Investigate Match Fixing at the 2011 Rugby World Cup
This site is intended to open debate on the events at the 2011 Rugby World Cup with the intention of building support for an investigation into match fixing at the tournament. This does not serve as an open accusation of match fixing and rigging of the tournament, but rather as a forum to consider the evidence in favour of a rigged tournament and match fixing.Something went very wrong at the 2011 Rugby World Cup. On multiple occasions an inferior team, dominated throughout the match, produced a victory that would go on to have a significant impact on the outcome of the tournament. In virtually every case these results served to enable or facilitate New Zealand's march to the final, as well as their eventual title win.
Of course, the act of pointing this out has already been shaped as a politically incorrect. An orthodoxy that is rapidly taking shape suggests that New Zealand 'deserved' the title, irrespective of whether or not they actually deserved to get to the final, or even win it. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is interpreted as sour grapes by disenchanted supporters of losing teams seeking to scapegoat the referees.
The first problem with this approach is its naivete. Match fixing is endemic in professional sport. The practice takes place at administrative level, amongst match official and amongst players. There is nothing controversial about asserting this.
Cricket, for instance, is notorious for match fixing, and is presently experiencing its latest match fixing scandal with some Pakistan players currently under scrutiny, and there have been numerous match fixing scandals in major European football leagues in recent seasons (with the Italian Serie A the most obvious offender).
However, rugby fans seem to think that their sport is invulnerable to match fixing, this despite the very obvious vulnerability of the sport due to the complexity of its laws and the pivotal role the referee plays in determining the outcome of a match.
It is self evident that a rugby referee can create a favourable environment for winning for a specific team by refereeing the breakdown situation in favour of the desired team. It is as simple as refereeing the premeditated loser more harshly than the desired winner, and ensuring that 'loser' has limited scoring opportunities in their opponents half.
I don't think anything I have said above is controversial or difficult to understand. I therefore want to map events at the 2011 Rugby World Cup, starting with what I see as the first 'bent' result.
1. Australia vs IrelandNew Zealand match official Bryce Lawrence refereed Australia vs. Ireland and was generally acknowledged to have had a 'poor' night at the office when Ireland pulled off a surprise win over Australia.
Australia had a 54% territorial advantage in this match and was awarded four kickable penalties, two of which were converted. Ireland had seven kickable penalties with 46% territory, and converted four of these.
Australia spent 10 minutes of the match in its opponent's 22, while Ireland spent under 5 minutes in Australia's 22. Australia also had a slight advantage in possession, at 51%.
The match was won and lost entirely on penalties. This result knocked Australia out of the top half of the draw and directly into the path of likely Group D winners, South Africa.
2. Scotland vs ArgentinaIn this match, which was thoroughly dominated by Scotland, the Scots spent 10 minutes in their opponent's half compared to the 2 minutes Argentina spent in the Scots half, while Scotland enjoyed 54% of the possession.
Argentina were handed twice as many penalties as Scotland despite the Scottish dominance of the match, yet the Scots kept themselves in the game with drop goals before a late Argentina try put the result out of doubt.
The match was a massive blow to Scotland's hopes of reaching the knockout stages of the tournament, effectively handing Argentina a place against New Zealand in the quarterfinals.
3. South Africa vs Australia
Bryce Lawrence was again chosen to officiate in a crucial match between South Africa and Australia. By this stage of the tournament South Africa had effectively played itself into form, and appeared to be a genuine title contender, while Australia was regarded as having peaked early in winning the Tri Nations.
South Africa totally dominated the encounter, with a whopping 76% of the match spent in Australian territory, and 11 minutes spent in Australia's 22. Despite the overwhelming pressure, 56% of the possession, and numerous infringements by David Pocock at the breakdown, South Africa was awarded just four penalties in Australia's half (and six overall), and failed to convert two of these.
Australia spent just over 3 minutes in South Africa's 22 and was given two penalties, both of which were kicked. Australia went on to score an infamous win.
