Does anyone else think the referee had a shocker regarding the tackle player rulings last night? He definitely didn’t make sure the tackled player was being released, and seemed to take a step backwards from the refereeing we saw last season. Both sides figured him out, and by the end of the game it was back to the rugby of a few years ago, with turnovers every second or third phase. Talk about frustrating, no wonder there was only a try a piece.

There seemed to be a few players on the ground, and as it was only 2m from the try-line, the ref probably just carded the first player he saw.

A few questions (and before I begin I am definitely NOT a Tahs fan):
a) If the Brumbies culture is so great why have they not come near winning anything since 2004?
b) How many of the current Brumbies squad were even in that 04 side?
c) Why do people think the Tahs have all this talent? The Hurricanes, Blues, Sharks and Stormers have all got/had a load of talent as well, but no one is saying they definitely should have won a title since 04?

A few of you might want to read this article: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-earthquake/4757624/Christchurch-earthquake-Key-hits-out-at-Rugby-World-Cup-critic

I think some of the comments/speculation is far to premature. If the stadium is ok, then my feelings, as a Cantabrian (and someone who has visited Chch since the quake), is that it is possible to host the games. I think the key thing is whether AMI Stadium will be ready in time. If it is, then I’m sure there will be some games hosted in Chch. As far as safety goes, that doesn’t seem to be a concern, the geologists are saying that another big quake is unlikely.

Jiggles – you have your facts wrong. The NZ Super rugby teams always represented more than one province, from day one they were meant to be super-provincial sides. That was part of the NZ vision for Super rugby, that every inch of the country had a team to support, rather than just those in the 5 big provinces. South Africa did it differently, originally their 4 teams in the Super 12 were the top 4 from the previous Currie Cup. New Zealand however, never did this. So the Crusaders have always, from the day they were formed, represented Canterbury, South Canterbury, mid-Canterbury, West Coast, Buller, Nelson Bays and Marlborough. If you don’t believe me find a transcript of Todd Blackadder’s acceptance speech after the Crusaders won the 1998 Super 12 final (back when they were still called the Canterbury Crusaders).

Without wanting to sound unappreciative, I think depth is going to be a big factor this year, and would be nice to hear some opinions on that. The NZ teams typically have quite a lot of depth, but it would still be nice if someone could do a write-up on it. We’ve already seen some key players injured, Richie McCaw, Colin Slade, Tom Donnelly, Adam Thomson ….. (also that crack at McCaw at the end was a bit cheap, credit where credit is due, the man is a legend). How many of the NZ U20 team from last year are playing Super Rugby this year? Anyone have thoughts on that?

Don’t get me wrong, my vote won’t be decided by who wins the World Cup, but it is definitely true that ABs success has an influence on the national psyche. If the election is close, and comes down to a few percentage points, then how the ABs do may well influence the result – it may be the difference between a majority and minority govt for example. I know that when the National Govt chose an election date in 1999 the RWC was high in their reasoning. They were hoping that a win would give the country a feel good factor that would cross over into votes for them.

Interesting article! Consider this though. The NZ PM yesterday announced the election date of 26 Nov this year. Well after the RWC final. Apparently the RWC, and All Blacks Test matches had a huge influence on the choice of dates, they wanted enough time from the end of the cup till the election date so that they could campaign without interfering with the cup. Another thing to consider, generally the success/failure of the All Blacks (in any year, not just RWC years) has a big influence on how NZers view NZ. Hence a RWC win is predicted to be good for the incumbent government, and bad for the opposition, and a RWC loss the other way around. They reckon the All Blacks loss to France in 1999 did quite a bit of damage to the govt of the time, who ended up losing the election later that year.

I’m not sure about that. If he is an FRU official and decides he wants to go, then the NZ Govt might be under pressure by the IRB to let him attend. If the NZ Govt says no, other international sporting bodies may be reluctant to let NZ host any of their events. You don’t want the host country not letting athletes/officials into the country.

It is a bit dodgy. If some of the FRU members are guilty of fraud (or whatever) over that lottery, then they should be charged with the crime. However for the govt to come out and say that they should all resign isn’t a good precedent to set, and could just be the Fijian Govt using this as an excuse to push another agenda. FIFA have strict rules about govt interference in the governing of football, and although I don’t think the IRB should be as strict as them, they have to be careful that corrupt/authoritarian govts don’t hijack rugby for political reasons. I would not be at all suprised if Frank was trying to get himself a position on the FRU board just so he could attend the World Cup – I know he is a massive rugby fan, and would love to stick it up the NZ Govt.

I don’t think a comparison between the ARC and these new cup competitions is a very good one. Both these new competitions are going to involve existing clubs playing in competitions that are additional to those they already compete in. The ARC was an entirely new, semi-professional competition with teams being created to compete in the ARC and the ARC only. A more valid comparison would be between the ARC and an A-League second division. I think both Cup competitions are a lot less ambitious than the ARC was, and they’re hence more likely to succeed.

Well that would just create a whole lot of different problems. For example you would alienate the 9 NPC teams (and their fans) that didn’t get promoted, and you would probably end up with the rich getting richer and poor poorer because top players would only want to play for provinces that compete in Super Rugby. At the moment every inch of NZ is part of one of the five NZ Super Rugby teams, so the whole country has a team they can support – which is a good thing. The current situation isn’t perfect, but it is sensible.

