The IRB is getting too big for its boots

[Inside Shoulder]

Zavos:

"...... the IRB is a cabal of the Home Unions, which rule the game in their own interests."
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/r...by-ignoring-its-own-rules-20111007-1ldj2.html

"The obvious thing to do was to run southern hemisphere officials for the northern hemisphere half of the finals draw and vice-versa. Instead we have appointments that are inappropriate, according to the IRB's own rules. Sorry, make that none out of 10."

The article is worth reading for it's inclusion of a checklist of improprieties perpetrated by and in the name of the IRB

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Inside Shoulder]

///

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

What an interesting article...

However, I was on a national current affairs program during the week and was asked what mark out of 10, given the NZRU's perfect 10, I would give the IRB. My answer: ''I'd give the IRB one out of 10.

Wow, you were on A Current Affair! Well done. You must need to be really smart to go on that show. You need to get all your facts right and everything.

(sarcasm)

Two England officials swapped balls for Jonny Wilkinson to use for conversions. This is serious cheating. The punishment should have been a deduction of the match points (5) accrued in the demolition of Romania 67-3, and a fine in the six-figure category. If a trivial mouthguard violation of the RWC protocols is worth $10,000, then deliberately breaking a playing law during a match is worth at least 10 times as much.

So this guy goes on a huge rant about the IRB being massive Nazis for fining Samoan players $10,000 for wearing the wrong mouthguard. But he endorses the IRB fining England $100,000 for misplacing a ball? Along with a deduction of 5 match points?

If the IRB actually did such a stupid thing, idiots like this guy would be the first to call them "out of control".

One of the reasons the Samoan player and lawyer, Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu, has been so outspoken against the IRB is his anger that Samoa's match against South Africa was refereed by the Welshman Nigel Owens. If Samoa defeated South Africa, Wales were out of the tournament. Although the appointment did not come strictly under the IRB's rule, it violated the principle of a clear, perceived neutrality of the referees.

I finally realize why people like this think there is some huge conspiracy. They think the refs are appointed 5 minutes before each game.

Paddy: "If SA lose, Wales wont make it through. Quick, what should we do?"
Others: "We need to get Nigel on the job, he is Welsh and will help South Africa win"
Paddy: "Great idea, i'll give him a call".

Ahhh, no... All appointments were made before the world cup even started, he was going to be on this game whether Wales were coming first or last in their group... What do people expect? The IRB to pull Nigel Owens from that fixture simply because Wales might not go through if one team wins? Yea, that would be showing confidence that your referees do a fair job.

Long story short, refs aren't going for anyone and there is no conspiracy with appointments. The whole article is just sensationalist garbage, and you should have seen that in the first paragraph when he was trying to dress up A Current Affair as a real news program. I know I said I wouldn't post here again, but crap needs to be thrown out.

 

[Sandpit Fan]

The article is generally sensationalist exaggerations, and as with most of these sorts of articles the truth lies somewhere in the middle. This is one of his worse efforts and a good example of why I don't bother going near the roar site.

My opinion is that England cheating by swapping balls, which is a blatant breach of the rules, and more importantly the spirit of the game, deserved a far heavier punishment than one handed down for a sponsorship breach. Leaving aside the impact of a $10k fine on a player or union, the mouthguard breach is a result of the player and/or the team management being too lazy to either get a new one made, or simply run over it with a marker pen before the game (as I think M. Tuilagi said he had previously done). If they are unable to get their act together to that extent, they deserve the fine as they were aware of the rules well before the tournament started.

When one incident is the result of laziness, and the other the result of a deliberate and cynical breaking of the rules, it is impossible to defend the disparity between the penalties. England lost their kicking tee runner for a couple of games? Wow, that's really going to hurt them. Perhaps the IRB should have stopped the tea and scones to the coaches box as well!

About the only part of his rant I agree with is that England should have been stripped of all points from that game. Until the IRB manage to understand that the penalty must be appropriate to the crime, they have forfeited any claim to be administering the game impartially for all unions.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

What an interesting article...



Wow, you were on A Current Affair! Well done. You must need to be really smart to go on that show. You need to get all your facts right and everything.

(sarcasm)



So this guy goes on a huge rant about the IRB being massive Nazis for fining Samoan players $10,000 for wearing the wrong mouthguard. But he endorses the IRB fining England $100,000 for misplacing a ball? Along with a deduction of 5 match points?

If the IRB actually did such a stupid thing, idiots like this guy would be the first to call them "out of control".



I finally realize why people like this think there is some huge conspiracy. They think the refs are appointed 5 minutes before each game.

Paddy: "If SA lose, Wales wont make it through. Quick, what should we do?"
Others: "We need to get Nigel on the job, he is Welsh and will help South Africa win"
Paddy: "Great idea, i'll give him a call".

