Pro12 introduces neutral TMOs

First topic message reminder :

A good move by PRO12, one which is to be applauded.


Martin Anayi:

“Ultimately, if you are listening to a match on television and you hear an Irish TMO speaking at a match in Ireland, as happened with Connacht versus the Ospreys, you are going to to think they are biased, even though we know they are not.”

WalesOnline.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Some English players receive money from the RFU

They get that for playing for England. Not for playing in the league. The refs in charge of England games are not employed by the RFU.

No 7&1/2 wrote: Some Welsh players get money from the WRU

As above.

No 7&1/2 wrote:If you believe that leads to bias for the Irish it's the same thing.

It is not the same thing, far from it. Also, I am not claiming bias, I am saying it is taking the credibility away from the league, as the refs and teams are all under one employer, how can that make them impartial to one another ?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Shame he feels that money needs to be spent on something to improve bickering rather than pumping it into training etc really.

Well he obviously see's a problem there otherwise he would not have spent so much money putting it right. Or is he just as bad as the people you are deriving on here for seeing it ?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Some English players receive money from the RFU as do refs. Some Welsh players get money from the WRU as do refs. If you believe that leads to bias for the Irish it's the same thing. I'm with Anayi that it doesn't. Shame he feels that money needs to be spent on something to improve bickering rather than pumping it into training etc really.

The standard/perceived bias of refs in the PRO12 has been raised by fans and coaches.   It is an issue for the league and making officials more neutral is a good move.  Bickering over who did what in the past is a waste of time.  

It's what is going to happen in future is the important bit.  Anayi has taken the right decision in my view.  

Just a shame the money can't be used in a more postitive manner.

It may be positive though, if fans stop complaining and damaging the image of the league it could grow crowds or tv audiences which would bring in extra revenue

So the English are paid for their matches with England. Some Welsh are paid 60% of their monthly wage. I'm afraid it is the same point LD. Not saying you believe the Irish are biased, think 99% here on the thread acknowledge it's just perceived bias which is misdirected annoyance at their own teams. Like I said Anayi wants to put to bed this perception and it's a shame as that money could be used better.

Possible marty. More liekly people will still complain about refs though as it happens in every other sport in the world!

marty2086 wrote:It may be positive though, if fans stop complaining and damaging the image of the league it could grow crowds or tv audiences which would bring in extra revenue

Yes, I agree. It was a problem that needed sorting, and it has now been sorted. Onwards and upwards.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So the English are paid for their matches with England. Some Welsh are paid 60% of their monthly wage. I'm afraid it is the same point LD

It is not the same point.

ALL people in Irish rugby, including the refs, are employed by one organisation. The same in Scotland, the same in Italy. In Wales the unions pay 60% of the team Wales players wages, that is so they can gain access to them and keep them in Wales.

So it's the same for those 60% then. In perception. I, the same as yourself and Anayi don't perceive there to be any bias in these instances.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So it's the same for those 60% then. In perception.

In what perception ? Your own ? OK, whatever floats your boat.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Possible marty. More liekly people will still complain about refs though as it happens in every other sport in the world!

They have Ed Morrison working on standards already don't they so if the overall standards go up, the whole bias argument removed then there should be less complaining

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So it's the same for those 60% then. In perception.

In what perception ? Your own ? OK, whatever floats your boat.

Not my own no. I don't believe the players who get paid by the various Unions in England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland wherever and refs in those areas hold any bias towards each other. Not many do and to repeat myself it's for that reason it's disappointing that money is being spent to placate a minority rather than spend money on improving standards in general.

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Possible marty. More liekly people will still complain about refs though as it happens in every other sport in the world!

They have Ed Morrison working on standards already don't they so if the overall standards go up, the whole bias argument removed then there should be less complaining

More money can only help though. Look at the British teams at the Olympics,; every little helps.

marty2086 wrote:They have Ed Morrison working on standards already don't they so if the overall standards go up, the whole bias argument removed then there should be less complaining

I agree again. Phew. Anyway, complaints will never go away, refs can always have a bad day. But there will be a lot less complaints if Anayi does what he says he is going to do.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Possible marty. More liekly people will still complain about refs though as it happens in every other sport in the world!

They have Ed Morrison working on standards already don't they so if the overall standards go up, the whole bias argument removed then there should be less complaining

More money can only help though. Look at the British teams at the Olympics,; every little helps.

Not necessarily, it all depends what the overall problem is with the standards

Some things need more time rather than money, if there wasn't enough money in the budget for standards Im sure there would be bigger problems

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not my own no. I don't believe the players who get paid by the various Unions in England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland wherever and refs in those areas hold any bias towards each other.

It's not about bias though, come on, please. It is about the credibility. Would you be happy going to court against a person and a judge all on the same payroll ? I know that is impossible, but that is what the privately owned clubs in our league are up against.

No 7&1/2 wrote: Not many do and to repeat myself it's for that reason it's disappointing that money is being spent to placate a minority rather than spend money on improving standards in general.

