World Rugby Board elections
-
-
The same leadership and genius that had us bundled out in the semi two years later.
-
@antipodean said in World Rugby Board elections:
The same leadership and genius that had us bundled out in the semi two years later.
in hindsight, Hansen stayed on 2 years too long. That Lions series we go abused by injuries and didn't do ourselves favours with the refs. I'm still dark on Kaino copping a yellow in Test 3 ... just so tough.
Anyway, here's hoping Foster makes a good fist of it when he gets a chance, and our playing ranks swell as players stay in NZ. Always cause for optimism!
At the RWC, by the way, we were the only Tier 1 nation that didn't select their best players and make exceptions for good players playing overseas. So in one world we were a weakened side, up against England, SA, Aus, Wales and Ireland who selected the best available players. I woulnd't change it, as it'd wreck rugby here, but it's something to contemplate
-
@KiwiMurph said in World Rugby Board elections:
Wasn't it also the final scrum where the genius move off of it was to hit up the incredible hulk known as Israel Dagg into the teeth of the Lions defense?
Hey fuck you I'd almost forgotten that. Scrum in their half.
"Hey shall we do the move?"
"Oh shit yeah, great idea! We finally managed to nail it on Thursday and no-one has seen it before, how could they possibly defend it? It's basically magic. "
Scrum completes and Israel Dagg is given the ball deep, one out.
-
@Bones said in World Rugby Board elections:
@KiwiMurph said in World Rugby Board elections:
Wasn't it also the final scrum where the genius move off of it was to hit up the incredible hulk known as Israel Dagg into the teeth of the Lions defense?
Hey fuck you I'd almost forgotten that. Scrum in their half.
"Hey shall we do the move?"
"Oh shit yeah, great idea! We finally managed to nail it on Thursday and no-one has seen it before, how could they possibly defend it? It's basically magic. "
Scrum completes and Israel Dagg is given the ball deep, one out.
Or; "that thing you did that time against South Africa, do that again"
-
@MajorRage said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Catogrande nup, bullshit.
If he blows the whistle immediately and calls it accidental, scrum black, I accept it.
He didn’t. He blew penalty, the right call. Tough for the lions but that’s the rules. Same as we had the prior week when the lions player jumped to catch the ball and penalty for tackle on the air. Rules are rules and it means penalty. Eat it, deal with it.
A week later same again, opposite direction. However this times the two officials literally conspire to overturn the correct ruling. I don’t give a shit about the we have a deal. It was a stone cold penalty and those two fuckheads invented bullshit to change it. Right in front of everybody.
A stone cold, lay down misere fix.
I agree, penalty the right call in the first place and also agree that there was no reason to reverse the decision But drawl the line at a fix between officials. You had Poite as the ref, conferring with Peyper as touch judge and Ayoub as the TMO. Going over the footage, Poite asks Ayoub outright "are you happy with the penalty against 16 red"? Ayoub says yes, Peyper does not intervene and for some reason Poite then awards a scrum.
Poite lost it, totally lost it. But no conspiracy, fix, call it what you will.
-
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
I agree, penalty the right call in the first place and also agree that there was no reason to reverse the decision
I got quite frustrated with rugby after that, as the media and opposing fans held a strong line of 'it was always a scrum'. Poite bottled it big time, and there was no consequence for it. Leaves a bitter taste, and the way the media in particular carried on shook my enjoyment of the game for a while.
-
@Catogrande For some reason?
How about the conversation with Garces which you've not mentioned? You know, the one where Poite changes from Penalty to Scrum?
What did Garcès say to Poite?
The final moments of the third test were clouded in controversy, but who ultimately influenced the crucial decision that left players and pundits scratching their head? 78th minute. 15-15. Penalty All Blacks. The game & series lie in the balance. Step forward inspector Poite and his trusted...
-
@MajorRage I have to admit to missing the “Oui Jérôme” bit. But would still side with the view of Poite bottling it. You guys may have little confidence in Graces and Poite but you will find yourselves in pretty wide company there. We have all had our fair share of their idiosyncraticies. I just don’t see anything sinister about it.
Edit: Mind you, it would be interesting to hear Peyper’s view on it.
-
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@MajorRage I have to admit to missing the “Oui Jérôme” bit. But would still side with the view of Poite bottling it. You guys may have little confidence in Graces and Poite but you will find yourselves in pretty wide company there. We have all had our fair share of their idiosyncraticies. I just don’t see anything sinister about it.
Fair enough. It doesn't really matter anyway - nothing changes the results, and if somebody who had never heard of rugby asked me what I happened, I'd just say it was a drawn series and leave it at that. Whats written in the books is the only fact.
In reality here, I'm not sold on it was a fix. Perhaps projecting more for the sake of generating an argument, and getting something off my chest which has pissed me off for a long time. Poite certainly hadn't refereed the game in the Lions favour.
However, I cannot rule out that they were under some sort of instruction that if the situation were to arise, they had to ensure they weren't the talking point. So, in that situation, do you side with rugby's power brokers, or do you side with the All Blacks, a team which has had more written about them int he way of cheats, refs on their side etc than any other nation?
You call it bottled, I call it influenced.
-
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
Edit: Mind you, it would be interesting to hear Peyper’s view on it.
Jaco followed Kaplan's example in 2007 (the QF with Barnes) and did/said nothing.
-
@nzzp said in World Rugby Board elections:
At the RWC, by the way, we were the only Tier 1 nation that didn't select their best players and make exceptions for good players playing overseas. So in one world we were a weakened side, up against England, SA, Aus, Wales and Ireland who selected the best available players. I woulnd't change it, as it'd wreck rugby here, but it's something to contemplate
Who would have you picked from overseas?