He is from Canterbury, so I assume the Crusaders. I’m pretty sure he got picked up by them but I’m not sure.

I agree with the NZers who have posted. Changing the Crusaders to Canterbury Crusaders will alienate a lot of Tasman supporters for example. I think it would be better in the Australia media for the Crusaders to be called “the Christchurch based Crusaders” rather than the Canterbury Crusaders. This gives some (correct) geographical context, and it is technically correct, without alienating some fans.

Great post. “Winning teams tend to create standards for others to follow” probably sums it up well. I’m sure if a dominant team comes along that refuses to sledge someone will credit their sportsmanship for their success. Until that day comes we’ll still get the mental disintegration theory rolled out whenever someone complains about sledging.

You’re in a world of your own. There are no facts (and hence no reason) in your argument. How much money has the NRL lost by including the warriors? How much has the NBL lost because of the Breakers? How much richer would the ARU be without Super Rugby and the Bledisloe? Any numbers out there? Any hard cold facts to prove that that what you say has actually done any damage in terms of money, viewers, participation? I don’t think so. They’d all be weaker if they lived in your world of closed borders.

In your post above, you said
-“it would be misappropriated in appeasing Kiwis, who’s only rationale for not embracing our great game is it’s ‘Australian’ heritage.”
-“NZ have been able to gate crash other Australian elite leagues at the expense of local demographics”
-“NZ simply has an inflated sense of its own importance”
-“we Ozzies are only too aware that it takes very little to engage that ingrained Kiwi contempt for all that is Australian”
-“no other country on the planet stands to compromise our great game more so than NZ and none deserves it’s presence less.”

This of course is not the only thing you have written about NZ in the past. Most of these comments definitely fit the definition of “unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence”. To say you are not anti-kiwi is absurd, it is certainly not a case of perception. Your comments prove it. You seem to be in your own little world, because I rarely, if ever see anyone (Australian or otherwise), supporting your unanimously negative view of everything Kiwi, esp with regard to even the faintest possibility that some NZers may want to play Aussie Rule.

Maybe before anyone wants to play Aussie Rules outside Aust they should have to take a “Republican Test” – see how ‘Australian’ they are, and if they fit ‘your’ cultural values. If they fail they can’t play. Then to make sure Australia isn’t tainted by NZ sportspeople we could chuck the Warriors out the NRL, Breakers out of the NBL, and Phoenix out of the A-League. While we are at it we could prevent any NZers playing professionally in Australia. We could scrap the Bledisloe, the Chapel-Hadlee, and any international netball. Just to make sure there is no negative influence on Australian culture, maybe the AOC could pull out of the Olympics and Commonwealth Games? If that doesn’t work then just shut the borders completely, unplug from the world and live happily ever after?

Racism is not an acceptable form of prejudice; to quote wikipedia it can be described as “any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence”. So although people may have their sporting preferences, and make those pretty clear on the Roar, I think to say this justifies (or rationalises) your cultural or racial prejudices, is well off the mark. There is no comparison between people expressing their preference for a sport, team or competition, and what you keep posting about NZ, and NZ culture in particular.

At what point do your rants just become out and out racism?

Yeah I agree. John Drake is a great example, wasn’t just there because he’d played a few tests and won a world cup, but actually gave magnificent insight into the game – especially the scrums. I’d learn something nearly every time I heard him commentate, and he’d always try and offer an explanation into why certain things were occurring scrum time. Wish Phil Kearns could be more like that.

Good article Alan and I completely agree with you. I do however think there is a major difference between a retired player and one still playing. I don’t think i have ever read an article by a current player in any sport that didn’t bore me to tears. I don’t even bother reading them anymore – all they do is repeat the party line and resort to tired clichés. There are a few ex-players that I don’t mind reading, I always enjoy reading Richard Loe in the NZ Herald, and don’t mind some of Mark Ella’s comments in the Australian.

I think its pretty fair to focus on those sports, rugby, league, netball and football are all more or less the major sports in NZ (the other one would be cricket, which isn’t mentioned) – esp in terms of participation and spectator/media interest.

Few people here seem a bit defensive about this article, particularly the football. After reading some of the pretty arrogant comments on the roar before the WC about how Australia shouldn’t be playing NZ in a warm-up match (which Australia didn’t deserve to win) and about how having NZ in the world cup was degrading the tournament – it was nice to see the SMH being so desperate for a good headline they had to resort to this “Australasia 1 – Slovakia 1: Kiwis get the point” – http://www.smh.com.au/world-cup-2010/world-cup-news/australasia-1–slovakia-1-kiwis-get-the-point-20100616-ydks.html

Outside of patches of South Auckland the West Coast is probably the only genuinely Rugby League heartland in NZ. So it’s great to see the Warriors playing down there. It’s a pretty small province, the largest town (Greymouth) only has 10,000 people in it, but from what I heard, the last time the Kiwis played down there they got a pretty good crowd, especially when one considers the population of the entire region is ~ 30,000.

Kirwan has been talking about this for ages. Last time I remember he aired this idea after a few Australians suggested that a Tokyo team could be included in any Super Rugby expansion. He basically said that his idea is better and that Japanese rugby was doing fine and didn’t need to be included in Super Rugby. If the Top League bares any resemblance to the Japanese rugby team than a Heineken Cup-style competition with their teams against the best NZ provincial sides would be a joke. No one wants to watch some random Japanese team get thrashed by Canterbury or Wellington by 50 points.