As decisions punish them
matches’ suspension, and then further decreed that the All Blacks’ 40 minutes each against Counties and Taranaki did not meet that criteria, contained three Australians, two of whom are exWallabies.
And what is the test that Williams misses because of their ruling? Why, Australia.
That’s not to suggest judiciary officers Adam Casselden, David Croft, and John Langford are anything but gentlemen of the utmost integrity and independence.
But perception is an important thing in these matters, and the perception of neutrality in the decision-making process is fundamental.
The decision itself has the All Blacks fuming.
If the All Blacks had just played 80 minutes against Counties, that would have been fine. All very ‘‘meaningful’’. Same against Taranaki. But the problem is a full match against either of those sides wouldn’t have been very ‘‘meaningful’’ for the All Blacks, because they would win too easily. So the All Blacks, by way of ratcheting up the ‘‘meaningful’’ meter, have come up with this concept of 40 minutes each against two fresh sides, and they actually get something out of it.
It’s so ‘‘meaningful’’ it’s being televised, and punters are forking out hard-earned wedge to watch.
Yes, it’s semantics, but there’s a principle here. And a worrying trend of key decisions going against the world’s No 1 side.
Did you know that the All Blacks, or New Zealand Rugby, are yet to receive a justification from World Rugby on what transpired in the closing minutes of the third test against the Lions at Eden Park?
They are expecting one. But the silence has been deafening.
Almost every big decision went against the All Blacks over the final two Lions tests, and around the judicial committee rooms. It happens. You make your own luck. But when you add everything together, you just can’t help but wonder...