4. Wales vs. FranceWales had emerged as the form Northern Hemisphere team at the tournament, playing arguably the best rugby of the knockout phases to beat Ireland - and scoring three tries in the process. In the semifinals Wales came up against a French side that had reached the semis despite losing two pool games.
Wales lost their captain early in the match after he was red carded by half-French referee Alain Rolland. Rolland issued the second red card of the tournament for a spear tackle that saw the tackled player landed on his back rather than neck or shoulders. He did not consult with his touch judges, or discuss the option of a yellow card even though this decision effectively handed the win to France.
This decision made Sam Warburton the first player at the tournament to be sent off for a spear tackle, even though it was not the first such tackle at the tournament.
Wales battled on manfully, exerting intense pressure on France, and almost managed to pull off the win with 14 men on the park. The result put France in the final as the first team ever to reach a final having lost two pool matches - and having played perhaps the poorest rugby fans had seen from them at a World Cup.
5. New Zealand vs FranceCraig Joubert, a South African referee - under whom New Zealand has never lost a match - was selected as the referee for the final by New Zealander Paddy O'Brien. From the outset it was clear that two different standards were being applied to the two teams. New Zealand was treated with immense leniency at the breakdown, while the slightest whiff of an infringement from France was penalised.
France appeared to handle the pressure of the situation better than their opponents, and in the second half begin exerting intense pressure on the New Zealand team. There were several clear infringements directly in front of the ref that were not blown up, and despite securing 55% of the possession and 55% of the territory, this pressure resulted in only one long-distance penalty opportunity.
Furthermore New Zealand were awarded 3 points from a missed penalty by Stephen Donald.
(I suspect that a legitimate French penalty that crossed the bar was disallowed, but can't find the relevant footage - if you come across it please send me the link.)
New Zealand eventually pull through to a nervy win.
In case it isn't obvious, here is what is wrong with this picture: Five critical matches at the tournament saw the dominant team lose the match due to inconsistent refereeing of the breakdown. In every single case the outcome of the contest favoured New Zealand.
1. Ireland's defeat of Australia effectively made South Africa's path to the semifinal much more difficult, as they were widely backed to put away Ireland with ease in a quarterfinal and progress to a semifinal against New Zealand. If Australia had prevailed against Ireland, they would have been put on course for a place in the final on the 'easier' side of the draw, likely forcing New Zealand into beating both its Tri Nations rivals to win the title.
2. A win by a much-improved Scotland over Argentina would have shunted them into the path of New Zealand, who would no doubt have preferred to face a sub-par Argentinean team in the quarterfinals, and subsequently did.
3. Australia's defeat of South Africa eliminated the stronger of these two teams from the tournament, leaving New Zealand to play the weaker team in the semifinal.
4. France's defeat of Wales ensured that the weakest of the Northern Hemisphere teams in the draw progressed to the final rather than the strongest.
5. The refereeing of the final clearly advantaged New Zealand - please watch this post match discussion to witness some of the pivotal decisions that handed victory to New Zealand in a match where a single kickable penalty would have won it for France.
Having reviewed these results, one finds that every single match that was critical to the eventual outcome of the tournament, and where a different outcome would have made New Zealand's path to the final more difficult, was decided in New Zealand's favour. In every case the dominant team lost despite advantages in territory and possession.
As a result New Zealand was able to progress to the final, and win the tournament, by: beating France twice (with the first of these victories clearly achieved against a side that was not interested in playing to its true potential, and risking its place in the Northern Hemisphere section of the draw), beating a lukewarm Argentinean side, beating an off-colour Australian side, and scraping past a more determined France in the final.
Could this be coincidence? Yes, of course it could. But when one sees a pattern of biased refereeing at the breakdown pushing the result in favour of the weaker team match after match, I think it is perfectly reasonable to begin questioning these results without being branded a conspiracy theorist.
