Bledisloe ref meet didn't happen: Hansen

Going off on another tangent, given his record as head coach to date, it looks fair to say that Steve Hansen was likely as much the mastermind of NZ's 2011 RWC success as Graham Henry. He's obviously grounded enough not to worry but, if he keeps it up, Sir Steve or King? The control, precision and variety of the AB's tactics are awesome - are they really human or machines? I doubt that England would have better success against the ABs than the WBs, who were more competitive in those three tests with their same tired tactics. The Highlanders, Chiefs, Hurricanes and Lions also showed the way in Super Rugby. If the WBs don't pick up on it they'll be left well behind. And what if the Fijians translate their 7s power into 15s? Lots to savour.

Since the rules no longer apply to NZ, we need to insist they are removed from the rugby championship and super rugby all together. If there's no confidence in any games involving NZ, remove them. From the Brumbies not progressing in the quarter finals this year despite scoring a try under the posts, and then earning two penalty tries from the subsequent scrums, to the illegal Hansen and ref meetings, to them realising the big wasn't meant for them and leaking the story on the day of the test, to punching and eye gouging going unpunished, our captains being ignored (all Moore was asking was why haven't you yellow carded them for the 6th consecutive cynical foul in the red zone and for the 5th straight scrum penalty). The solution is simply not play NZ. If they're so good at rugby, why do they need the constant help from the referees? If the refs can't be trusted to treat both teams impartially, remove the temptation.

I completely agree - and Cheika should do it sooner rather than later, as a matter of common decency, as you say.

Coconut If the rule does not also apply to an assisant referee/assistant controller (as yet unconfirmed) then it should because the principles are the same due to the influence that an assistant referee can have on game. There's no problem with apologising for making a mistake and giving a prejudicial impression even if innocently. That's simply a matter of basic decency.

Dude, you're not listening... Hansen did NOT meet with Poite, who was 'The Referee'. He did NOT meet with him... what part of that are you not understanding? I don't know what the rules are around meeting people who are not 'The Referee', but Peyper was clearly and demonstrably not 'The Referee'. Now, what the issues with touchies (i.e the people who are NOT the individual controlling the game) are I don't know, but in any case that issue is best followed up with Peyper, unless you are suggesting its Shag's fault, which was the original implication in the story - and for which I think Shag is owed an apology. I'd be much more concerned about who planted that listening device if I were you, and I hope it doesn't turn out to be someone from within the Wallaby camp.

@axel. Yep. In addition to being a serial referee abuser.

Steve Hansen had the candour to admit that he met with a match day assistant referee. Particularly as it was Jaco Peyper who approached Hansen, the other team should have have been given the opportunity to attend because of the important role that an assistant referee has in a game. If that does not happen you risk suspicion of collusion or unfairness which the rule is designed to avoid. There is no evidence that Michael Cheika deliberately got his facts wrong. But on the true facts he still had grounds for complaint.

Not all good, everyone has to respect the rules. If that happens, we won't be distracted from talking about the quality of the game played by each side. Otherwise we have a race to the bottom and rugby is the loser

You just don't get it. End transmission.

Michael, Hansen did NOT meet with Poite prior to the game or at any other time. So what are you going on about? The allegation was that Hansen met with Poite - he did not, and is therefore owed an apology, at the very least, from Cheika. Failing that, Cheika should admit he got his facts wrong.

Exact wording of the law is 13.7 Kick-off of under 10 metres and not played by an opponent If the ball does not reach the opponent’s 10-metre line the opposing team has two choices: To have the ball kicked off again, or To have a scrum at the centre of the half-way line and they throw in the ball.

This is not league. In union it's who the ball last touched, not if they played at it or not. The ball touched savea before it went ten metres, so it should've been play on not a srum to the ABs.

Jacko, Certainly the brutal shoulder charge on Dan Carter, which was clearly intended to injure, should have been yellow-carded. Nor are head-highs acceptable under either "let the game flow" or "the letter of the law". So the All Blacks had cause for complaint too.

Obviously, whoever Michael Cheika's source was got the primary facts wrong. But that is not and should not be the end of the matter. Hansen met not with Poite but Peyper, an assistant referee - and neither gave the opposing team the opportunity to attend. The example of the Owens-Barnes "are you happy with that [forward pass]" combination in the 2015 RWC Final is concrete proof that an assistant referee can act as prejudicially to one team or the other as a principal referee. Unless the definition of "referee" excludes "assistant referee" (which it shouldn't) World Rugby should investigate the Australian Rugby Union's complaint. If need be, for purposes of pure technicality, the ARU could reframe the complaint differently to reflect the fact that Jaco Peyper, not Romain Poite, met with Steve Hansen before the Second Bledisloe Cup Test.

Yep, I subscribe to that thinking. Not only do you have to be the better side in rugby. You also have to make your own luck. By being twenty points ahead near the end you remove things like poor refs decisions, lucky bounces, players being carded, intercepts, drop in form, fatigue etc. That is part of what makes the ABs ruthless. It's not enough to be ahead and sit on the lead, only to be saying gee we let that one get away. It's also why the ABs look at every possible option available as a tactic, skill or otherwise to stay ahead, leave no stone unturned. I think the Barnes incident caused much of that rethink...a desperate need to not be in that situation again. Most AB tests won since that match have been won in excess of 7 points at the whistle for that reason. It's not enough to just win. It's about not even having the possibility of losing.

And the obvious head highs in the WC final Michael? Were they under the 'Let the game flow" belief or were they missed by the "to the letter of the law" thought.

Most AB coaches and fans believe the Barnes forward pass ruling was responsible for a complete change in AB rugby to take the refs out of the game by winning by enough to make the odd wrong ruling a non event

@ Michael Scott What "FACTS" are too murky? Hansen didn't meet Poite. Poite knows that, Hansen knows that, Peyper knows that, World Rugby knows that. This mystery meeting seems to have only happened in the tiny mind of the dishevelled bum masquerading as the Wallaby coach.

That's idiot fans that haven't gotten over the Barnes thing, the ABs and the in general the sane New Zealand Rugby fans have.

ah, remember those days when everyone thought Cheika was the best coach, and he will take the Wallabies to No.1 spot? Mckenzie should release his autobiography about now, the one he mentioned in his post match interview...:)