World Rugby Board elections
-
@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.
-
@Crucial said in World Rugby Board elections:
@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.
I don't agree.
The original Nations cup format, I can't even remember what it was, used only the Nov and June windows - and involved lots of T1 v T2 fixtures. It was sold as "reinvigorate the July and November windows". It wasn't great, IIRC, but ...
Then, it got warped into just 12 teams (6 Nations plus SANZAAR + 2), with the T2 carrot of promotion/relegation. Basically a diversion of the original purpose by SANZAAR to get the 6 Nations TV money put into a common pot, with the added 'carrot' of potential relegation for Italy and Scotland.
The 6 Nations are right to reject that.
Pichot was naive to push it.
SANZAAR were naive to waste political capital on it.
Doesn't matter what Beaumont did or didn't do. The 6 Nations would reject it, if the voting structure was different, the 6 Nations would probably just go 'rebel' anyway.
-
SANZAAR have the following options:
- Focus on revenue sharing November and June windows.
- Status quo, but reduce central contracting costs, the South Africa and Aussie Giteau rule examples
- The cricket central contracting model. Just contract top 30 centrally, and let the rest settle at market rates paid by the franchises.
- Open new revenue generation tournament/expansion:
- SANZAAR might expand anyway to include Japan, at risk of compromising the geographic integrity of the tournament. Only time will tell if people care about a 'rest of world minus 6 nations' championship, as opposed to a best of the SH championship.
- I'd suggest NZ and Australia look at creating a new Pan-Pacific Championship. (NZ, Aus, Jap, USA, Can, Fij, Sam, Tga). 2 pools of 4 plus a final, played once every 4 years in the November window. To fit this in. As they would not tour 6N unions one November - NZ and Aus would need to sacrafice 3 home June tests v NH opponents once every 4 years if they still want NH teams to visit in the other 2 years. Would creating a tournament with shared ownership of Japanese TV money (plus in future potential good USA and Candian money) and hosting 1 or 2 Pan-Pac home matches in November - be worth sacraficing June home matches v 6N unions? Who and what would they do in this free June bloc? A scramble for Georgia to tour for free? Invite a 6N union but have to revenue share? North Island v South Island 3 match series? State of Origin? Arrange a once every 4 years tours with South Africa including midweek provincial matches.
-
@Crucial said in World Rugby Board elections:
@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.
the Nations League is pie in teh sky stuff anyway. the 6N won't change, nor do i think it should. A great sporting competition that doubles as a commercial success is rare these days, and should be supported, even if we are massively jealous.
I can't really see a viable solution given the geographical problems.
-
@mariner4life Yup and travel costs are not going to get any smaller for quite some time I reckon
-
For that reason I think the idea should be to develop a SANZAAR competition that could become similar to the Nations Cup - SANZAAR could have made a 12 team competition in two levels with promotion relegation.
The markets for future exploitation are Japan, the US, and maybe Korea and China in the future, plus trying to shore up Canada.
Rugby Championship (1 game home or away rotating every year)
Sanzaar 4 plus Japan and Fiji
Nations Cup (same as RC)
Samoa, Tonga, Canada, USA, Uruguay, Korea? (Or Georgia?)
Relegation/promotion game between winner of Nations Cup and lowest performing team in RC.
To get countries to join, we could use Maori and All Black XV tours.
Certainly by adding Japan to the RC we could have had a big grab to Asia and we could shore up our voting for future WR.
-
@gt12 said in World Rugby Board elections:
For that reason I think the idea should be to develop a SANZAAR competition that could become similar to the Nations Cup - SANZAAR could have made a 12 team competition in two levels with promotion relegation.
The markets for future exploitation are Japan, the US, and maybe Korea and China in the future, plus trying to shore up Canada.
Rugby Championship (1 game home or away rotating every year)
Sanzaar 4 plus Japan and Fiji
Nations Cup (same as RC)
Samoa, Tonga, Canada, USA, Uruguay, Korea? (Or Georgia?)
Relegation/promotion game between winner of Nations Cup and lowest performing team in RC.
To get countries to join, we could use Maori and All Black XV tours.
Certainly by adding Japan to the RC we could have had a big grab to Asia and we could shore up our voting for future WR.
to what end?
Is rugby really a growth sport? Are there really untapped markets out there just waiting to open up commercially, if we only gave them exposure?
I don't want Japan in the RC because they aren't very good at rugby. Argentina haven't really added much in terms of sporting competition, Japan are worse than they are. Look at Italy in the 6N, they couldn't win a loaded chook raffle, and are effectively the bye.
I'm coming to the realisation that rugby might be at its peak. Some former top nations have already fallen away. There is no amount of exposure that is going to get a minnow to the top table. The fringe top table can't even keep up.
Most of these other countries already have their favourite sport, and you aren't going to change that.