Leading up to the tournament access to an additional first-five might have been handy for squad balance - but the injuries never came to pass. In terms of frontline guys who would have made the XV I don't see any. The niggly injury issues in the forwards we had were to guys who would have been picked short of decapitation.
IMO they had the cards but bottled it and went off the reservation after Perth.
-
@MajorRage said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@MajorRage I have to admit to missing the “Oui Jérôme” bit. But would still side with the view of Poite bottling it. You guys may have little confidence in Graces and Poite but you will find yourselves in pretty wide company there. We have all had our fair share of their idiosyncraticies. I just don’t see anything sinister about it.
... However, I cannot rule out that they were under some sort of instruction that if the situation were to arise, they had to ensure they weren't the talking point...
Well that bit didn't work out too well!
-
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@MajorRage said in World Rugby Board elections:
@Catogrande said in World Rugby Board elections:
@MajorRage I have to admit to missing the “Oui Jérôme” bit. But would still side with the view of Poite bottling it. You guys may have little confidence in Graces and Poite but you will find yourselves in pretty wide company there. We have all had our fair share of their idiosyncraticies. I just don’t see anything sinister about it.
... However, I cannot rule out that they were under some sort of instruction that if the situation were to arise, they had to ensure they weren't the talking point...
Well that bit didn't work out too well!
I disagree. Fuck all was written about them and this incident. I'd estimate for every article written about it, there would have been 100 in the opposite direction if the situation was reversed!
-
@rotated said in World Rugby Board elections:
@nzzp said in World Rugby Board elections:
At the RWC, by the way, we were the only Tier 1 nation that didn't select their best players and make exceptions for good players playing overseas. So in one world we were a weakened side, up against England, SA, Aus, Wales and Ireland who selected the best available players. I woulnd't change it, as it'd wreck rugby here, but it's something to contemplate
Who would have you picked from overseas?
Luatua, Piutau are the obvious ones, that woudl fill holes in the squad. I posted on this a while ago, but honestly struggling to remember more of my comprehensive and well reasearched list (pulled from the depths of my skull).
Others will add I'm sure, but possibly Charlie Faumauina, and maybe even a visit from Jerome Kaino.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/107911952/61-exall-blacks-still-playing-around-the-worldEdit: and Vito
-
I'm not too fussed about Beaumont over Pichot.
I don't really like or agree with any of the Nations League proposed formats I have seen. As I think Hydro said, the only attractive part is the (potential) money. But it was pie in the sky stuff, what SANZAAR was pushing for. The original Nations League plan (using only July and November windows) may have been feasible before Pichot expanded on that scope. I didn't particularly like that one either anyway. But at least it was politically achievable rather than political capital wasted on a walking dead project.
I don't have a full answer. Maybe, if the aim is to re-distribute some wealth from NH to SH and T1 to T2. Then ....
Maybe, the easy answer is if the IRB just backs out of any oversight or control of the fixturing of July and November windows. Lets the nations negotiate with each other on who they visit under what terms.6 NH tier 1 nations (plus Japan) will be wanting to host 4 T1 SH nations on each of the 3 weekends, they all can't. 3 spare events each weekend. Let the negotiating begin (on an appearance fee/revenue share). 3 comparatively NH rich nations will be wanting to pick over the next best 3 T2 nations to host, so Fiji etc can negotiate an appearance fee , doesn't have to be huge but a better profit than hosting in Suva, Apia, Nukualofa etc
So, there is already natural bargaining power in the direction they want.
Doesn't have to be the mythical 50/50 unicorn split.
-
Pacific rugby's message to Sanzaar
Why our Pacific rugby brothers and sisters broke with New Zealand and Sanzaar in World Rugby's showdown vote. Jim Kayes reports
-
@Rapido said in World Rugby Board elections:
I'm not too fussed about Beaumont over Pichot.
I don't really like or agree with any of the Nations League proposed formats I have seen. As I think Hydro said, the only attractive part is the (potential) money. But it was pie in the sky stuff, what SANZAAR was pushing for. The original Nations League plan (using only July and November windows) may have been feasible before Pichot expanded on that scope. I didn't particularly like that one either anyway. But at least it was politically achievable rather than political capital wasted on a walking dead project.
I don't have a full answer. Maybe, if the aim is to re-distribute some wealth from NH to SH and T1 to T2. Then ....
Maybe, the easy answer is if the IRB just backs out of any oversight or control of the fixturing of July and November windows. Lets the nations negotiate with each other on who they visit under what terms.6 NH tier 1 nations (plus Japan) will be wanting to host 4 T1 SH nations on each of the 3 weekends, they all can't. 3 spare events each weekend. Let the negotiating begin (on an appearance fee/revenue share). 3 comparatively NH rich nations will be wanting to pick over the next best 3 T2 nations to host, so Fiji etc can negotiate an appearance fee , doesn't have to be huge but a better profit than hosting in Suva, Apia, Nukualofa etc
So, there is already natural bargaining power in the direction they want.
Doesn't have to be the mythical 50/50 unicorn split.
I think that the main issue was not the format, the Nations Cup idea was an attempt to throw a cat among the pigeons and stir up the current state of the world game.
The problem was that Beaumont never really put any weight behind change and made zero effort to curtail the inevitable protectionism from certain NH unions. The format could have been changed/diluted/adjusted among all parties but there was no real desire to change anything from the NH and WR just sat back.I think Beaumont may have realised that WR is not far from the edge of a split and goodwill and tradition is the only thing stopping the SH from walking away with a new plan. Not sure if he has the answers though.
