The corpse of Graham Henry’s World Cup dream just refuses to stay buried as the causes of its untimely demise are still present in the 2008 incarnation of the All Blacks: Poor on field leadership, no plan B and a new affliction for 2008, lack of depth at key positions.

The All Blacks’ failures in Cardiff are well documented, but to have them rear their ugly heads again in 2008, especially after all the excuses of 2007 is almost unforgivable. In 2007 the rugby public was told the coaching staff knew what they were doing and to have faith, then when the All Blacks crashed to their worst ever World Cup result, we were told it wasn’t really anyone’s fault and saw that same coaching staff given another chance.

Two weeks ago in Dunedin the All Blacks suffered their first home loss to South Africa in 10 years, partly because the team didn’t know how or when to set up for a drop goal (sound familiar?). With just under three minutes to go, Ma’a Nonu busted the Springbok line and was tackled just 10 metres out, right in front of the posts. Instead of lining up for the match winning drop goal, Dan Carter took off out to the left in an attempt to score a try, which, of course, didn’t pan out and the All Blacks lost their first game at home in over seven years.

Fast forward a week, and the other issue which undid the All Blacks in Cardiff, no plan B, was clearly evident in their loss to Australia. Plan A looked like the All Blacks were trying to play a possession game, refusing to kick and keeping the ball in hand, but when their handling began to let them down and they lost the battle at the breakdown, there was no change in tactics, just more of the same.

The blame for the lack of leadership could be directed at the absence of regular captain Richie McCaw, who missed the game due to injury, but the Wallabies were also without their skipper Sterling Mortlock, and they adapted and even withstood the All Blacks’ comeback, something that could have undone lesser sides.

Whatever the reason, the All Blacks need to sort these issues out quickly, as the rugby public of New Zealand is getting tired of seeing these lacklustre performances which all seem to boil down to the same problems. And if these aren’t sorted soon, coach Henry may not survive past the end of the Tri-Nations.

After losing both Ali Williams and Richie McCaw in the first half of the test against England, the All Blacks showed a great deal of courage and character to fight back from adversity and put in a convincing performance, but now that McCaw is out for the Tri-Nations opener against South Africa and Williams is in doubt, the focus has come on to who can replace these senior players.

Having a once in a generation player like McCaw in the ranks has meant that many promising openside flankers have left New Zealand for big money overseas, knowing that their chance of wearing the black jersey is slim. And now that McCaw is injured, the loss of players like Marty Holah and Craig Newby is being felt.

It would appear that McCaw’s replacement will be Chris Masoe, who has played just two games of club rugby since the Hurricanes lost their Super 14 semi final. But it’s not just Masoe’s lack of game time that is a concern, he has been tried at international level before and has not really stood out against top opposition. Sure he played well against Portugal and Romania, but up against top opensiders like George Smith and Schalk Berger he has been found wanting.

But if not Masoe, then who? Daniel Braid played well for the Blues, but seems to have fallen out of favour, Tanirau Latimer and Thomas Waldrom are good Super 14 players but no more, so it would seem that the All Blacks are stuck with Masoe, or perhaps playing Rodney So’oialo out of position.

In 2007 the All Blacks had an embarrassment of riches at lock, with Chris Jack and Ali Williams as the incumbents, and Jason Eaton, James Ryan and Ross Filipo breathing down their necks. This year New Zealand rugby got Brad Thorn back form league, but lost Jack to the Northern Hemisphere, Ryan to retirement and it would seem Filipo and Eaton are not in the All Blacks picture, with both currently playing for New Zealand Maori.

With those players gone, and Williams in doubt, the cover is Anthony Boric and Kevin O’Neil, neither of whom screams “future international star”, especially when the Tri-Nations already features some of the world’s best locks like Victor Matfield, Bakkies Botha and Nathan Sharpe.

So perhaps the All Blacks are lacking in some key positions right now, or perhaps Masoe and Boric will surprise everyone and completely dominate their opponents. But this depth problem is a temporary one as some bright young players are set to make their way through the ranks.

England’s best chance in the series came in the second test in Christchurch where the All Blacks lost two of their most senior forwards, Ali Williams and captain Richie McCaw, to injury before half time, but instead the English continued with the uninspired tactics and were totally outclassed.

Kicking for field position is an age old tactic in rugby, and with a dominant forward pack it can completely shut down an opponent, but when the kicks are aimless and the forwards going backwards, it would seem time to change the tactic. England, it would seem, lacked a plan B, resorting to one off runs that were caught behind the advantage line all to often.

Much vaunted prop Andy Sheridan did very little in the Eden Park test, aside from getting sin binned, while his propping partner Matt Stevens was given a torrid time by Neemia Tialata and Tony Woodcock. In fact the England scrum was not the dominant weapon the English had hoped it would be, as once again the All Blacks gave the men in white a lesson in scrum technique.

If the scrum was a weakness for England, their midfield defence was a complete disaster with Olly Barkley, Jamie Noon and Mike Tindall unable to contain the power and speed of Ma’a Nonu, Conrad Smith and Richard Kahui. Tindall’s only contribution to both test matches was a yellow card in each, although he did look good as Smith and Nonu powered past him.

