Gatland attacks refs
7 Nov 2009
Warren Gatland continued his verbal tirade this week as he said Craig Joubert was the reason for their loss to the All Blacks.
Gatland had a lot to say after his side lost to the Springboks last year, while he also believes the All Blacks have lost their aura. New Zealand may have, but his side were completely outplayed at the Millennium Stadium and were fortunate to lose just 19-12.
That hasn’t stopped him from blaming referee Joubert, who he believes missed a high tackle from Dan Carter on reserve scrumhalf Martin Roberts.
‘If that had happened at the other end, then it would have been a penalty and a yellow card,’ Gatland told BBC Sport. ‘It was a head-high tackle. And all the officials missed it, so we are pretty disappointed with that.’
All Blacks coach Graham Henry defended Carter’s tackle.
‘I think that’s a bit of a stretch,’ said Henry. ‘I just saw it at the moment, I didn’t look at the replay at all. It seemed to me he hit him around the chest and slid up, and the other guy ducked under. But who knows? Till you look at those things over several views you can’t make a decision.’
Wales were only afforded the undeserved chance to win the game with a loose pass from Jimmy Cowan, which meant they intercepted and broke down field. They were also lucky not to be carded for several cynical penalties on defence, but Gatland believes officials are afraid to penalise the All Blacks.
‘The frustrating thing… was not getting some 50-50 calls,’ he said.
‘You just want some calls to go your way. It’s trying to change referees’ opinions about not wanting to referee an upset.
‘We’ve got to keep playing positive rugby and win them over.’
Henry was not so diplomatic when asked about Gatland’s claims that the Kiwis are officiated differently.
‘It’s complete rubbish. I think that’s a huge stretch. I don’t even think Warren would believe that,’ he said. When told about Gatland’s claims, Henry replied: ‘Yeah, but he’s said a lot of things this week.’
81 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
9 Nov 2009, 16:34 pm
#49 Big Hit: True, digits in chances may be different, too. It depends on ref, distance, biases (to or against) and many other things.
9 Nov 2009, 17:07 pm
#48 Nils: Unfortunate that it would result in a ban, perhaps, but the ref didn’t spot it so there has to be follow up
9 Nov 2009, 17:36 pm
phew…good thing kiwi supporters never ***** about citings.
waka… that was a rave of note
baxxies?
9 Nov 2009, 17:38 pm
#51 Atreides: No problems with a ban, it looked high to me and as DC is not known as a player with dirty history, 1 week should be enough, imho.
I do not think he would have been considered for Test in Italy anyway.
9 Nov 2009, 17:46 pm
Gatland should learn from Div’s mouth, crying doesn’t win you any friends.
When you lose, take it like a man ffs. Whiney, whingey people have no place in rugby.
9 Nov 2009, 17:46 pm
#48 Atreides:
The fact you have to ‘watch the replay’, and that the crowd only reacted after they too ‘watched the replay’ and that the Citing was manufactured ‘from the replay’ tells you everything you need to know about the tackle.
It looked fair at realtime and only marginal on slo-mo.
Check the slo-mo again and you’ll see Carters hand attached to Roberts arm, below his shoulder. How can that be ‘high’ ?
#52 Atreides:
What were you expecting from Craig Joubert ? He’d ‘miss’ his own birthday if Barney the Dinosaur didnt keep sending him those cards.
9 Nov 2009, 17:48 pm
#53 charo:
Thats the differene tho, Charo. We are but fans, ‘whinging’ (opining) is all we’ve got.
Not the AB Management or Players tho.
BaXXies !
9 Nov 2009, 17:50 pm
#55 WakaNathan: It was high, it deserved a card. Most players would get a card for that. Crying about it afterward like Gatland is doing is poor form though.
He needs to grow a pair and stop whining like a Capetonian.
9 Nov 2009, 17:51 pm
#51 Atreides: And while Gatland/Edwards have a point complaining about unpunished DC and thus possible 3 points (and even possible momentum, if DC is binned) gone begging I do not think that’s the reason Wales lost.
