The IRB is getting too big for its boots

[Bruwheresmycar]

He's off again with injustices I had over looked
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...-new-antiirb-twitter-rant-20111006-1lbb5.html

Injustice my arse. Did Samoa ask for a minute silence? Read the article:

However, an International Rugby Board (IRB) spokesman told AFP on Thursday they had acknowledged the tsunami, saying: "As agreed with the Samoa Rugby Union, the date was respectfully commemorated with a public address immediately prior to kick-off and also the wearing of black armbands to remember those who tragically lost their lives."

He is on drugs.

 

[grievous]

Injustice my arse. Did Samoa ask for a minute silence? Read the article:



He is on drugs.

Pacific Hooch?
Shame, he could have made the points in a much better way

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Injustice my arse. Did Samoa ask for a minute silence? Read the article:



He is on drugs.

Well you probably shouldnt have to ask.
Maybe he has suffered a career ending injury and he's decided he has nothing to lose so he's just swinging wildly and hoping he takes a few with him.
So far all I can see is self inflicted wounds......

Still, the IRB is too big for it's boots


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=22.217916,-159.495011

 

[Thomond78]

Right-ho. So, no matter what the evidence, no matter how clearly we show he's wrong, you're not interested.

Cyclo, Scarfie, or whoever; it's hit the wall. Lock the thread, please, because from here on in there'll be no more light and increasing heat.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Right-ho. So, no matter what the evidence, no matter how clearly we show he's wrong, you're not interested.

Cyclo, Scarfie, or whoever; it's hit the wall. Lock the thread, please, because from here on in there'll be no more light and increasing heat.

The Irish, generally, have a sense of humour and barristers are supposed to possess judgment.
You must be the exception to prove both rules.
The thread's purpose is (was?) to exchange ideas not to persuade me: I am genuinely interested to know what reasonably knowledgable and well informed people think about the administration of the game.
By the way: Venter was actually right about there having been a half time influence. The ref admits to having a discussion about his inadequate handling of the breakdown with other officials. Venter never said, in terms, that the other team had been responsible for the influence he was referring to. It seems to me arguable that taken literally there was nothing wrong with what he said.
Did Venter receive any punishment for the post match interview following his sanction in which he agreed with and adopted all of the interviewers questions and their underlying premises?


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=22.218059,-159.495256

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Heavy handedness:
"The World Cup big brothers are always watching you. While the Wallabies rugby logo on the training bags used on match day has to be covered with tape, so that it does not infringe upon any of the long list of regulations to keep every World Cup sponsor happy, England's Toby Flood discovered the pain of forgetting his": ruck & maul

What possible justification could there be for this?
Who is the official supplier of small kangaroos to the IRB?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Inside Shoulder]

From the NZH:
But for the IRB a global rugby season is just another tree in a forest of issues. Over the past few weeks the organisation has been criticised for not providing a level playing field in giving the "minnows'' of the World Cup such as Samoa too little turnaround time between matches and being too heavy-handed in fining the Tuilagi brothers for wearing the wrong mouthguards. They have been accused of bleeding the big rugby countries dry and not giving enough to the smaller nations.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bullrush]

Right-ho. So, no matter what the evidence, no matter how clearly we show he's wrong, you're not interested.

Cyclo, Scarfie, or whoever; it's hit the wall. Lock the thread, please, because from here on in there'll be no more light and increasing heat.

You haven't clearly shown anyone's wrong or right at all. You've expressed your opinions....that is all.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

And so have a lot of others and that is what's it all about.
I learned long ago that you won't change the opinions of others I'm not trying to I'm just promoting discussion to see what I can learn.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Thomond78]

The Irish, generally, have a sense of humour and barristers are supposed to possess judgment.
You must be the exception to prove both rules.
The thread's purpose is (was?) to exchange ideas not to persuade me: I am genuinely interested to know what reasonably knowledgable and well informed people think about the administration of the game.
By the way: Venter was actually right about there having been a half time influence. The ref admits to having a discussion about his inadequate handling of the breakdown with other officials. Venter never said, in terms, that the other team had been responsible for the influence he was referring to. It seems to me arguable that taken literally there was nothing wrong with what he said.
Did Venter receive any punishment for the post match interview following his sanction in which he agreed with and adopted all of the interviewers questions and their underlying premises?


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=22.218059,-159.495256

He was told if he ever did it again, he'd be coughing up the other €15,000. A month or so later, he left Saracens, after having dragged himself and his club into trouble three times in one year.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

He was told if he ever did it again, he'd be coughing up the other €15,000. A month or so later, he left Saracens, after having dragged himself and his club into trouble three times in one year.

