Discussion in 'Rugby Discussion' started by Schadenfreude, Jul 29, 2012.
I wonder if he thinks the same thing happened last year? Except his team profited.
To be fair:
(a) the report I read (I think at stuff.co.nz) said that Henry initially considered whether there was match-fixing, but quickly dismissed it
(b) I don't recall him kicking the shit out of the ref at the time (but maybe I was too distraught about Aus to care what he said). This is only coming out as part of the book, i.e., it's a historical reflection on what he thought at the time. We can't really have a crack at someone for that. If he'd gone all P Divvy at the time it would have been a bit different.
I don't think he's saying that he does think match fixing cost them the match, but rather in his emotional state following the game he considered the idea and after suggesting it was quickly shut down by wiser heads...
So why use the provocative term "match-fixing"? THAT sounds "all P Divvy".
I wish he had kept his mouth shut - (even though he is just being honest)
We lost. Get over it.
It does sell books though
So he has a book coming out? stills sucks though, tastes of sour grapesTBH
I hopes there's a chapter analysing Captain McCaw's ruck/tackle entry from 3 different angles..and it doesn't matter much which game he chose to write about in that chapter because most would leave one scratching one's head and wondering if there was some "arrangement".
The article here (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/7370102/How-Henry-became-sick-of-referee-Barnes) says that "He momentarily let the thought of match-fixing enter his mind before dismissing it."
I really don't see what's wrong with that when the book is a historical account of what he went through.
It's the elephant in the room for Henry. Bet it feels good to get it off his chest now he's untouchable.
Its not actually that absurd, not that it was 'fixed', but that the quarter final was a huge statistical anomaly. Who doesn't concede a penalty for 50 minutes? The final penalty count was something like 10-2.
That being said, the AB's didn't earn the victory in spite of the referee, just like the French didn't last year.
Always had great respect for Henry but since he's left the ABs it's taken a nosedive with the stuff he's been saying.
This is the company Henry is keeping:
"BY THE BOOK
There's not much love in South Africa for former Springboks coach Peter de Villiers. His autobiography has irritated many. SA Rugby magazine was unimpressed De Villiers claimed the 2012 World Cup quarter-final against Australia was ''fixed''. The magazine commented: ''True to P Divvy protocol, he then contradicts this statement and covers himself legally with the offering: 'I cannot say if there was match-fixing without facts to prove it'.'' If you can't prove it, why make the allegation? And the day the public needs De Villiers to do their thinking for them is the day the fictional world of Idiocracy becomes reality.''
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...essing-room-20120728-232qq.html#ixzz21zWGyYIv
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
So after winning a world cup, he has a sook about the last one?
Poor form - rugby his literally given Henry everything, and he has just bitten the hand that fed him. Just lost a substantially large amount of respect for him.
Nah, its just a media beat up to try to sell more books. The article says:
Well so what? I briefly considered it too, but then I didn't.
How many of Henry's brief thoughts are included? I'll bet this is the only one..and its in because it sensational, trashy marketing.
Exactly. The marketing agency for the publisher knows exactly what they are doing to try to sell books. It's the same thing that has gone on for years with books; release a tiny tidbit that sounds a bit controversial but when you read it in its entirety its a bit of a non-event.
It's not a good look but it does sell books.
Henry owes the game more than it owes him: if he bowed to crash commercialism then he let the game down if he did it of his own accord then he let the game down.
Hold on a second, if he is being truthful, which I don't doubt, and those were his feelings, then what exactly is the problem? Match fixing isn't unknown in sport, and that was a very bizarre refereeing performance.
I personally don't think match fixing is going on in rugby, but that's just my opinion, why can't Henry speak his?
Separate names with a comma.