For all their puffing and huffing in the 1st half all they got was 6 points, ABs comfortably kept them at bay and in the 2nd half hosts were fortunate not to concede more tries, apart from that DC’s interrupted sprint they did not looked like scoring. 1 try in last 4 Tests (all at home, by the way) and even that one was scored when all was over long ago – says enough.
That’s why I find it a bit ironic when I read in Welsh papers (online) about “frightened” ABs and “how close” Wales were to winning. Phew. I remember only one single time in last decades when they were close to winning – that was in 2004. That was mighty close indeed. In all other Tests since golden 70s they were smashed to bits every time.
And while Wales did well to compete this time, they were clearly second best yet again.
9 Nov 2009, 17:55 pm
#58 Nils: they were close in 2003 too at the World Cup. I think the Welsh know they were second best but 57 years is a long time, beating NZ again would feel like winning a World Cup to them so spare a thought.
9 Nov 2009, 17:58 pm
We will see if there is any consistancy in this. If dc was a Springbok it would be a min of 4 weeks suspension. I remember a “high tackle” from JP Nel (Bulls) on Stefan Terblance (Shatks) in this years Super 14. He got suspended 4 weeks.
9 Nov 2009, 18:05 pm
#59 Big Hit: You mean, 16 points difference in the end was that close? OK, they did fine in the 1st, even went ahead for a moment, good work, but I clearly saw that ABs had an answer every time and since mid 2nd hald it was one way traffic.
Unlike 2004 when it went down to the wire and could end in Welsh victory. They did not believe in themselves, it seems, and got punished.
Of course, one day Wales will beat NZ again, I have no doubt. I do have doubts, whether it will happen soon. It must be demoralizing – playing them every year at home – and coming off empty handed each and every time. And to keep in mind that not always ABs will look so vulnerable as this year.
It will require 2 things in one moment – 1) Wales have to play brilliantly, 2) NZ have to play average at best. No other way Wales will beat them.
9 Nov 2009, 18:08 pm
#61 Nils: well it’s a long time ago now but my memory has it that the 2003 match was in the balance for much of the game, Shane Williams gave them the runaround. Agree with you about 2004. Wales will beat NZ again, but not while Gatland’s around to wind the opposition up.
9 Nov 2009, 18:12 pm
#62 Big Hit: you are right – for much of the game. Just not for full 80.
I think it’s not about Gatland at all. ABs have an extra motivation vs Wales with or without him. For a simple reason – nobody wants do go down in history as a member of a squad who ruined it all. Exactly like versus Scotland and especially Ireland – who want’s to be the infamous first one?
9 Nov 2009, 18:13 pm
#61 Bl@de Runner:
I remember countless high, illegal no-arm tackles by Butcher James that he got clean off.
Stop with the persecution complex, my nostrils begin to flare.
9 Nov 2009, 18:19 pm
#63 Nils: NZ aren’t unbeaten against Wales like they are against Scotland and Ireland. I think Wales might have sneaked an upset if they had a silent build-up instead of Gatland’s talk about auras. Even Carter said it motivated him.
9 Nov 2009, 18:20 pm
#62 Big Hit: And while I have my full respect for Welsh and Irish rugby (and Scottish, too, despite the fact they are far behind), it makes very satisfactory feeling that these proud rugby nations come unstuck against the ABs and could not muster a single win in 21, 21 and 26 times of trying respectively.
9 Nov 2009, 18:23 pm
#65 Big Hit: for last 56 years and 21 time they are.
Gatland is a stirrer, you are right. Yet I am sure, that was not the main source of motivation, it could have been Ruddock or Jenkins opposite – and aBs would have been motivated.
If head coach’s big mouth alone do such a damage to his own team, South Africa should have been beaten this year many times. But they aren’t Wales.
9 Nov 2009, 18:27 pm
#67 Nils: I’m not so sure. The way to catch an upset victory against any team is to surprise the opposition. NZ were surprised by Italy’s commitment this year for example and struggled to put them away until 2/3rds of the way through the game. Gatland ruins the element of surprise by talking so much and Wales play into NZ’s hands with all the haka fuss.