..a pity: the post match where he gave away absolutely nothing shows the problem with trying to gag the playing side of the equation in relation to their observations of the administrators.
Its not like the administrators, in my experience, are ever short of comments about how to play or coach.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

There's no problem here it's just my imagination......

"The SANZAR nations were, according to O'Neill, unified in their stance against the IRB, which, he added, needed to undergo a management review."

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...-funding-is-serious-issue-20111007-1ld12.html

So let's see: the only countries to win more than 1 RWC are united with it's first winner and the minnows want a better deal......

Sound like the IRB is not running the game to the satisfaction of anyone?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Rugby Nick]

A refs performance does not invite an examination of his personality. Rather, it invites consideration of the merits of the decisions he or she made.

Same can be said of players. There are many reasons refs are sports personality - not least they have more impact on a game than anyone player. But in certain aspects, such as helping gays have a role model in sport, why would you try remove that?

And it seems your complaint is 'he shouldnt be a personality', not what was said. Why wouldnt you focus on that?

Why shouldnt australia have 4 day turnarounds during the pool stages if it's good enough for the minnows?

I'll give you a chance to rethink this comment. A clue: consider the TV you are watching the games on



---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=22.217916,-159.495011[/QUOTE]

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

No one is saying the IRB are doing a good job. People just disagree with the way the samoan player is carrying on. It's not that people don't want criticism of the IRB, but it needs to be legitimate criticism. Not blatant mis-information, lies and abuse of match officials, because that will get us no where.

Inside shoulder's incoherent responses are even worth reading, let alone replying too anymore. Lets let this thread die.

 

[#1?]

It is all too easy to criticise, and lord knows the Sir Nigel Soft-Bottoms and cronies have made it relatively easy for us recently, but developing and implementing solutions that achieve results is often harder than it first seems.

What advice can GAGGERLANDERS offer the IRB to get its act sorted out?

If you were the IRB Boss what would be your objectives for that organisation?

What would you change, and what would you fight to not change?

Tough Ask. IOC were laughing stock, not so bad now. FIFA are laughing stock. UN are interesting. Lots of multinational "volunteer" organisations struggle to overcome internecine political issues and claims of pork barrelling, self interest etc. Power corrupts - absolute power corrupts absolutely.

What about more regional satellite tournaments for the minnows, to keep costs of participating and hosting down?

Stuff all you can do with the legal/judicial side of things? the lawyers are now part and parcel of the professional sporting environment, I suspect that IRB judicial process is not that different from other major sports NFL, NBL, FIFA, IOC, Court of Arbitration for Sport.

A major perception management makeover is needed. Most of us view the IRB similar to the IOC sponges, demanding 5 star privilege treatment all the way all the time at our expense - the grass roots died in the wool punters. I am sure that some of the IRB may be trying their absolute best to do a good job, objectively, efficiently and economically. We just don't have that image.

Stronger statements about teams, and individuals who have brought the game into public disrepute.

Not an IRB issue, or is it, but spectator education programme. What is acceptable behaviour, and good natured barracking, and what behaviours are not acceptable.

 

[grievous]

JON talked again about the Tri Nations unity on the costs of a WC and that the IRB needs to hand out more, we havent heardd from SA yet. One thing I do agree with what he said was tha the IRB based in Dublin needs to be overhauled. But would he really accept decisions that looked after teams outside the top 8, he may rue that comment.

 

[Rugby Nick]

JON talked again about the Tri Nations unity on the costs of a WC and that the IRB needs to hand out more, we havent heardd from SA yet. One thing I do agree with what he said was tha the IRB based in Dublin needs to be overhauled. But would he really accept decisions that looked after teams outside the top 8, he may rue that comment.

I'd agree with that, the first thing they need to overhaul is the idea that Jon should ever be listened to. After that we can look at any ideas put forward by anyone else.

 

[Sully]

Jon has been better than anyone else in the last 30 years.


Sent using Tapatalk

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Same can be said of players. There are many reasons refs are sports personality - not least they have more impact on a game than anyone player. But in certain aspects, such as helping gays have a role model in sport, why would you try remove that?

And it seems your complaint is 'he shouldnt be a personality', not what was said. Why wouldnt you focus on that?



I'll give you a chance to rethink this comment. A clue: consider the TV you are watching the games on



---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=22.217916,-159.495011

[/QUOTE]

Whether the ref is gay or not is utterly irrelevant: he may be important to a game but that does not mean that anyone is there to appreciate his unique personal traits. It's a game for players not refs.

And who gets the money from TV at whose cost: clue - the IRB at NZRU, ARU, & Sarfu's cost.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Jon has been better than anyone else in the last 30 years.


Sent using Tapatalk

He'd certainly agree with you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk