Laporte
-
@Crucial well yeah thats what I was alluding to, you'd expect NZR had done thier due diligence, were aware this was a likely outcome, and therefore in the negotiations, determined a response if this eventuated.
-
@taniwharugby said in Laporte:
@Crucial well yeah thats what I was alluding to, you'd expect NZR had done thier due diligence, were aware this was a likely outcome, and therefore in the negotiations, determined a response if this eventuated.
Don't forget that they are dealing with Frogs. I don't mean that as flippant, they have their own ways of working and dealing with things just as dealing with, say, a Chinese company would.
I worked for a multinational roll out across US, Japanese and French owned companies (think car manufacturers/brands) and by far the most difficult arm to deal with was the French.
NZR would have had this as a major reputational risk and would have worked through treatments for it turning into an issue.. -
@No-Quarter is on a watch list lads. This is how it starts.
He's like four steps from sovereign citizenry
(i might need to be added to said list because what he says is making a lot of sense)
-
It is a huge leap to think that anyone would waste money on trying to guarantee an outcome in a game like that. Who could predict a forward pass leading to a try?
Barnes was a new patsy but even then his appointment could have gone either way as far as a result goes.
If there is any hint of a place to go looking then maybe the ARs would be the place to spend money. They can help with the non calls and get to mark lineout positions.
Not casting aspersions at the individuals (Kaplan and Spreadbury?) just saying that would be the area you could look to gain influence. Would be a frivolous spend though. -
@Crucial you can't guarantee a result, but you can heavily favour one team and strongly influence the outcome. From memory (this was in Henry's book) he wanted the whole refereeing team investigated and produced damning video and statistical evidence of just how bad it was, e.g. the French could have been penalised up to 40 times but were only pinged twice, and I think not at all in the last 60 odd minutes which is absolutely bananas given they defended for most of the game.
@mariner4life I try to keep my conspiracies limited to sport, given how corrupt governments around the world are it'd be easy to fall down some giant rabbit holes there.
-
Here we go - stuff article from 2012. Damning stuff
All Blacks coach Graham Henry was so stunned by the lopsided penalty count in the 2007 Rugby World Cup quarter-final loss to France he urged the New Zealand Rugby Union to call for an investigation into referee Wayne Barnes' performance.
In his biography, 'Graham Henry Final Word', by veteran author Bob Howitt, Henry reveals he briefly contemplated match-fixing as the only logical explanation for the All Blacks' upset 20-18 loss.
He analysed the game on video for his report to the rugby union and found Barnes had awarded only two penalties to New Zealand during the game.
His gut feeling, according to his biography, was that the video "would confirm that referee Wayne Barnes and his touch judges, Jonathan Kaplan from South Africa and Tony Spreadbury from England, hadn't exactly covered themselves in glory at the Millennium Stadium, that they had missed an obvious forward pass when France scored its match-winning try - a pass so forward everyone in the stadium had witnessed it except the referee - and that Barnes had been pretty lenient on the French at the breakdowns, probably costing the All Blacks the game".
His analysis was that France deserved to be penalised up to 40 times.
The video had three different angles and featured statistical breakdowns of lineouts, scrums, penalties, tackle counts, territory and possession. On those statistics, the All Blacks dominated. They had an overwhelming 73 per cent territorial advantage, winning 166 rucks to France's 42 and making only 73 tackles compared with France's 331.
A mind-boggled Henry was so stunned by his findings he told the rugby union it should "pressure the International Rugby Board to institute an inquiry".
He also said it was ''incomprehensible'' the IRB did not have strategies in place to investigate bizarre matches.
Howitt writes: "He knew if a comparable situation had occurred in other sports, it would be investigated. But there existed a blissful purity about rugby, or at least that's how everyone wanted to perceive it. It wasn't politically correct to even suggest the match officials might have favoured one team."
The rugby union chose not to push for an investigation.