9 Nov 2009, 18:31 pm
#68 Big Hit: Yes, NZ struggled then. As you remember, they had overall poor start of the season. Now, I do not think they will be surprised, they know, Italy will put a decent fight – not meekly surrender like in 07.
As for Wales, I am not sure, they can surprised anyone, as everybody concerned already knows they are dangerous and to be taken very seriously.
9 Nov 2009, 18:32 pm
I wonder how happy the AB and their supporters would be if Richie McCaw got spear tackled without the ball after the whistle (john Smit & Brad Thorn) and the other player didn’t get cited, or if Dan Carter got taken out trying to catch a high ball (Fourie Du Preez & Matt Giteau) and again the other player didn’t get cited.
If Bakkies clearing of the ruck was illegal then Brad Thorn, Alun-Wyn Jones, Luke Charteris, Jason Eaton,Matthew Rees, Neemia Tialata ect. ect. Should all have faced a citing this week.
9 Nov 2009, 18:34 pm
#70 JA-JA: Unfortunately old Bakkies has such a long trail of “history”, it could be tied around the globe.
9 Nov 2009, 18:41 pm
How come Gatland’s got nothin’ to say about Stuart Dickensons piss-poor performance
9 Nov 2009, 18:43 pm
#71 Nils: How many times has Bakkies been cited and found guilty compared with other tight five players or loose forwards?
It would actually be interesting to see and compare.
9 Nov 2009, 18:46 pm
#72 Storm outta hell: Now there is a ref that can’t see anything, think they must strap some binoculars to his face.
9 Nov 2009, 18:52 pm
#70 JA-JA: Actually Thorn was cited that time. But yes, it would be interesting to compare Bakkies CV with others.
10 Nov 2009, 00:32 am
#71 JA-JA:
Bakkies ‘clearing of the ruck’ also happens to closely resemble flying in from the side, no-hands, face-down headbutts. Of course he knows this is illegal because before the Lions Series he had been banned for it playing for the Bulls and had been cited for the same act in a Test match vs Australia (Capt Mortlock carted off immediately).
Thats not ‘clearing of the ruck’ and never was. It is ‘dangerous play’ tho however.
#74 JA-JA:
Lets not forget Bakkies was cited for and banned for dangerous play after his debut Test match either.
JUSTICE4 my @rse.
10 Nov 2009, 11:49 am
#55 WakaNathan: erm…I watched the replay because I didn’t watch the match lol
In any event, aren’t all citings decided on the video evidence? I thought that’s how it works?
The Bakkies clean-out you’ve based your life’s crusade on seemed quite innocuous in ‘real time’, and I didn’t hear any reaction from the crowd there, so does that automatically, by your reasoning, make it an unfair punishment? It’s a really silly measure of guilt or lack thereof. The tackle was high and he swung in with his arm, end of story. I personally think a penalty and MAYBE a yellow would have sufficed, given that it was a professional foul, but it wasn’t picked up and hence the citing.
Phew lucky we won’t hear the kiwi’s complain though!
10 Nov 2009, 11:51 am
#58 Nils: They were beaten outright, for sure…..no way a yellow there would have swung the game back, IMO…the AB’s had the measure of them easily
10 Nov 2009, 13:19 pm
#78 Atreides:
its funny how you view the Bakkies-cleanout as MY crusade. Strangely enough I see it rather differently. In fact, I see the Armband as the culmination of a decade-long Safa Crusade based on the victimisation and persecution of their rugby peoples via referees, citing commissioners, travel, quotas…..
But, then, thats just me.
Atriedes, I do however like your analogy with the realtime Bakkies crowd reaction. Answer me this tho – is there any correlation between the crowd reaction when the Victim is the home-player or the away player ? Put it this way, Im yet to see a Safa supporter get on his feet and boo a Bok for foul play be it high-tackle, eye-gouge or flying-headbutt. However, on the rare occassion that the Victim is the home-player, well….
11 Nov 2009, 16:52 pm
#79 WakaNathan: Had thought of that, the gigantic contingent of Lions supporters would have made it clear!
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.