Play nzherald.co.nz's rugby Pick the Score competition - go to: pickthescore.nzherald.co.nz
Sport can be as complicated or as simple as you want to make it.
In terms of the former, it has become a playground for gobbledygook and for a couple of fairly legitimate reasons.
For a start, sport has produced its masters of the mouth who attract warmth and admiration for their insight and humour. You couldn't go past the American baseball legend Yogi Berra in this regard, and thanks to the wonders of the internet anyone can access his priceless and insightful mangling of the language.
In our neck of the woods, the late Australian league coaching guru Jack Gibson would take some beating, and many trees have been felled in the cause of getting his colourful thoughts into black and white.
It's only natural that others want to follow. The trouble is, most are pale imitators.
Secondly, making your own job description as complicated as possible is a way of providing job security. There are a few coaches in particular who specialise in this. It encourages the people who do the hiring and firing to dismiss new talent as too risky.
As an antidote, I've always had a special fondness for a halftime response from the Warriors assistant coach John Ackland, who told a breathless television interviewer that his players needed to run and tackle harder in the second half. Sport is that simple a lot of the time, but a lot of coaches don't want you to know it.
And thirdly, there is so much sport on television, and it occupies so many column inches in newspapers and magazines, that quite frankly, people need to make a few things up to fill the space. Running and tackling harder barely fills a line.
All of us in the sports business are guilty of much of the above. In fact, this introduction to today's column is a classic example.
I had three observations to make on the weekend of sport, and decided on a theory to hang them on.
Why not use simplicity? That's a good theme.
Except in doing so, simplicity went out the window.
KEEP IT SIMPLE is worth shouting about though, even for a transgressor like moi.
Example one: How do you judge the Indians' defeat in the second Twenty20 contest at Wellington on Friday night?
Simple - bad luck. Brendon McCullum's scooped shot on the final ball would have found a fielder nine times out of 10. McCullum played a marvellous hand, but he should have been out on that final ball, giving the Indians a shot at an extra-time victory. A gripping contest towards the end of the match started to bring the best out of the tourists, and saw their swing bowlers make headway in our conditions.
A common cry right now is that the conditions will favour the Black Caps on this Indian tour, yet they may actually favour the new breed of Indian bowler methinks. Going close has got the talented Indians going. Which brings us back to the "Keep it Simple" theory again - there are too many head doctors in sport. It is the battle in full competitive conditions which sorts the men from the boys and extracts the best out of the best.
Example two: Did the Chiefs deserve a draw against the Sharks in Hamilton as some suggest?
Simple - no, they didn't. Mike Delany stuffed up big time by sliding his right arm into touch as he attempted to score in the right-hand corner, a try that would have set up a tough levelling conversion attempt.
Delany could and should have planted the ball and then tumbled in to touch if necessary, although by wing standards (and Delany is a specialist first five-eighths) there was plenty of room. Instead, Delany scored as if he was sailing in under the posts. The video referee Ben Skeen judged that Delany went into touch and the ball hit the ground simultaneously which results in a no-try decision. Replays actually suggested he went into touch a split second first.
On the ruling itself, rugby should deem that simultaneous equals a try. Delany and others must refine their techniques though. It is a simple situation. He should have taken the video referee out of the equation. Get the ball down first, and worry about everything else second. In this, the Chiefs paid a price for ignoring another simple theory - players thrive in their correct positions. As for the Liam Messam no-try decision, I thought the officials got it correct.
The Chiefs are upset, but tangled theories and complaints are invariably excuses for ineptness or issued to relieve disappointment. A sporting home truth is that home truths are constantly avoided, in public at least. And the weight of constant close calls does not a legitimate try make.
Refereeing complaints only serve to mask the fact that the Chiefs' attack was too predictable close to the line, while the Sharks defended superbly using the up-and-in system with tacklers making decisive and excellent decisions.
Example three: Should the Blues have learned a lesson in Cape Town?
Simple - absolutely. If Pat Lam puts out his best side as often as he can, and forgets all those rambling rugby theories about tiredness which actually induce tiredness in both players and fans, then his team will push hard for a semifinal place.
If stars keep going absent for personal welfare reasons, and Lam leaves key All Blacks on the bench, their chances will go west quicker than Gary Cooper in a cowboy movie.
Mad-headed selection built on theories which make coaching sound a lot more complicated than it actually is have been at the root of many New Zealand rugby problems.
Get your best blokes out there as often as you can and make the newcomers scrap like crazy to earn their place. That's a tried and trusted theory.