-
@No-Quarter said in Laporte:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Laporte:
@No-Quarter said in Laporte:
Fucking Laporte. Time to re-visit 2007 me thinks. Henry suspected match fixing and urged NZR to ask for an investigation but they never did. The most lopsided refereeing performance of all time, like the Donald Bradman of lopsided refereeing performances with just 2 penalties awarded to the team bitch slapping their opponents all over the park while they cheat at every second ruck trying to hold on, benefited this rich and now confirmed corrupt assholes team.
As much as I want to agree with this and for all his many faults, Barnes does appear to have some integrity and I cannot imagine him having been on the take. It was just sheer incompetence and had it been against certain other countries his international reffing days probably would have been numbered.
I dunno man, a young ref that made his debut the year before inexplicably given a huge match and then being pressured by powerful and extremely rich people in the game to favour a home team at a RWC is not beyond the realms of possibility. In fact when you look at the way it was reffed, it looks quite likely. It's just such an aberration that "incompetence" doesn't do enough to explain it for me. I don't know if we'll ever really find out what happened there. I think other sports would have definitely launched an investigation, but rugby has this "don't question the ref" mentality (or at least did back then) which meant we just decided to take it on the nose instead.
In any other sport Barnes would probably never reffed a WC again. Or at least one involving NZ. Irrespective of that, it still infuriates me when I think of all the choker bullshit that followed.
-
@No-Quarter the dangers of statistics.
The fact that we were making all the play meant that almost all non decisions (swallowing the whistle) went against us.
Sometimes the most simple explanations are the best.
Also saying that everyone in the stadium except Barnes missed the forward pass is a stupid comment as he was one of the only peopl to not have a clear view. -
@No-Quarter said in Laporte:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Laporte:
@No-Quarter said in Laporte:
Fucking Laporte. Time to re-visit 2007 me thinks. Henry suspected match fixing and urged NZR to ask for an investigation but they never did. The most lopsided refereeing performance of all time, like the Donald Bradman of lopsided refereeing performances with just 2 penalties awarded to the team bitch slapping their opponents all over the park while they cheat at every second ruck trying to hold on, benefited this rich and now confirmed corrupt assholes team.
As much as I want to agree with this and for all his many faults, Barnes does appear to have some integrity and I cannot imagine him having been on the take. It was just sheer incompetence and had it been against certain other countries his international reffing days probably would have been numbered.
I dunno man, a young ref that made his debut the year before inexplicably given a huge match and then being pressured by powerful and extremely rich people in the game to favour a home team at a RWC is not beyond the realms of possibility. In fact when you look at the way it was reffed, it looks quite likely. It's just such an aberration that "incompetence" doesn't do enough to explain it for me. I don't know if we'll ever really find out what happened there. I think other sports would have definitely launched an investigation, but rugby has this "don't question the ref" mentality (or at least did back then) which meant we just decided to take it on the nose instead.
You can thank two parties for it:
- The French for ending up on the wrong side of the draw.
- A New Zealander for appointing Barnes to what should have been a game against a minnow, and then not addressing it.
-
Really we somehow got the loss in 2007 being brought up? FFS there was no corruption, (Barnes an inexperienced, young ref) made a mistake or 2 during the game, and ABs made more and lost the game.Nothing more or less, Henry actually later said he had at first thought there was something no right, but said after he calmed down he realised he was just to upset. Barnes says of the missed forward pass, andwondered at times if it was only forward pass missed during the WC.
-
I heard that Wayne Barnes shot JFK from the grassy knoll.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Laporte:
I heard that Wayne Barnes shot JFK from the grassy knoll.
And was the inventor of the Covid Vaccination chip.
-
Sorry guys but this is the conspiracy hill I've chosen to die on, that game was a stitch up from start to finish. Laporte seemed like a shady motherfucker at the time and this has only solidified my position.
-
Really we somehow got the loss in 2007 being brought up? FFS there was no corruption, (Barnes an inexperienced, young ref) made a mistake or 2 during the game, and ABs made more and lost the game.Nothing more or less, Henry actually later said he had at first thought there was something no right, but said after he calmed down he realised he was just to upset. Barnes says of the missed forward pass, andwondered at times if it was only forward pass missed during the WC.
