Editorial: Rugby? Vive la difference!

Opinion

Who are the 2005 Lions? The worst ever to visit this country, or a superbly coached, highly professional unit who are timing to perfection their run-up to next weekend's first test? What of their midweek match against Wellington? An appalling performance against an average team that would have succumbed to the All Blacks by 40 or 50 points? Or a game in which the Lions' forwards stifled the life out of a more than useful provincial side in difficult conditions?

It all depends, of course, on whether the glasses you are wearing are tinted red or of a black hue. The differentiation becomes even more acute if the wearer is imbued with a particularly fervent brand of nationalism. Then, whatever the identity of the wearer, the glasses obscure virtually anything that holds no appeal, and reveal only those things that suit the wearer's purpose. They see only what they want to see.

It was always so. And doubtless it always will be, despite the ever developing array of technology that allows, and encourages, the rugby follower - and, indeed, the rugby media - to demonstrate a far greater degree of objectivity. TV for example, enables the scrutiny of all aspects of a game to the nth degree. How, then, could there be such a discrepancy over fullback Josh Lewsey's fall late in the Maori game as he lined himself up to take what could have been a match-winning pass?

To the British and Irish media, and doubtless most Lions fans, it was a pivotal moment. Lewsey, they claimed, had been cynically taken out of play. Locally, however, the incident hardly rated a mention. When it did, Lewsey was deemed pretty much to have tripped over his own feet. There was no serious attempt to analyse TV footage to discover what actually happened, and whether the match could, indeed, have had a different outcome.

Not that New Zealanders are any more guilty than the fans and commentators from the British Isles. Red-tinted glasses pay little heed to local claims that the Lions flop over virtually every ruck in a calculated attempt to kill the ball. They concentrate instead on what they see as the ball-slowing tactics of New Zealand loose forwards, and use the slightest transgression to suggest Richie McCaw cheats.

Differing techniques at the ruck and maul have, of course, long been a staple of dissent between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Why it should remain so is something of a mystery. After all, the likes of Paul Honiss and Steve Walsh regularly referee Six Nations games, and British, Irish and French whistle-blowers officiate Tri-Nations matches.

On the basis of that, the game in the two hemispheres should have moved closer together. The rule book should be being interpreted far more uniformly and there should be no reason to vent outrage at individual referees, as though their mien and methods are a novelty.

But still the debates rage on. Those tinted glasses demand that the differences, no matter how insignificant, are exaggerated. Coaches are quite happy to make the sort of claims that place pressure on referees and gain, in their eyes, an advantage.

In the end, this game within a game may all be fairly harmless. On occasion, people have even been known to grudgingly concede that the opposition was the better team. But in the lead-up to a test series that is exciting anyone with the slightest interest in the game? Never.