Naysayers are quick to forget than in 1997 an email was intercepted from Keith Lawrence (father of Bryce, and at that time head of NZ referees) urging Australian referees to 'give the Jarpies hell' in the 1997 Super 12 tournament. Ultimately one South African side reached the semifinals of that tournament, and lost the match. Not only did this incident demonstrate that collusion between referees to produce desired results take place, but it also calls into question the integrity of SANZAR referees in general.
Of course, the question I now have to answer is what motivation would New Zealand rugby officials have had to rig the outcome of the tournament?
The answer is fairly simple: money. During the tournament it was revealed that New Zealand were considering pulling out of the 2015 World Cup in protest of the 'minimal' revenues that their Union receives from the IRB. Given this incident, and that the World Cup was widely expected to generate a net loss, it's not a reach to suggest that New Zealand rugby is under financial pressure.
Not only is the economic climate not favourable to spending on tickets for sports events (as was evident by the half-empty stadiums witnessed in New Zealand for the duration of the Super 15), but the All Blacks brand is the most valuable in rugby, and would have taken a substantial knock had the men wearing it lost a World Cup in their home country.
Losing the final may have cost senior officials and team managers their jobs. There would quite possibly also have been problems with the team's sponsors, and an All Black defeat would probably have had knock-on effects on the country's rugby economy (merchandise and tickets in particular).
Then there were issues of pride and the pure desire to win, that would not have facilitated match fixing on their own but might certainly have added some fuel to the fire.
Finally, while New Zealand have the talent to win the tournament without any assistance, the tournament-ending injury to key player, Daniel Carter, may also have created an environment where other options for guaranteeing victory were explored. The impact of the loss of the New Zealand playmaker, widely regarded as the finest player on the planet, cannot be overemphasised.
I realise that this is unpleasant for fans of the game to read or consider, but if you watched the tournament with blinkers off you must have felt sickened by the outcome of many of the matches. If our sport is not about the stronger and more dominant team winning the match, then I see little point in watching it. Personally I enjoy watching sport to witness the triumph of excellence, not of mediocrity.
I fully appreciate that New Zealand is the best team in the world, and the most consistent performer in world rugby, and do not challenge their dominance of the sport. Neither do I for a moment suggest that players colluded in any possible match fixing. However, the fact remains that part of excellence and being regarded as a world champion is that one is able to win several consecutive high-pressure matches in a major tournament.
Suggesting that New Zealand somehow 'deserved' the World Cup because they've been so good over the years is like suggesting that South Africa should have been handed the Cricket World Cup earlier this year because they've enjoyed long periods of dominance in One Day International cricket. Nobody would suggest this, as everybody seems to understand that South Africa needs to develop the mental strength and composure to win the World Cup to be considered true champions.
New Zealand have won what they deserved - several Tri Nations titles and series wins over the strongest teams in world rugby. This does not make them automatic recipients of the World Cup.
The result of the 2011 Rugby World Cup could have serious repercussion for the sport. The sight of inferior teams securing victories over their opponents, often by blatantly biased refereeing, will have done little to attract neutrals to the game. Furthermore, even established rugby fans are doubting the integrity of their sport and its governing body after watching some of the more suspect refereeing performances.
Match fixing and tournament rigging could destroy rugby if allowed to continue. For rugby to reach its full potential it is essential that the sport continues to be respected by fans, administrators and players. For decades rugby has held a moral high-ground because of the relative absence of gamesmanship on the field, and the civilised behaviour of fans, players, administrators and officials off the field. Should we lose this, the sport we all love could rapidly lose the momentum it has built over the past decade, as well as hordes of establish supporters.
I therefore recommend that anyone who feels that the Rugby World Cup result was premeditated raise their voice, indicate their support for this cause, share this post and raise support for an independent investigation of the conduct of match officials at the tournament. I will welcome reasonable debate of these issues, and hope to add more detailed tournament analysis if this movement gains traction.
