Refs favouring the dominant team happens all the time in rugby, and not just where the All Blacks are involved. It's common knowledge that if you win the early scrums the ref will be far more likely to side with you for the rest of the match. This is because so much of rugby is based on subjectivity. This is also part of the reason why people prefer simpler games with less room for interpretation such as league or soccer.
Interesting point re- the scrum thing, it certainly has seemed that way to me at times. You probably want to add "...and refs are making (educated) guesses". Because the referee doesn't fully know why a scrum went down, or up, he is more likely to 'notice' faults with the team he thinks is less dominant. And he can't be on both sides at once, so he will choose to watch the key offenders and not the others.
And, yep, lots of subjectivity for sure.
Of course, you cover your bases by stating that even if there is some unconcious bias towards the dominant team, which there usually is, its insignificant. Even if only one decision (such as the 30 meter advantage) goes your way and arises out of unconcious bias, then it's already significant. Particularly in test match rugby where the margins are often very slim.
I agree....I think you misread here, i said "not insignificant".
Maybe, but you have less evidence for this than the people claiming the refs favoured the All Blacks. It's pretty easy to point to a series of decisions and wonder what the **** is going on, much harder to gauge the mental state of the people making the judgment on the refeering performance beforehand. Unless, of course, you just assume all viewers are bias against the All Blacks, but that would be ridiculous.
No, it is far more likely that, if after a game the consensus is that the referee favoured the All Blacks, that he actually did and we don't all suffer mass delusion. Although mass delusion probably makes you feel more comfortable as an All Blacks fan.
firstly, you were claiming that refs side with the all blacks, saying that from a refereeing point of view, it is always safe to side with the dominant team. i wasn't discussing anything to do with this game just gone, more the assertion that refs are generally biased toward the all blacks. o the game just gone, for the record, I have no opinion of how fair the ref was because I was at the game in the cheap seats so couldn't see the detail of most of what happened. I assumed form what people have written that the calls favoured the all blacks, on balance. I wouldn't put money on it though.
secondly, your logic isn't particularly good here anyway. the evidence you speak of is provided by people who feel aggrieved by what has happened. so, of course, you will see more evidence against the team who hardly ever loses; practically all viewers, except for all blacks supporters (and i'll get back to them) wanted the springboks to win, so when calls were going against them that threatened that chance of victory, or reminded people (unconsciously) of those frustrating calls that went against their beloved team (for 'neutral' supporters) when they had a chance of beating the all blacks in the past but failed, people felt hugely aggrieved. so they posted on here about how crap the refereeing was. the balance of "evidence" will of course be biased. Now, all blacks supporters, you may think their view of referee calls, or at least there provision of "evidence" thereof, would tend to be biased toward the all blacks. Actually, the majority of All Blacks fans want a fair game, a challenge, because we win too often and too easily and people are getting a bit bored of it, and we also don't like the losers having excuses. So All Blacks fans will more often notice the poor calls that favour the All Blacks than the other way around, and they will feel aggrieved about them. So, yeah, your "evidence" is hardly evidence.