Actually crossing the line proved to be a problem for England, scoring just four tries in two test matches and three of those were opportunistic efforts, with only Tom Varndell’s effort being the result of a strong build up.

The difference between Northern and Southern Hemisphere referees was also evident, as Welshman Nigel Owen allowed England to dive off their feet at the ruck, sealing the ball off as seems to be the northern tactic, while South African Jonathan Kaplan penalised England repeatedly for the same thing.

The question for in-coming coach Martin Johnson must now be, where to from here as he inherits a team which has been so thoroughly outplayed in this test series. The areas that were thought to be strengths have been exposed as weaknesses, and the weaknesses ruthlessly exploited for all to see.

This “article” by professional troll and Sunday News columist Doug Golightly, about why Ma’a Nonu should be an All Black, has to be one of the most fallacious, one eyed, and downright offensive articles published by the New Zealand media in some time. By then again, that seems to be Golightly’s M.O.

He can’t pass. He’s ordinary on defence.

He hasn’t got the vision to be selected in such a vital position.

Anyway, how can you play a Polynesian with dreadlocks there? It won’t work.

Here we go again, I smell a comparison to Tana Umaga coming up here, something I have never quite understood. Sure they’re both of Polynesian extraction and have dreadlocks, but that’s where the similarities end. Umaga started out as a winger and moved in centre when he no longer had the speed, while Nonu lacks the speed to be a winger, but does have some devastating power in the midfield, something Umaga only developed late in his career.

It’s all been said before about a player before Nonu. That bloke was the iconic Tana Umaga, who wasn’t considered to be up to it as a genuine midfield maestro by the “Rodney Rednecks” out there. In fact, according to these “experts” Umaga couldn’t pass, defend, break a tackle, kick or set up his wings.

Classic straw man argument here, stating a claim that nobody is actually making, then refuting it to make your position look stronger.

He was also a victim of the “what’s a coconut doing out there?” syndrome so prevalent among many “white” rugby fans.

Hold on a second, did Golightly just say that? The crux of his argument here seems to be that if you don’t think Nonu deserves to be an All Black, you’re a racist. Well call me Bubbah McHillbilly, but I don’t think Nonu should be an All Black and my reasons have nothing to do with the colour of his skin.

Golightly continues his insane ramblings for a while but then, almost by accident, stumbles onto a good point.

He’s (All Black assistant coach Wayne Smith) more likely to go with the safe Stephen Brett option depriving Ma’a of linking up with another dynamic player North Harbour’s Anthony Tuitavake.

Showing his disdain for Smith by calling him “the nutty professor” and “flaky”, Golightly then mentions what could be an excellent midfield pairing for the All Blacks. Modern rugby has moved on from having two battering rams in the midfield, these days a second five is from the same mould as the first five, with many players who played first five for most of their careers moving out to play there such as Aaron Mauger or Matt Giteau.

However, Brett at second five with his kicking game to complement that of Dan Carter, and Tuitavake as centre with his ability to break the line with speed, skill or power would indeed be an exciting combination.

The reason I would not have Nonu in my team is quite simple: discipline. For every good thing Nonu does on the field, he evens up the ledger by doing something stupid, giving away penalties, picking up yellow cards and getting suspended. In the 2008 Super 14 season Nonu picked up two yellow cards and a one week suspension, not bad for 13 rounds.

Not only is his disciplinary record poor, Nonu has a bad habit of cracking under pressure, dropping easy passes, taking poor options or trying to win the game single handedly. Friday’s game against the Blues should have been the stage where Nonu showed his class, instead he was conspicuously quiet.

So Mr Golightly, that is why I would not have Nonu in my team, and the accusation of racism is disgusting and low, even for you. Personally I would pick Tuitavake or Casey Laulala at centre, both of Polynesian extraction, leaving your mindless racist rhetoric dead in the water.

Sitting pretty on the top of the table with 52 points, the Crusaders have a 12 point lead over second place and will finish top regardless of this weekend’s results. First place ensures there will be a semi final in Christchurch next weekend, and a victory there will see the final in Christchurch too.

Below the Crusaders is where the hunt gets very interesting, with two games this weekend determining the fates of contenders.

The round opens with the Blues hosting the Hurricanes, with both teams still in the running for a semi. A win to the Hurricanes would secure them second place and a home semi final, but a loss could see them miss out altogether, such is the log jam on the table.

The Blues can keep their slim hopes alive with a win, but will need three other contenders, the Waratahs, Stormers and Sharks to trip up if they are to make the top four.

Making the long trip back from South Africa where they managed a draw and a loss, the Waratahs head to Brisbane to take on their arch rivals, the Reds. The formula for the Waratahs is the same as for the Hurricanes: win and they are in, lose and they could be leap frogged by the chasing pack.

They may be fourth, but the Stormers probably have the easiest game to secure their semi final appearance, taking on the last placed Lions. However, a bonus point win will be vital if they are to stay ahead of the Sharks.

