Phil Kearns believes All Blacks get a 'free ride' from refs

What does everyone think of this drivel, on FoxSports: https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/bledisloe-cup/analysis-how-kings-of-the-dark-arts-got-a-free-ride-against-the-wallabies-in-bledisloe-iii/news-story/a1a08723a18258e894921429a2d9c34b

I though the had too at first but then looked a bit closer. He is allowed to hold his line. look at it carefully and draw a line parallel to the side line. You will see that he held his line perfectly. The confusion comes about because in holding his line he didn't allow the Aus player to cut across him. I am sure the Aus player was annoyed but the video umpire checked it and that is the view he came to.

Well why wouldn't they mate ? :)

Facts and Phil Kearns are mutually exclusive.

Kearn's lacks the ability to be an informative n objective commentator. The problem is his employers allow him to carry on as he sees fit . The situation here is no different to ch 9 cricket commentary team over the past decade, silly , almost dumb n at times painful to listen too. Commentators can favour a team, just try to be objective , show insights into the game n tone done the emotional nonsense n keep your eating habits to yourself.....at least it hasn't got to that level.

Phil Kearns reminds me of when, as kids, if we kept getting beat at footy etc, we'd start blaming everything else in the universe (usually the refs - mostly the refs!) and never really take ownership of the loss each game. Phil Kearns needs to stop being that kid.

The trouble here CJ is that you are simply wrong. Smith has every right to run his supporting line under the rules of the game. He doesn't have to stop running it just because you want to be where he is. If you wanted that space on the field at that moment then be there first and earn that right. The ref made the correct call and the TMO backed him up, because that's the rules.

It doesnt. It just lacks balance. It sounds as though youre only looking to fault one side. How many incidents went against the ABs over that time? Surely not none at all.

Bahahawahaha I didn’t know he was getting into comedy. I’ve always seen him as a bit of a joke so not surprising but that’s up there.

The referee will always give the benefit of doubt to the team that has been on top (in that aspect e.g. scrums). This is simply the way it is always going to be. The fix is for the WB's to get on top in one aspect of the game. Something they have struggled to do against the AB's in the last 5 years. Their time will come they just need to stay focused and not panic.

Agreed. Rule 1. Work out the referee and play to what he blows.

There is just no way that the Smith obstruction wasn't an obstruction. The calls that went against the French were even worse (it killed that series) as were some of the calls against the Boks. Not sure why pointing this out amounts to some type of hate speech.

Yes it doesnt mean its not frustrating, its just not AS frustrating for the winning team. Say you get two incidents equally very poorly handled where one team loses by a few points. Losing sides fans, media, even coach etc spend a huge amount of energy moaning, discussing, debating etc etc the losing sides incident then after much upheaval it dies down and everyone moves on. Then the ABs play someone else and the same thing happens. Two incidents, one getting discussed far more than the other. Over time several have occurred but the perception is its the ABs being favoured because frankly no one even remembers the other incidents. They werent worth the time, ABs won didnt they. So although some will say yeah but that doesnt happen, when it most likely probably does. But whos going to go looking for evidence if that, better to go with the perception.

Not to mention 4 cheap head high hits by an Aus prop that were somehow ignored....

Perfectly summed up Tman. Confirmation bias in full swing, or backed up by stats. Interesting the Fox article actually shows the NZ having the second equal cards with Argue and Aus having the most, but not by much. So either the ABs infringe so much to be second highest Cards against but also having a decent portion not getting called. Perception is everything I guess.

Across all sports the better team seems to get the benefit of more doubts. The winning team also seems to get the rub of the green and the bounce of the ball. It just happens that the All Blacks are the best but it because they are the best not what makes them the best. I'd rather the ref made mistakes than frigged around with the TMO all day. Latu was handbags alright. Nothing it except for the fact that in a test match any contact with the face is gonna get you in trouble. If you are going to contact the head you need to make sure it is a really good punch or just smile and get on with it.

.For me its as simple as this. When your side is losing, loses, or is likely to lose, you look for fairness in refereeing. After having lost the losing side is only going to raise incidents that affect their team. And fans supporting the ABs arent generally going to raise similar incidents simply because their side won. Their side overcame any incidents to still get up and win. So run tend matches like that and youll get a few of the ten sides highlighting where the ABs got the rub. But few, from either side will bother either looking for, or if finding them, mention them. The other thing is the ABs create more situations where the borders are breached so are more likely to have things like more suspect forward passes in tries, simply because they score more of them. AB fans will usually only raise them vehemently when they lose as well. 2007, 95, the noro, the few times its raised and like the rest bring up all sorts of things. So all I see is everyone doing the same thing, the impression being the ABs are favoured more, because nobody cares when theyre not. Kearns here was so quick to jump he was bowing to his already preconceived bias yet on closer analysis the call was probably more correct than not...albeit marginally.

We have heard this refrain for decades now. If it were true I am sure WR would have done something. What I want to know is WHY WOULD THE REFS FAVOUR NZ IN THE FIRST PLACE?

So, the penalty that Pocock was awarded for Whitelock holding on after the tackle despite Pocock actually being the tackler and never released (totally amused the NZ commentators - Marshall even called it a "reputation penalty") or Foley not being carded for a swinging arm to the jaw of Ioane as he scored his try is a continuation of this snow ball? What about Aus constantly throwing the ball away at line outs or yanking the ball off AB players when Aus have been penalised? Bit selective there champ...

Yeah, but as was so eloquently put, 'tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt...