• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Graham Henry on 2007 RWC Match Fixing

I'm sure Graham Henry was pretty happy with all the penalties France were denied in the final of the RWC 2011.
 
Crying-Baby-Natural-High-for-Some-Moms.jpg
 
I'm sure Graham Henry was pretty happy with all the penalties France were denied in the final of the RWC 2011.

I thought that game was refereed pretty fairly tbh. True I'm a New Zealander.

As for 2007, there is no doubt the referee had a huge impact on that game. Let's be honest - if it was refereed fairly then we would have won. I don't believe that is biased or conjecture but rather the facts of the situation. People go on about the forward pass but I can get over that. I can accept that a referee and his assistants are not going to see anything. It could well be that they all happen to not be looking when the pass is made. I can get over that as angry as I was at the time. It is far harder to get over not getting a penalty for 60 minutes which suggests that the referee has missed a lot. France infringing 40 times in that period is hyperbole but they did infringe plenty of times in front of the referee and were not called for it. There was also a time when we dominated the scrum and France were given the ball back. Plenty of other examples I could think of.

Now that is not to suggest that the refereeing was the sole reason we lost. The tactics were absolutely appalling. Rotation did not work and neither did rest. We had horrible injuries, we didn't take a drop kick when we should have and the French came at us hard. Was there match fixing involved? Very unlikely. There is no evidence to suggest match fixing at all. Rather I think that a young and inexperienced referee was given a game he had no business of having. The pressure was great and he reacted poorly to that pressure. I suggest people read Henry's book to find out exactly what he said rather than rely on media reports. I don't think match fixing allegations does Henry's reputation any good. He has sort of hinted at it rather than said it outright.

So I think what Henry said is pretty stupid but I think you need to see the context in full.
 
One of the worst parts about that referee performance was McAlister's yellow card.



0:28

Despite the "blatant block" as the person commentating describes it (he also seems to ignore any forward pass, calling it perfect timing >.>), there is next to no way he could have avoided it. He was rushing in defense and then when the kick came in, he had to change his comentum and run back which resulted in a turn, which he did at a slower pace than the player on attacking rushing. Nothing about it looks like a penalty, never mind a yellow card, as there is very little I can see that he could do differently.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sure Graham Henry was pretty happy with all the penalties France were denied in the final of the RWC 2011.
France never deserved to win that game if they were truly better they would of sorted it out on the scoreboard in one way or another but they couldnt do ANYTHING of note in 80minutes of rugby.
Remember we beat them twice in the tournament once convincingly so.
 
I wouldn't say that - France didn't deserve to win the World Cup based on their performances throughout, but they deserved to win the final and were the better team on the pitch.
 
Ah, the NZ media - the only in the world that can drum up arrogant horsehit on an equal standard to the British and Irish rags. NZ win, it's because on NZ Brilliance... NZ lose, it's because of cheating.

Same old, same old.
 
Yes, in the final, France was the better team. They played **** for the entire tournament, only winning through pure luck and decisions going their way, but in the final, they did play better than NZ.
 
You don't always have to be the better team to win a match. Decisions go against you, the ball bounces the wrong way... Small things. But apparently New Zealand is always the better playing team, according to New Zealanders of course.
 
Okay i can dig that. South Africa didnt deserve to win against Wales or Samoa as they werent the better the team on the day.lol

I thought you create your own luck with the bounce of the ball. As for decisions going against you, well that is up to the refs and their interpretations unless it is obvious which side gets the decision.

Anyways I disagree with your statement about France deserving the win. I thought they played well, (imo because Carter was out) put up a good fight, especially in their defense but they didnt create enough offense to convert into points.
 
Again, the arrogance... Only saying France played well because Carter was injured. Yeah, don't compliment the opponent, just make everything about the All Blacks again. Nothing personal, but it's crap like this that makes me despise the All Blacks and Crusaders. It's always some excuse to make up for a loss or to deny others playing well.

Tony Johnson is one of the worst by the way. Whenever the Crusaders score a try, no matter how sloppy it was with passes going wrong, he will still call it "Classic Crusaders". It's awful.

As for Henry's comments... Just let it go! In stead of being remembered as a World Cup winning coach, he now a whiny, arrogant ass.
 
A cave dweller type thread. Great. It's a massive cover up and the world is against us. Now who mentioned food poisoning and dodgy pints of milk.
 
I said it was my own opinion. Dont despise the all blacks and crusaders because of my own opinion. I am not fan of the Crusaders btw. IMO the difference between the two teams was that we didnt have Carter. Not taking anything from the French they played very well. I guess I just think that if Carter was playing maybe the game would have been different, and I know he would have converted some of those kicks that Weepu didnt. Anyways, back on topic. Probably wont surprise you but I think that Barnes not penalizing the French for the last 60mins is a bit odd.
 
Again, the arrogance... Only saying France played well because Carter was injured. Yeah, don't compliment the opponent, just make everything about the All Blacks again. Nothing personal, but it's crap like this that makes me despise the All Blacks and Crusaders. It's always some excuse to make up for a loss or to deny others playing well.

Tony Johnson is one of the worst by the way. Whenever the Crusaders score a try, no matter how sloppy it was with passes going wrong, he will still call it "Classic Crusaders". It's awful.

As for Henry's comments... Just let it go! In stead of being remembered as a World Cup winning coach, he now a whiny, arrogant ass.

Wow, the venom in that post.

To be fair, as silly as this whole thing may be, South Africa is not ammune to a victim mentality. South Africa hardly walked out of the last World Cup graciously.

There are games where the All Blacks have lost and well deserved to lose. The only game in my memory that I've thought New Zealand were cheated was in 2007 as every decision in the game was ruled in France's favour. It was suspicious. Sixty minutes without getting a single penalty while France got some very lucky calls, it didn't seem fair to me. That's not to say I think there is a conspiracy, I just think the one natured way of the calls was unfair.

I also don't know how people can say New Zealand didn't deserve to beat France. I may come off as arrogant, however if the team which played the most negative style of rugby, winning by making few errors and strong defense, isn't the team that deserved to win, then I'll kindly take back both of South Africa's RWC medals as well as Englands, as they played the least amount of positive rugby ever.

Finally, it's a biography. The most dramatic moment of that mans career was the All Blacks losing in the RWC to some very strange circumstances. I think it's safe to say it was going to be mentioned in the book. You can call it crying etc, but the man later went on to win a Rugby World Cup four years later and he did it without passing any public criticism on Wayne Barnes at the time. You're also looking at this from a few select quotes by the media. As someone who just bought PdV's book, I can tell you that one comment about an internal inquiry for bizzare results within a match is nothing.

Anyway, sorry to interrupt what is bound to continue to be a hate fest.
 
I never said New Zealand didn't deserve the win in the final, it's just that France played better. Anyway, I don't have a problem with New Zealand in general, just some people who make it difficult to have a decent conversation. It's not just a NZ thing though. Icemn is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Never objectively arguing about something but always twisting everything to prove a point.
 

Latest posts

Top