It was obviously a problem that needed sorting though, that was why so much money was spent on it. I can only applaud Martin Anayi for doing that. Also, he is the first person in charge that has made these positive announcements, I only hope he carries through with what he is saying.

Even if it were to allow extra time together to discuss case examples, discuss with their peers their interpretations, how and where to allow a foul go? Fair enough if standards are as high as they can go, but I don't believe that and seeing as on 606 and even in the article it has been pointed out that there aren't enough Scottish and Italians to roll this out to all officials that improvements can't be made even just looking at depth.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not my own no. I don't believe the players who get paid by the various Unions in England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland wherever and refs in those areas hold any bias towards each other.

It's not about bias though, come on, please. It is about the credibility. Would you be happy going to court against a person and a judge all on the same payroll ? I know that is impossible, but that is what the privately owned clubs in our league are up against.

No 7&1/2 wrote: Not many do and to repeat myself it's for that reason it's disappointing that money is being spent to placate a minority rather than spend money on improving standards in general.

It was obviously a problem that needed sorting though, that was why so much money was spent on it. I can only applaud Martin Anayi for doing that. Also, he is the first person in charge that has made these positive announcements, I only hope he carries through with what he is saying.

If I was being reffed, or even just a supporter I'd have no problem. Sorry just to confirm you agree there is no bias don't you?

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not my own no. I don't believe the players who get paid by the various Unions in England, Ireland, Wales, Scotland wherever and refs in those areas hold any bias towards each other.

It's not about bias though, come on, please. It is about the credibility. Would you be happy going to court against a person and a judge all on the same payroll ? I know that is impossible, but that is what the privately owned clubs in our league are up against.

You mean like the barrister representing the crown, the judge and the legal aid barrister all being paid for by the same government department?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sorry just to confirm you agree there is no bias don't you?

Yes, I agree.

No 7&1/2 wrote:If I was being reffed, or even just a supporter I'd have no problem.

Sorry, but that means very little coming from someone who is not affected by it.

marty2086 wrote:You mean like the barrister representing the crown, the judge and the legal aid barrister all being paid for by the same government department?

No. I mean, me paying you, and the judge, and the jury, to go up against somebody who is not part of my organisation.

Affected by what though? We both agree there is no bias!

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:You mean like the barrister representing the crown, the judge and the legal aid barrister all being paid for by the same government department?

No. I mean, me paying you, and the judge, and the jury, to go up against somebody who is not part of my organisation.

That's does happen

Too complex for some though

No 7&1/2 wrote:Affected by what though? We both agree there is no bias!

For the last time. The leagues credibility.

Yes, but I asee no bias and no issue on credibility.Hence I wouldn't be be bothered evern if I were a supporter of a team involved rather than a complete neutral.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:You mean like the barrister representing the crown, the judge and the legal aid barrister all being paid for by the same government department?

No. I mean, me paying you, and the judge, and the jury, to go up against somebody who is not part of my organisation.

That's does happen

Too complex for some though

I know it happens, in more shadier countries. But using that analogy, can you now see where I am coming from ? And how union and private run organisations go against each other ?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:You mean like the barrister representing the crown, the judge and the legal aid barrister all being paid for by the same government department?

No. I mean, me paying you, and the judge, and the jury, to go up against somebody who is not part of my organisation.

That's does happen

Too complex for some though

I know it happens, in more shadier countries. But using that analogy, can you now see where I am coming from ? And how union and private run organisations go against each other ?

No it happens in the UK

Judges and prosecution team paid by same department, now you see why we are telling you its in peoples heads

marty2086 wrote:udges and prosecution team paid by same department, now you see why we are telling you its in peoples heads

Are you sure ?

I cannot vision a situation, where somebody is being taken to court, and the person who is doing the prosecuting, is also in paying the judge, jury, and solicitors all in one, the defendant would be in trouble if that were allowed, he would never win. That is quite the corruption.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:udges and prosecution team paid by same department, now you see why we are telling you its in peoples heads

Are you sure ?

I cannot vision a situation, where somebody is being taken to court, and the person who is doing the prosecuting, is also in paying the judge, jury, and solicitors all in one, the defendant would be in trouble if that were allowed, he would never win. That is quite the corruption.

Im not getting into the details but it happens, if you need clarification Im sure the MoJ, Society etc have it somewhere

People are paid to carry out a role, sometimes the roles have competing interests and the same paymaster its the real world

marty2086 wrote:People are paid to carry out a role, sometimes the roles have competing interests and the same paymaster its the real world

OK, I will take your word for it. But that does not mean it is right.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:People are paid to carry out a role, sometimes the roles have competing interests and the same paymaster its the real world

OK, I will take your word for it. But that does not mean it is right.

There are systems in place to scrutinise decisions just like in the Pro 12

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:People are paid to carry out a role, sometimes the roles have competing interests and the same paymaster its the real world

OK, I will take your word for it. But that does not mean it is right.

