all our sakes, I hope it never does.

To Wozza - Ok this has now gone past the silly stage. Whilst you have conceded on the second question it comes with a qualification of some reference to semantics. You have waffled around the first question again without directly answering it. Even at this point I might have debated the incidents to which you refer but then you again use emotive language – “we would have been robbed” – and furthermore you could not resist the crack at me in your last words and for those reasons I feel it not worth my while continuing our discussion. But you have acknowledged you are biased in this regard which is the question I raised at the beginning - exactly what you accused others of.

TM, if it was just the Scots I wouldn't have a problem but in my observations (you may disagree) it's not just the Scots and the non-Scots keep bringing it up to devalue Australia rather than because they feel so aggrieved. Surely as a kiwi you'd know devaluing Oz is a national pastime. With regards to your scenario, its not a good example because the win would have come down to McCaw's genius at reading the game rather than a reffing error so while I'd be peeved, I'd like to think I'd move on. With regards to reviewing past decisions, unless they were very close to the end and blatantly obvious what would be the point. As I said, a lot of Wallaby fans feel this decision is being used to diminish everything we've achieved and we're not gong to let that happen without pointing out that that wasn't the only bad decision. I genuinely feel for the Scots as this game probably meant more to them in the bigger picture, but for everyone else, you have to take the good with the bad even if it doesn't suit you.

Clarke, why does the way I frame my argument affect the validity of what I had to say? You wont acknowledge my argument because you didn't like the way I said it. That's my issue with you and if you look bias up in the dictionary, it might not be a classic example, but it's in the ball park and if you can't understand that I don't know what else to say. As for where you endlessly criticise Oz, you haven't in this thread but if you want to play semantics, its not something I directly accused you of but I do understand how you drew that conclusion so if it helps, put simply. Firstly, the charge of bias, you don't like the way I framed my argument so you wont acknowledge it is the reason I said that. Secondly, no you haven't endlessly ciriticised Oz As to why it would have been an injustice if Scotland had won, the same reason the Scots... feel so aggrieved. We would have been robbed 2 scoring opportunities in the last 5 minutes because of refereeing errors. Is that not an injustice, especially given for most of the match general opinion seems to be we were the better team. And, sure, I've displayed bias. You've constantly accused me of this and I've never denied it. As TM points out, in partisan sport, everyone has a bias except, it would seem, you

Appreciate what you are saying but the fact is the Scots lost. Asking them and their supporters to look beyond tge last decision is as the victor probably asking a bit too much. Imagine this scenario in the world cup final. One minute to go and the ABs are a point up. Owens has made a couple of wayward decisions previously but oz are dominating the line and just need to get it to the left and they score. Mccaw comes from an obviously offside position on the refs blindside and causes Genia to knock it on. The Ws all see it and appeal to Owens, appeal for the TMO but Owens refuses, a try wasnt scored. ABs win the scrum and run it out after time, even though the Ws are still complaining. Now in the wash up, as an Oz fan how reasonable is it for you to be told 'Well look at the decision a couple of minutes ago' How likely are you going to want to review what happened before this last debacle and then front to discuss those decisions which at the time were not as relevant. What good do you think it will serve you as a fan? Yet here you are asking the Scots you do exactly that. My point is theyre not going to care and thats its unreasonable as the ultimate benefactor of the sum of all decisions to expect them too. Anyway, now we're effectively saying similar things. Lets hope these things dont repeat but someone seems to get the wrong end of the ref stick last few tourneys. Perhaps be thankful Oz have not lost a key match from poor reffing yet.

TM I agree that there are 2 points of view but I don't agree that every wrong decision is relevant. Far from it. If a certain decision had gone the other way, the whole complex of the game changes. The game is an entirely different entity so most of the time I don't consider wrong decisions to have a significant impact on the game. However, the closer the game gets to the end, the greater the impact wrong decisions have. All these wrong decisions happened after Scotland's last try less than five minutes from the end so at this point their impact becomes increasingly relevant. Had Australia scored from either of the 2 incorrect decisions, Scotland would have had 1 - 2 minutes to regain the lead. I consider this scenario highly unlikely and therefore the wrong decisions are very relevant. I guess my frustration arises from the fact that people who hold the pro Australia point of view do recognise that yes, their was a decision in Australia's favour in the last minute and because of that we won the game. On the other hand, people with the pro Scotland point of view don't even acknowledge Joubert's earlier errors and ever since have harped on that Australia shouldn't have won. The fact is, the errors were made, look at the footage and judge for yourself, they denied Australia 2 potential scoring opportunities and as they happened very late in the game after Scotland scored their last points, the chances of Scotland regaining the lead were, in my opinion, highly unlikely. I think the irritation I and a lot of other Australians have, is that in a year when our team made great strides, beating the ABs, winning the RC and being right in the hunt for the RWC crown until late in the game when the class of a very good NZ team stood out, our achievements are continually dismissed because of this decision which, as a holder of the pro Australian point of view I think is unfair, particularly as there is no acknowledgment of the earlier mistakes which, in my view, more than balance out the latter. As you say, we all have a bias, but if we're to discuss this incident rationally, lets put all the facts on the table, not conveniently exclude the one that don't suit us.

Well no Wozza your comments are very much the issue. Again you fail to answer what you accuse me of. The questions were: - What have I written that could be deemed to be biased? Show me where I have endlessly criticised Aust. I can reasonably debate those incidents to which you refer but there is no point until you answer those two questions I put to you. Your comment elsewhere that “had they (Aust) lost it would have been a far greater injustice than the Scots feel they suffered “pretty much confirms you are biased in this regard. Why on earth would it have been deemed an injustice to any degree if Scotland had in fact won the match?

My point being...that there are two perfectly valid views, and you decide whether you discuss either or not, but denying the other the right to hold that view just to 'feel better', or whatever reason, is probably unnecessary. I think that's one thing that should have been learned from both scenarios.

Another example of this was the just as commonly discussed SXV final in 2014. Common consensus after the match was that McCaw finally 'got his dues' with the penalty awarded against him the last seconds. Then in the subsequent 48-72 hours when it emerged that Joubert was probably incorrect in the decision, ONLY then did people start looking at earlier decisions, such as the apparent missing of the try scorer in touch. People go 'looking' to justifying the situation only when it was required. No need to look beyond McCaws faux pas...I mean why would you need to. But the story changes when the final decision that directly impacts the final result. There's a 'need' to feel better about the win when the original reason has changed. Funny that.

There are two views Wozza. One is that the decision that gave the penalty altered the outcome of the game, anything happening before it irrelevant in terms of the final result because unlike the last one, they didn't actually contribute to the final score as directly. The fact that they 'might have' in terms of this view Wozza, is irrelevant. The other view is the one the view that you hold. I.e. That all decisions made during the game are relevant in terms of the result. What we find is that one generally follows the view that supports the side they preferred to win. On the ROAR The common oz view is the latter view is more correct, where on NH sites I have seen, or fans that preferred Scotland to win, believe the former is the case. The point is, both views have merit, and if you are unable to accept that that is the case, then you are probably applying bias. I preferred Scotland to win because it would have meant a likely more game for NZ, should we face them in the final. So I also apply bias. But I also recognise that fact. So if you can't recognise that fact then you make the mistake of appearing to blame others of bias, where you are actually portraying that exact behaviour. My point is, Cuw, whether unnecessarily or not, is merely pointing out the first view I mention above, where you are expressing his or her right not to hold that view. That's the difference in the understanding of 'bias' here.