The IRB is getting too big for its boots

[cyclopath]

The decision is interesting; they repeat it. And John Eales, who was on that panel, is not a man whose word I would doubt.

Hell, if Eales told me the sun rose in the west, I'd tell the compass it knew bugger-all.

If he wrote it down, maybe. If he said it in his commentating voice, I'd tune out in seconds.
Huge admiration and respect for the man as a footy player, not top of my list of speaking voices. Like Ian Jones.
And I still don't believe the IRB were really going to put a suspended expulsion on their world champions for this RWC.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

If Eliota hadn't been as over the top and used such strong language as he has....would anyone listen??

Yes, easy.

Write a short essay or blog post. Attach a petition to it. Maybe even make a website for this petition.

Then send it all over social networking. Send it to all the famous rugby players and media personalities who support a change. If he can rack up over 500 signatures from professinal players/coaches, and over 100,000 signatures from the general public. Surely the IRB are likely to take a look?

It will do a lot more help to the cause than retweeting death threats aimed at match officials.

Not to mention that people have been raising this issue ever since the beginning of the world cup. Anyone who wants to see change for the next world cup should be angry at Eliota, because he isn't doing our cause any favors. Just making a mockery of the cause.

 

[Thomond78]

Yes, easy.

Write a short essay or blog post. Attach a petition to it. Maybe even make a website for this petition.

Then send it all over social networking. Send it to all the famous rugby players and media personalities who support a chance. If he can rack up over 500 signatures from professinal players/coaches, and over 100,000 signatures from the general public. Surely the IRB are likely to take a look?

It will do a lot more help to the cause than retweeting death threats aimed at match officials.

Not to mention that people have been raising this issue ever since the beginning of the world cup. Anyone who wants to see change for the next world cup should be angry at Eliota, because he isn't doing our cause any favors. Just making a mockery of the cause.

And that, btw, would appear to be more or less the take of the Samoan RU.

The Samoa Rugby Union said it was ``extremely disappointed'' with Fuimaono-Sapolu's actions, saying it had made every effort to contact him to let him know about the charges and the hearing details.

"Contact was attempted via telephone and social media and attempts were made to determine his location. Despite repeated contact attempts, his appearance on New Zealand television and his apparent location in Auckland, the union and the team are yet to hear from Eliota since the team dispersed in the weekend.''

The team said it was continuing to try to contact Fuimaono-Sapolu.

The union distanced itself from Fuimaono-Sapolu's comments, saying they were "totally unrepresentative'' and "exceptionally disappointing by a senior squad member who is supposed to be an ambassador for Samoan Rugby''.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10756753

 

[Thomond78]

BTW, he's also let down his club, Gloucester, who are now left paying his wages while he's busy tweeting away.

 

[Bullrush]

And that, btw, would appear to be more or less the take of the Samoan RU.



http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10756753

The Samoan Union is in avery tough position. No matter if they agree with Eliota, the IRB is still the hand that feeds them so they are very wary about biting it. Not to mention that it really isn't in our nature to rock the boat too much.

 

[Bullrush]

Yes, easy.

Write a short essay or blog post. Attach a petition to it. Maybe even make a website for this petition.

Then send it all over social networking. Send it to all the famous rugby players and media personalities who support a change. If he can rack up over 500 signatures from professinal players/coaches, and over 100,000 signatures from the general public. Surely the IRB are likely to take a look?

It will do a lot more help to the cause than retweeting death threats aimed at match officials.

Not to mention that people have been raising this issue ever since the beginning of the world cup. Anyone who wants to see change for the next world cup should be angry at Eliota, because he isn't doing our cause any favors. Just making a mockery of the cause.

People have been saying this stuff for years, trying to advocate for the smaller nations eg. eligibility rules......yep, heaps of progress there...

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

People have been saying this stuff for years, trying to advocate for the smaller nations eg. eligibility rules......yep, heaps of progress there...

If his actions are meant as a last resort. OK. But do you really think we have reached the stage where nothing else can be done? Right in the middle of a world cup and 4 years away from the next one. (in which he can attempt others avenues of protest...)

If this is all just a big wind up to get attention. How dare he try put the life of match officials at risk just to put forward his 'tier 2 rights' agenda? If referees started encouraging death threats aimed at players/coaches just to promote a cause, they would be widely criticized, and rightly so.

