I am someone, I watched the game and I disagree with your statement. An inevitable conclusion of that is that the statement i quoted above is false.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Bit of a vent
- Thread starter Kiwiwomble
- Start date
I didn't watch the game (Chiefs vs Lions) but a look at the highlights doesn't show any controversial tries from what I can see? What was the actual gripe?
Last edited by a moderator:
I watched that game and don't remember much in terms of bad referring, but I only notice bad reffing when the Saffer team loses haha.
I don't remember the entire game, but i do recall one of the last calls being, at least, questionable (look at min 1:10 from your video). But to call that "the worst ref performance of the year" is simply ludicrous.
At least you are aware of your bias. That more than most.
When there is a disagreement between posters about a game (say A plays vs B), i try to focus more on what people that support teams other than A and B say, precisely because i know we are all (to different degrees) biased.
Ah, pity the angle doesn't show the other side to see if the maul wheeled 'naturally' or not. Okay, I can understand a critical non-call at the death which might have resulted in a try but I hope New Zealanders and Chiefs fans in particular will forgive me when I feel little else other than bemused that another side 'got away with it'. Also, I've seen a lot worse.
Sonic Kiwi
Academy Player
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2015
- Messages
- 204
- Reaction score
- 0
At the end of the day, it's apples and pears? It's like Saffas saying prior to Isolation the Boks were the best in the world because the Boks had a better win/loss ratio against the All Blacks yet the All Blacks had a better win/loss record compared to the Boks internationally.
At the end of the day History says the All Blacks were/are/and more successful that the Boks pre/during and after 'Isolation'
Either way, win or lose regardless of neutral refs or sanctions who can or can play the results speak for themselves.
Read this and make up your own mind.......especially pre Isolation.
http://systemdisrupted.blogspot.co.nz/2011/02/in-rugby-it-would-be-hard-to-find-two.html
- - - Updated - - -
Just venting
It's amazing how you managed to type all that while balancing such a big chip on your shoulder.
I just checked the figures re isolation and post-isolation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rugby_union_matches_between_New_Zealand_and_South_Africa
I have altered that wiki page, as it stated "in the pro era........ 45 games.....ABs have won 33-12." Words to that effect. Didn't add up from my checking. Counting the 92 Joburg game as being post-isolation, then the Boks were 20-15, with 2 draws (up to the end of the 81 tour). Between isolation and pro rugby, the ABs won 3, lost 1, drew 1 (92 game, 94 tour to NZ, 95 WC final). Since pro rugby (from 96 tri-nations) I get 35-14 ABs (> 70% ABs). Any other statistical saddos want to check my maths, please feel free.
The overall figures were correct, just the 33-12 pro era stats were wonky.
I have altered that wiki page, as it stated "in the pro era........ 45 games.....ABs have won 33-12." Words to that effect. Didn't add up from my checking. Counting the 92 Joburg game as being post-isolation, then the Boks were 20-15, with 2 draws (up to the end of the 81 tour). Between isolation and pro rugby, the ABs won 3, lost 1, drew 1 (92 game, 94 tour to NZ, 95 WC final). Since pro rugby (from 96 tri-nations) I get 35-14 ABs (> 70% ABs). Any other statistical saddos want to check my maths, please feel free.
The overall figures were correct, just the 33-12 pro era stats were wonky.