- Agree. But we're still not over Dallas and Deans.
- Righto.
- There were two in the same movement.
-
@booboo you forgot the main point...THIS.IS.THE.FERN we can go from anywhere to anywhere with the faintest of connections
-
Really we somehow got the loss in 2007 being brought up? FFS there was no corruption, (Barnes an inexperienced, young ref) made a mistake or 2 during the game, and ABs made more and lost the game.Nothing more or less, Henry actually later said he had at first thought there was something no right, but said after he calmed down he realised he was just to upset. Barnes says of the missed forward pass, andwondered at times if it was only forward pass missed during the WC.
- Agree. But we're still not over Dallas and Deans.
- Righto.
- There were two in the same movement.
Fair enough too , I mean I should of stopped to think who was impacted!
And as taniwha probaly rightly points out, we can go anywhere on Fern, what the heall was I thinking!
-
@taniwharugby said in Laporte:
@booboo you forgot the main point...THIS.IS.THE.FERN we can go from anywhere to anywhere with the faintest of connections
The name Laporte triggered a deep-seated trauma within me
-
@No-Quarter said in Laporte:
Here we go - stuff article from 2012. Damning stuff
All Blacks coach Graham Henry was so stunned by the lopsided penalty count in the 2007 Rugby World Cup quarter-final loss to France he urged the New Zealand Rugby Union to call for an investigation into referee Wayne Barnes' performance.
In his biography, 'Graham Henry Final Word', by veteran author Bob Howitt, Henry reveals he briefly contemplated match-fixing as the only logical explanation for the All Blacks' upset 20-18 loss.
He analysed the game on video for his report to the rugby union and found Barnes had awarded only two penalties to New Zealand during the game.
His gut feeling, according to his biography, was that the video "would confirm that referee Wayne Barnes and his touch judges, Jonathan Kaplan from South Africa and Tony Spreadbury from England, hadn't exactly covered themselves in glory at the Millennium Stadium, that they had missed an obvious forward pass when France scored its match-winning try - a pass so forward everyone in the stadium had witnessed it except the referee - and that Barnes had been pretty lenient on the French at the breakdowns, probably costing the All Blacks the game".
His analysis was that France deserved to be penalised up to 40 times.
The video had three different angles and featured statistical breakdowns of lineouts, scrums, penalties, tackle counts, territory and possession. On those statistics, the All Blacks dominated. They had an overwhelming 73 per cent territorial advantage, winning 166 rucks to France's 42 and making only 73 tackles compared with France's 331.
A mind-boggled Henry was so stunned by his findings he told the rugby union it should "pressure the International Rugby Board to institute an inquiry".
He also said it was ''incomprehensible'' the IRB did not have strategies in place to investigate bizarre matches.
Howitt writes: "He knew if a comparable situation had occurred in other sports, it would be investigated. But there existed a blissful purity about rugby, or at least that's how everyone wanted to perceive it. It wasn't politically correct to even suggest the match officials might have favoured one team."
The rugby union chose not to push for an investigation.
He's sounding a bit Sith Ifrican here ...
I moved on. Got up the next day, flew home and then watched the semi's and quarters in a pub with my friends.
Henry, Smith, Hansen kept their jobs. And ultimately, delivered a world cup, and set the base for the following one as well.
At the end of the day, we still should have won. We didn't.
-
@MajorRage said in Laporte:
@No-Quarter said in Laporte:
Here we go - stuff article from 2012. Damning stuff
All Blacks coach Graham Henry was so stunned by the lopsided penalty count in the 2007 Rugby World Cup quarter-final loss to France he urged the New Zealand Rugby Union to call for an investigation into referee Wayne Barnes' performance.
In his biography, 'Graham Henry Final Word', by veteran author Bob Howitt, Henry reveals he briefly contemplated match-fixing as the only logical explanation for the All Blacks' upset 20-18 loss.
He analysed the game on video for his report to the rugby union and found Barnes had awarded only two penalties to New Zealand during the game.