I'm sure "people have been saying this stuff for years". But I'm not convinced he/or anyone has done everything they can to avoid stooping to this level of protest.

Would you agree that the current circumstances probably don't justify his actions? They still have at least 4 years before the next world cup to try and get changes made.

 

[Bullrush]

I'm not saying that I agree with absolutely everything he's said and how he's said it but I think the issues he's raised are real.

He may have had other options as to how to raise them etc but this is the one he's chosen and he's apparently ready to lose his rugby career because of it.

While people may choose to focus on how he's making his stance as opposed to what his stance is, he's making it very hard for people to ignore him. Which I think is really what a lot of the other options are really about....a way for someone to say something but in reality, just be ignored. It's like these protests or strikes that people or groups organise at times that least inconvenience others. All nicely organised with the right authorities etc to ensure the least amount of disruption.....and hence easily be ignored.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Would this help control stupidity. Not every crime known to humanity can be laid at the door of the IRB

It was a simple question not an implied solution.....sheesh

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

He may have had other options as to how to raise them etc but this is the one he's chosen and he's apparently ready to lose his rugby career because of it

OK I'll agree to disagree on that. He is doing a good job at getting his case heard, but most of the behavior is very unnecessary. I hope he provides a lengthy apology to all the people he attacked just to get publicity at the end of this, namely Nigel Owens.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Right, I thought that's what you were getting at. The title 'SC' was just a replacement of the old 'QC (Quade Cooper)'; the name changed for new appointees in NSW in 1993. Apparently (I only found this out when I looked it up just now) QCs were appointed by the Governor in council, who I suppose is a representative of the Queen, but it's still a pretty big stretch to say that any apparent preference given to QCs over SCs was a result of a tie to England.

It's more likely that any tendency towards QCs was because they'd been silks for at least 10 years, and were therefore ludicrously pimp, senior dudes.

And this is the most boring post anyone will ever write on a rugby forum. I award me no points, and may God have mercy on my soul.

The point is that they go looking for the form and ignore the substance: as with worrying about the mouth guards. If there is not an approved mouth guard supplier whats it matter and, if there is, they might need to review their investment because none of us seem to have any inkling as to who it is.
As for the SCs bit: what you say is wrong because,in part, there's not enough rugby here to make a career out of doing rugby stuff so seniority does not connote familiarity with issues and because the Australian judiciary member at RWC 2011 is neither an SC nor a QC (Quade Cooper). It was a means of give the home unions control.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I for one blame social media on this whole thing. Ten years ago where would he have had to pick up his landline and call some friends!

The point was never that he was right it was the heavy handed way in which the IRB deals with things.
Also, how come the NZRU was not guilty of bringing the game into disrepute when in it basically said the tournament sux?
Remember, prior to 1987, Lord Softbottom and his Etonian pals did not even want a world cup....in 95 they did not want the game to go professional, hence the European structure whereby the clubs own the players. They did not want the ELVs. They did not want 4 point tries, nor 5 point tries, nor only being allowed to kick out from within your own 22 - original known as the Australian dispensation because it was played as a local rule here. They stopped us singing waltzing Matilda. They sent us to die a Gallipoli, fromelles etc etc

 

[Inside Shoulder]

On claims of racism, and bias? None.

On how he's landed Samoa in the doghouse? None.

On the claim that Williams was wrongly sent off? None. Williams admitted the foul play at the citing hearing.

On the claim that Nigel cost Samoa a quarter-final place? None. Wales got five points against Fiji, so that was that, even if Samoa had won the SA game.

On the scheduling? Others got on with it, and dealt with it. He's demanding, in essence, that Samoa be the ones who get the benefit of short turn-arounds for their opponents. Considering the short turn-around he was whining about was after Samoa had played a piss-weak amateur team in Namibia, compared to Wales having to go out against the Bokke, I've no real sympathy for the claim Wales had less of a load.

And as to sympathy - by his conduct, he's forfeited any claim to that.

He is demanding that everyone be treated equally - at least thats the bit I want to focus on.
I gather (I havent seen it) that Williams struck with an open hand - i.e. a slap - a straight out punch rarely gets more than a yellow.
Whats the link to this Bokke decision?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

If his actions are meant as a last resort. OK. But do you really think we have reached the stage where nothing else can be done? Right in the middle of a world cup and 4 years away from the next one. (in which he can attempt others avenues of protest...)