Ahhh, no... All appointments were made before the world cup even started, he was going to be on this game whether Wales were coming first or last in their group... What do people expect? The IRB to pull Nigel Owens from that fixture simply because Wales might not go through if one team wins? Yea, that would be showing confidence that your referees do a fair job.

Long story short, refs aren't going for anyone and there is no conspiracy with appointments. The whole article is just sensationalist garbage, and you should have seen that in the first paragraph when he was trying to dress up A Current Affair as a real news program. I know I said I wouldn't post here again, but crap needs to be thrown out.

A current affairs program...not A Current Affair: The red mist must have descended while you were still reading, or doing whatever it is that passes for reading in your case.
The refs for the QF matches were appointed in the last week.
By all means feel free to stay away




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The article is generally sensationalist exaggerations, and as with most of these sorts of articles the truth lies somewhere in the middle. This is one of his worse efforts and a good example of why I don't bother going near the roar site.

My opinion is that England cheating by swapping balls, which is a blatant breach of the rules, and more importantly the spirit of the game, deserved a far heavier punishment than one handed down for a sponsorship breach. Leaving aside the impact of a $10k fine on a player or union, the mouthguard breach is a result of the player and/or the team management being too lazy to either get a new one made, or simply run over it with a marker pen before the game (as I think M. Tuilagi said he had previously done). If they are unable to get their act together to that extent, they deserve the fine as they were aware of the rules well before the tournament started.

When one incident is the result of laziness, and the other the result of a deliberate and cynical breaking of the rules, it is impossible to defend the disparity between the penalties. England lost their kicking tee runner for a couple of games? Wow, that's really going to hurt them. Perhaps the IRB should have stopped the tea and scones to the coaches box as well!

About the only part of his rant I agree with is that England should have been stripped of all points from that game. Until the IRB manage to understand that the penalty must be appropriate to the crime, they have forfeited any claim to be administering the game impartially for all unions.

Seriously, what do you say are the sensationalist exaggerations?
Its a bit like the anthropogenic global warming debate: denouncing something using invective like this does not actually advance understanding because no one knows for sure which assertions are being challenged.
I have almost always found Zavos to be on or close to the money but I would be interested to hear of errors he has made in this article.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Sandpit Fan]

Seriously, what do you say are the sensationalist exaggerations?
Its a bit like the anthropogenic global warming debate: denouncing something using invective like this does not actually advance understanding because no one knows for sure which assertions are being challenged.
I have almost always found Zavos to be on or close to the money but I would be interested to hear of errors he has made in this article.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Other than Spiros habit of sesquipedalianism you mean? I take it you agree with the remaining 3 paragraphs.

Leaving aside the part about the English rule breaking being worth 10 times more than the mouth guard issue, which is simply an emotive argument plucked from the air and which does little to penalise the union with the deepest pockets in world rugby, and one or two other parts, how would you class the following paragraph?

And I add this further fact, without comment or any inference: the chairman of the panel that makes the refereeing appointments is David Pickering, the chairman of the Welsh Rugby Union.

If you don't consider this sensationalist in its inference that the chairman of the panel is bent, that's entirely up to you.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

You draw the Inference - he implies.
Could it not be read merely as an example of the home unions control of the significant posts in the IRB?
There"s actually a better argument as to why it is wrong to imply or assume or assert or infer that the refs are biased in the way he suggests: each ref is better off if his country is eliminated. Only once his country is eliminated does that ref become a chance of reffing the final.
Surely the expression of opinion as to the penalty properly to be imposed for impermissibly changing the ball is just that: an opinion. It seems to me that the entirely cynical nature of the breach warranted more than having it dealt with in house, not least because it is hard to see why England did it given the scoreline: was it a trial to see if it could be done without detection in case it was needed in a big game???
By the way: the fact that in responding I thought of the reason in para 2 shows why these discussions, if carried on civilly, add to our understanding.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalkh

 

[kiap]

I finally realize why people like this think there is some huge conspiracy. They think the refs are appointed 5 minutes before each game.

Paddy: "If SA lose, Wales wont make it through. Quick, what should we do?"
Others: "We need to get Nigel on the job, he is Welsh and will help South Africa win"
Paddy: "Great idea, i'll give him a call".

Ahhh, no... All appointments were made before the world cup even started, he was going to be on this game whether Wales were coming first or last in their group... What do people expect? The IRB to pull Nigel Owens from that fixture simply because Wales might not go through if one team wins? Yea, that would be showing confidence that your referees do a fair job.

I suggest you keep posting. With your 5 minutes waffle you've dipped into the same hyperbole as Spiro.