In fact the most interesting battle could well be between the Stormers and Sharks as both teams sit on 37 points, with the Stormers’ slightly better points differential putting them just ahead.

The Sharks may have an advantage by playing the last game of the round, and will take the field knowing exactly what they need to do to keep their season alive. And with their points differential just nine points worse than the Stormers, they will be hoping for a close game in Johannesburg.

Finally the injury ravaged Chiefs have not yet been mathematically eliminated from the semi final hunt, they need to score a bonus point win over the Sharks and hope that the Stormers or Waratahs lose.

With so many possibilities going into the final round, it looks like the 2008 Super 14 will keep everyone guessing, and provide excitement right down to the final minute.

Nobody expects media commentators to be absolute experts in the laws of the rugby, in fact I like to think my 10 years as a referee give me a leg up on the competition, but when commentators and talk back hosts prattle on about incidents based on their faulty understanding of the laws, somebody has to set the record straight. And unlike Sunday Star Time columnist Grant Fox, I am happy to name names and cite incidents and facts, not just waffle in generalities.

On Saturday afternoon talk backradio, host, former Tongan international, Willie Lose asked why teams opt to take scrums when awarded free kicks near their opponent’s try line rather than take a drop goal. One caller agreed with him but correctly pointed out that teams cannot take a drop goal attempt from a free kick, which then prompted Lose to say that teams should just tap the ball, then pass it to a team mate to take the drop goal attempt.

The law here is extremely clear, and the sheer number of callers agreeing with Lose led me to turn the radio off in digust. The applicable law here is 21.6 (b) which reads: The team awarded a free kick cannot score a dropped goal until after the ball next becomes dead, or until after an opponent has played or touched it, or has tackled the ball carrier. This restriction applies also to a scrum taken instead of a free kick.

Simply put, there must be a tackle made after the free kick has been taken before a drop goal can be attempted. And it would be a very alert and brave referee who picked up and enforced that last sentence.

During the game between the Chiefs and Reds, referee Craig Joubert referred an incident to the Television Match Official when Chiefs’ winger Leila Masaga chased a kick into the in goal area and appeared to have grounded the ball just inside the touch in goal line. As the slow motion replays rolled, Sky Sports commentator Tony Johnson pointed out that Masaga’s hand was on the line before he grounded the ball and that it was unlikely to be a try.

After the try was awarded, quite correctly, Johnson said that it was probably due to the “benefit of the doubt”, a phrase which does not appear in the law book. In fact there is a law which covers doubt over grounding of the ball.

The applicable law here is 22.4 (g). If an attacking player is in touch or in touch-in-goal, the player can score a try by grounding the ball in the opponents in-goal provided the player is not carrying the ball. Granted this is slightly obscure and has an unnatural feel, but all referees have this particular law drilled into them so that if it does happen, they get it right.

In essence, because Masaga was not carrying the ball when he put his hand on the line, then grounded the ball, the try was awarded on the basis of law 22.4 (g).

Sitting in the press box at AMI Stadium, I frequently find myself correcting much more respected and better paid rugby scribes. Which leads to the question, if the basis of any sport is the laws, how can those who make their living documenting and commenting on it have such a poor understanding?

It is often said that rugby is a game of inches, but tonight it was a game of millimetres as the Blues were denied two extremely close tries by the Television Match Official, while the Crusaders were awarded one where they appeared to be in touch.

The first incident took place in the 65th minute, as Crusaders’ winger Sean Maitland tip toed down the touch line after regathering a Tim Bateman chip, setting up a try to replacement hooker Ti’i Paulo. Replays suggested that Maitland may have put a toe on the line, but assistant referee Kane McBride was right on the spot and the camera angle was by no means conclusive.

Just three minutes later the Blues appeared to have crashed over in the corner through captain Troy Flavell, only to have the try ruled out by the TMO as Flavell’s body hit the touch line a split second before he grounded the ball. Of all the contentious incidents in the game, this was the most clear cut and the officials got it right.

Moments later the Blues had another try ruled out by the TMO, this time Anthony Tuitavake was hauled down by Kade Poki a blade of grass short of the line, and from the ensuing ruck the Blues failed to score. After consulting the TMO, referee Lyndon Bray ruled Tuitavake short of the line and awarded the Crusaders a free kick, a decision which Blues’ coach David Nucifora described as “soul destroying”, but it is correct under the experimental laws.

If there was any doubt that the Crusaders’ back-line misses Dan Carter, the evidence was plain to see as the youngster stumbled, fumbled and bumbled their way through the game, bombing at least two tries, making too many handling errors and kicking away too much possession.

In the end it was the Crusaders’ ability to absorb the pressure from the Blues and counter attack that made the difference as they came away with the win, scoring four tries to three. The Blues dominated at the scrum and breakdown, but were unable to get their lineout working, losing almost as many as they won.

This win puts the Crusaders 11 points clear at the top of the table, although the Sharks can close that gap tomorrow night against the Waratahs, while the Blues will need to claim maximum points from their remaining three games if they are to stay in the semi final picture.