If this is all just a big wind up to get attention. How dare he try put the life of match officials at risk just to put forward his 'tier 2 rights' agenda? If referees started encouraging death threats aimed at players/coaches just to promote a cause, they would be widely criticized, and rightly so.

I'm sure "people have been saying this stuff for years". But I'm not convinced he/or anyone has done everything they can to avoid stooping to this level of protest.

Would you agree that the current circumstances probably don't justify his actions? They still have at least 4 years before the next world cup to try and get changes made.

ahem.....dont you get the feeling the NZRU had been pleading with the IRB to relax their mediaeval rules before they threatened to boycott 2015?

 

[Thomond78]

He is demanding that everyone be treated equally - at least thats the bit I want to focus on.
I gather (I havent seen it) that Williams struck with an open hand - i.e. a slap - a straight out punch rarely gets more than a yellow.
Whats the link to this Bokke decision?

Shame he didn't ask for that without the homophobia, threats, and accusations of bias and racism, then, isn't it?

Because that's what he's being done for; and rightly so.

And let's not pretend otherwise. Other people have complained about these issues, but they've not been done, because they've not been retweeting threats against officials, or hurling abuse and utterly unfounded allegations of heinous conduct at match officials.

It's as simple as that. And trying to focus on anything else is impossible, because of his own conduct making it impossible.

 

[Thomond78]

The point was never that he was right it was the heavy handed way in which the IRB deals with things.
Also, how come the NZRU was not guilty of bringing the game into disrepute when in it basically said the tournament sux?
Remember, prior to 1987, Lord Softbottom and his Etonian pals did not even want a world cup....in 95 they did not want the game to go professional, hence the European structure whereby the clubs own the players. They did not want the ELVs. They did not want 4 point tries, nor 5 point tries, nor only being allowed to kick out from within your own 22 - original known as the Australian dispensation because it was played as a local rule here. They stopped us singing waltzing Matilda. They sent us to die a Gallipoli, fromelles etc etc

If you're going to try and make a point, learn a bit about the central contract systems in various European countries, or the regionalised set-up in Wales.

Otherwise, you just make yourself look even more asinine than before; which is no mean feat.

 

[Thomond78]

The point is that they go looking for the form and ignore the substance: as with worrying about the mouth guards. If there is not an approved mouth guard supplier whats it matter and, if there is, they might need to review their investment because none of us seem to have any inkling as to who it is.
As for the SCs bit: what you say is wrong because,in part, there's not enough rugby here to make a career out of doing rugby stuff so seniority does not connote familiarity with issues and because the Australian judiciary member at RWC 2011 is neither an SC nor a QC (Quade Cooper). It was a means of give the home unions control.

Balls. Of the decisions I've looked at this far, there's a French judge there, a Kiwi QC (Quade Cooper), an English judge who's the leading guy world-wide in rugby law; control by the home unions?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

If you're going to try and make a point, learn a bit about the central contract systems in various European countries, or the regionalised set-up in Wales.

Otherwise, you just make yourself look even more asinine than before; which is no mean feat.

A slip - i should have iimited it to england
So let me understand - this guy is in the wrong for making personal attacks but you seek to advance the issue by...making personal attacks: consistency appears to be quite foreign to your way of "thinking".
Youre not on the IRB are you?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Balls. Of the decisions I've looked at this far, there's a French judge there, a Kiwi QC (Quade Cooper), an English judge who's the leading guy world-wide in rugby law; control by the home unions?

you mean "thus far".
http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/home/teams/team=40/news/newsid=2050696.html
Willis is Australian and is neither an SC nor a QC (Quade Cooper)

I was writing of 2003 but dont let that hold you back
Perhaps you could tone down the personal stuff?

 

[Thomond78]

And here's the difference; you're a random punter, who's demonstrably showing he knows nothing, is clearly wrong, and is now throwing toys when he's having it pointed out - which, btw, isn't a personal attack, because pointing out you're being crassly dumb isn't quite the same as retweeting threats that you're a dead man, now is it?

The referee, by contrast, is a match official, who put in a good performance.

But, it wouldn't matter if it weren't; because there is one law you CANNOT break in rugby. And that is; if you touch, or threaten, a match official you're gone. That's it, end of story. You are gone. If you retweet abuse of, threats to, or accuse a referee of racism or bias, and then run from it, you're gone.

And if you don't accept that, then you're no representative of this game.