The refereeing appointments for the finals are not assigned before the world cup starts, but during the tournament. It's not hard. The referees are allocated their matches and go where they're told. They're paid to do so. The cry of loss of confidence in them is just a straw man gambit.

People expect the game to be administered with fairness, transparency and diligence. Each perceived inequity, realised or not, that could otherwise be reasonably corrected but is not, results in some loss of faith in the system.

It must not only be fair, but seen to be fair. When a number of grievances mount up, minor though they may be, some begin to regard the process as "out of control", as you have described.

This grumbling will quieten down fairly quickly once the tournament ends. Not to overstate the issue, but much of it is the same old bumbling administration and vested interests that have been in Rugby for many years.

The increasing levels of money in the game, however, mean that some of the petty differences of years gone by are starting to have more and more consequence. The IRB needs to keep improving the way it operates. It is a long, long way from 10 out of 10 at the moment.

 

[Budgie]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/ru...007-1ldj2.html

Two England officials swapped balls for Jonny Wilkinson to use for conversions. This is serious cheating. The punishment should have been a deduction of the match points (5) accrued in the demolition of Romania 67-3, and a fine in the six-figure category. If a trivial mouthguard violation of the RWC protocols is worth $10,000, then deliberately breaking a playing law during a match is worth at least 10 times as much.

There are a lot of legal types here. I am not. However, in law precedent is very important consideration, particularly when establishing punishments.

Much has been made of the "excess" fine for the mouthguard infringements. There must obviously be some precedent somewhere.

On Precedents, it is not unknown for NRL judiciary to deal with game day infringements. I recall Warriors and some other team recently playing for short periods with extra players on the ground. The result of the substituted player being too slow coming off the ground, and the incoming player being too fast onto the playing area. The "extra" player had no impact on play, however I'm pretty sure that the Warriors and the other team both lost game points for that minor breach of the rules.

Could a precedent from another code be used in dispensing justice in rugby?

 

[wolverine]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/ru...007-1ldj2.html

There are a lot of legal types here. I am not. However, in law precedent is very important consideration, particularly when establishing punishments.

Much has been made of the "excess" fine for the mouthguard infringements. There must obviously be some precedent somewhere.

On Precedents, it is not unknown for NRL judiciary to deal with game day infringements. I recall Warriors and some other team recently playing for short periods with extra players on the ground. The result of the substituted player being too slow coming off the ground, and the incoming player being too fast onto the playing area. The "extra" player had no impact on play, however I'm pretty sure that the Warriors and the other team both lost game points for that minor breach of the rules.

Could a precedent from another code be used in dispensing justice in rugby?

I would say that a precedent could not be used from RL, as it is a different sport. However, an organisation like the IRB should learn from the example that the NRL, ARL and RLIF have all been willing to punish teams of any stature for infringing the rules.

In 1995, Auckland Warriors were stripped two points for making an extra substitution, which meant they missed the finals in their first year in the ARL Premiership.

In 2004, Brisbane Broncos were stripped of two competition points and fined $A75,000 when forward Corey Parker ran onto the field, leading to 14 men temporarily being on the field, as injured Broncos test prop Shane Webcke was being assisted off. On appeal, the points were reinstated, but the fine remained.

In 2009, Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs were stripped of two points for an interchange breach involving test backrower Andrew Ryan. It stopped them winning the minor premiership.

In 2006, the New Zealand Kiwis were forced to forfeit points in the RLIF Tri-Nations for using an ineligible player in Australian Nathan Fien against Australia and Great Britain.

Compare this to England using 16 players against Samoa in 2003, with the extra player joining rucks. As the RWC 2003 wiki page quotes,

England fielded 16 players at one point during the game, coinciding with a last-gasp try-saving tackle, which may have won the game for the Samoans.

. No points stripped, minor fine issued.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Excellent example
Can't remember the game but it sounds like it actually impacted on the game


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I suggest you keep posting. With your 5 minutes waffle you've dipped into the same hyperbole as Spiro.

The refereeing appointments for the finals are not assigned before the world cup starts, but during the tournament. It's not hard. The referees are allocated their matches and go where they're told. They're paid to do so. The cry of loss of confidence in them is just a straw man gambit.

Talk about a straw man.

Here is what he said:

One of the reasons the Samoan player and lawyer, Eliota Fuimaono-Sapolu, has been so outspoken against the IRB is his anger that Samoa's match against South Africa was refereed by the Welshman Nigel Owens. If Samoa defeated South Africa, Wales were out of the tournament. Although the appointment did not come strictly under the IRB's rule, it violated the principle of a clear, perceived neutrality of the referees.

Here is what I wrote:

I finally realize why people like this think there is some huge conspiracy. They think the refs are appointed 5 minutes before each game.