His gut feeling, according to his biography, was that the video "would confirm that referee Wayne Barnes and his touch judges, Jonathan Kaplan from South Africa and Tony Spreadbury from England, hadn't exactly covered themselves in glory at the Millennium Stadium, that they had missed an obvious forward pass when France scored its match-winning try - a pass so forward everyone in the stadium had witnessed it except the referee - and that Barnes had been pretty lenient on the French at the breakdowns, probably costing the All Blacks the game".
His analysis was that France deserved to be penalised up to 40 times.
The video had three different angles and featured statistical breakdowns of lineouts, scrums, penalties, tackle counts, territory and possession. On those statistics, the All Blacks dominated. They had an overwhelming 73 per cent territorial advantage, winning 166 rucks to France's 42 and making only 73 tackles compared with France's 331.
A mind-boggled Henry was so stunned by his findings he told the rugby union it should "pressure the International Rugby Board to institute an inquiry".
He also said it was ''incomprehensible'' the IRB did not have strategies in place to investigate bizarre matches.
Howitt writes: "He knew if a comparable situation had occurred in other sports, it would be investigated. But there existed a blissful purity about rugby, or at least that's how everyone wanted to perceive it. It wasn't politically correct to even suggest the match officials might have favoured one team."
The rugby union chose not to push for an investigation.
He's sounding a bit Sith Ifrican here ...
I moved on. Got up the next day, flew home and then watched the semi's and quarters in a pub with my friends.
Henry, Smith, Hansen kept their jobs. And ultimately, delivered a world cup, and set the base for the following one as well.
At the end of the day, we still should have won. We didn't.
I moved on, right onto TSF and have been here ever since!!! #neverforget2007
-
@MajorRage said in Laporte:
@No-Quarter said in Laporte:
Here we go - stuff article from 2012. Damning stuff
All Blacks coach Graham Henry was so stunned by the lopsided penalty count in the 2007 Rugby World Cup quarter-final loss to France he urged the New Zealand Rugby Union to call for an investigation into referee Wayne Barnes' performance.
In his biography, 'Graham Henry Final Word', by veteran author Bob Howitt, Henry reveals he briefly contemplated match-fixing as the only logical explanation for the All Blacks' upset 20-18 loss.
He analysed the game on video for his report to the rugby union and found Barnes had awarded only two penalties to New Zealand during the game.
His gut feeling, according to his biography, was that the video "would confirm that referee Wayne Barnes and his touch judges, Jonathan Kaplan from South Africa and Tony Spreadbury from England, hadn't exactly covered themselves in glory at the Millennium Stadium, that they had missed an obvious forward pass when France scored its match-winning try - a pass so forward everyone in the stadium had witnessed it except the referee - and that Barnes had been pretty lenient on the French at the breakdowns, probably costing the All Blacks the game".
His analysis was that France deserved to be penalised up to 40 times.
The video had three different angles and featured statistical breakdowns of lineouts, scrums, penalties, tackle counts, territory and possession. On those statistics, the All Blacks dominated. They had an overwhelming 73 per cent territorial advantage, winning 166 rucks to France's 42 and making only 73 tackles compared with France's 331.
A mind-boggled Henry was so stunned by his findings he told the rugby union it should "pressure the International Rugby Board to institute an inquiry".
He also said it was ''incomprehensible'' the IRB did not have strategies in place to investigate bizarre matches.
Howitt writes: "He knew if a comparable situation had occurred in other sports, it would be investigated. But there existed a blissful purity about rugby, or at least that's how everyone wanted to perceive it. It wasn't politically correct to even suggest the match officials might have favoured one team."
The rugby union chose not to push for an investigation.
He's sounding a bit Sith Ifrican here ...
I moved on. Got up the next day, flew home and then watched the semi's and quarters in a pub with my friends.
Henry, Smith, Hansen kept their jobs. And ultimately, delivered a world cup, and set the base for the following one as well.
At the end of the day, we still should have won. We didn't.
Sport in a nutshell and why we watch it.