Paddy: "If SA lose, Wales wont make it through. Quick, what should we do?"
Others: "We need to get Nigel on the job, he is Welsh and will help South Africa win"
Paddy: "Great idea, i'll give him a call".

Nigel Owens was appointed for the South Africa and Samoa game MONTHS ago.

Nowhere did i say the quarter finals were appointed months ago, I'm not even talking about the quarter finals here...

A current affairs program...not A Current Affair: The red mist must have descended while you were still reading, or doing whatever it is that passes for reading in your case.

I know perfectly well what he said, but narrowed it down to either:

Today Tonight or A Current Affair.

Both are complete sensationalist garbage. What credible show in this country could be labelled a "current affairs" program?

The refs for the QF matches were appointed in the last week.

Not the Wales vs Samoa game, which was the only game I was talking about.

By all means feel free to stay away

You didn't refute anything I, or anyone else in this thread has said.

 

[kiap]

[

Nigel Owens was appointed for the South Africa and Samoa game MONTHS ago.

Nowhere did i say the quarter finals were appointed months ago, I'm not even talking about the quarter finals here...

I knew you'd post again, Bru. Keep up the practice!

The waffle you have written in no way rebuts the point of dissatisfaction on the match appointment. Of course Owens was appointed months ago. The question is whether he should have been.

The allocation for the finals matches this week show that the referees will go where they are told to this weekend. It will happen next weekend. It should have happened last weekend.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

The waffle you have written in no way rebuts the point of dissatisfaction on the match appointment. Of course Owens was appointed months ago. The question is whether he should have been.

If anyone thinks Owens went out there to make sure SA win. Just say it. All these side-discussions just confuse me as to what your point is. And I think people have some misconseption that I am defending the IRB... I'm not, I think they have been w#nkers this tournament, but I will not support people telling them to enforce a new refereeing system on the flawed premise that referees are trying to help their home nation every time they ref a game between two completely different teams.

The allocation for the finals matches this week show that the referees will go where they are told to this weekend. It will happen next weekend. It should have happened last weekend.

You understand that if this was the case. Crackpots would say the IRB are allocating referees on a weekly basis to enforce their divine plan. And that the IRB should have to make all appointments before the world cup to avoid this case? You can't win with the sensationalist tin-foil hat media...

 

[Richo]

Kiap's point is that if the perception of fairness matters, which means appointing a Welshman to any game in the same pool as Wales is a bad idea. You eliminate any possible controversy by not doing it. Pretty easy, really.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

RWC 2003 wiki page quotes, . No points stripped, minor fine issued.

Guess the IRB are simply following the precedent already set with this wet bus ticket thrashing.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Kiap's point is that if the perception of fairness matters, which means appointing a Welshman to any game in the same pool as Wales is a bad idea. You eliminate any possible controversy by not doing it. Pretty easy, really.

By doing that, we bring down the standard of refereeing just to keep ignorant people happy. So I disagree. You could also say each referee shouldn't ref a game in a pool that might contain a potential quarter final opponent of their home nation. You would struggle to make a full list of fixtures with rules like this. And, you would be picking referees based on where they happen to be born, rather than on their actual performance.

When we introduce these rules, the same people will complain about the low standard of refereeing. You can't win with people who think like this. (not that kiap is one, but the people he thinks we should accommodate for to avoid perception of bias)

Not to mention there were plenty of games in the pool stage with refs from a nation within that pool (and there were no complaints). When we get rid of silly boundaries based on non-existent phenomena, the standard of refereeing goes up.

 

[kiap]

All these side-discussions just confuse me as to what your point is.

Looks like I'm going to have to spell it out, as you keep setting up propositions of your own to knock down.

Where it can be avoided, as is clear in this case, referees should not be appointed to matches which have a potential bearing on a team from their country of origin.

Work around it, and it's not a problem. It does not have to be premeditated, but national bias of referees is simply human nature and is well established by many studies. The requirement is for a transparently fair system and the solution is very simple.

Anyway, Ireland Wales has started. Wales are in!

 

[wolverine]

I know perfectly well what he said, but narrowed it down to either:

Today Tonight or A Current Affair.

Both are complete sensationalist garbage. What credible show in this country could be labelled a "current affairs" program?

A "current affairs program" could include shows like Channel 10's 7pm project or George Negus, ABC's Four Corners or ABC's Offsiders (which focuses on a range of sports). It is unlikely that Rugby would be featured on any Australian current shows except for perhaps Offsiders, and certainly not ACA or TT - their target markets have little to no interest in Rugby or the IRB.

More likely Spiro was on an NZ current affairs show. He was on NZ TV3's show The Nation in early September, on an NZ radio show, National Radio's Afternoon's with Jim Mora, on Sunday October 2nd, 2pm, talking strategy after the loss of Dan Carter.