There are systems in place to scrutinise decisions just like in the Pro 12

Are there ? Or am I going to have to take your word for it again ? What you have suggested about the justice system in the UK seems very corrupt. But like I said, I will take your word on it. Also, even if you are right in what you are saying, that still does not make it right.

Yet you see no bias in it but you don't trust it. I don't get your point of view on this LD.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yet you see no bias in it but you don't trust it. I don't get your point of view on this LD.

That's because if I said tomorrow was Thursday you would beg to differ. Now please, stop poking.

Why would you not trust something which you don't see bias in though LD?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:People are paid to carry out a role, sometimes the roles have competing interests and the same paymaster its the real world

OK, I will take your word for it. But that does not mean it is right.

There are systems in place to scrutinise decisions just like in the Pro 12

Are there ? Or am I going to have to take your word for it again ? What you have suggested about the justice system in the UK seems very corrupt. But like I said, I will take your word on it. Also, even if you are right in what you are saying, that still does not make it right.

Yes there are

If you don't know about them then maybe you should stop commenting on things you don't know about

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why would you not trust something which you don't see bias in though LD?

Who said I do not trust anything. It's all about credibility. The fact that we are discussing this very issue is a question on the credibility. Why should we have a league where people can question the situation where we have union controlled teams and officials, that is where all the nonsense starts, we need to be getting away from this. This is where the credibility comes into question, it does not raise it's head in any other league in the world. It is one less issue for the credibility of ALL other leagues except the Pro12.

Now, is that a good enough answer for you ? Sadly I doubt it, and you will just make me go over everything again.

marty2086 wrote:If you don't know about them then maybe you should stop commenting on things you don't know about

Firstly then, if you are going to get all arrogant about it, show me some evidence to back up your claims.

Secondly, perhaps you should heed your own advice before you start proclaiming you know all about the EPL contracts.

So leaving aside perceptions of bias because Irish referees are involved in reffing matches involving irish teams, the proposal to have more neutral officials is a good one.

Erm, what exactlt do you mean by credibility then if you're not talking of trust? Not meaning to make you go over anything just explain what you mean as it doesn't make sense to me that you see no bias, yet don't trust the set up.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:If you don't know about them then maybe you should stop commenting on things you don't know about

Firstly then, if you are going to get all arrogant about it, show me some evidence to back up your claims.

Secondly, perhaps you should heed your own advice before you start proclaiming you know all about the EPL contracts.

On your second point you keep claiming Im wrong yet prove Im write

On your first there are appeals processes, teams provide their feedback after games plus performances are reviewed happy now?

Pot Hale wrote:So leaving aside perceptions of bias because Irish referees are involved in reffing matches involving irish teams, the proposal to have more neutral officials is a good one.  

Yes, but for me, it has less to do with being the same nationality, but more to do with being payed by the same employer.

marty2086 wrote:On your first there are appeals processes, teams provide their feedback after games plus performances are reviewed happy now?

NO. You are talking nonsense. It's a shame, I tried really hard to debate properly with you, yet you are dragging this down.

marty2086 wrote:On your second point you keep claiming Im wrong yet prove Im write

Where have I proved you are right ? You said that the EPL players are employed by the RFU, they are not.

So your meaning of credibility is....

No 7&1/2 wrote:Erm, what exactlt do you mean by credibility then if you're not talking of trust? Not meaning to make you go over anything just explain what you mean as it doesn't make sense to me that you see no bias, yet don't trust the set up.

7 1/2. unfortunately I am going to have to put you on my foe list. I have not said anything about bias or trust, just the credibility. I am sorry you cannot comprehend what I am trying to tell you, or perhaps you are looking for bites. But before I let you get to me perhaps I should just try to ignore you. You will be my first person I have ever put on the foe list.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:On your first there are appeals processes, teams provide their feedback after games plus performances are reviewed happy now?

NO. You are talking nonsense. It's a shame, I tried really hard to debate properly with you, yet you are dragging this down.

When did you do that?

And wheres the nonsense?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:On your second point you keep claiming Im wrong yet prove Im write

Where have I proved you are right ? You said that the EPL players are employed by the RFU, they are not.

I asked for clarification earlier, you said yourself they have contracts with the RFU and get paid by the RFU but you are saying they are not employed by the RFU?

Can someone please ask LD what he means by credibility as it doesn't match the dictionary. Thanks!

marty2086 wrote:I asked for clarification earlier, you said yourself they have contracts with the RFU and get paid by the RFU but you are saying they are not employed by the RFU?

I read on-line that they get payed for playing for England. I did not read anything into them being employed by the RFU, and an actual supporter of English rugby said as well.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:I asked for clarification earlier, you said yourself they have contracts with the RFU and get paid by the RFU but you are saying they are not employed by the RFU?

I read on-line that they get payed for playing for England. I did not read anything into them being employed by the RFU, and an actual supporter of English rugby said as well.

No now you are talking horse poo

If they are being paid they are employed, how difficult is that for you to grasp?

He questioned if they were paid a flat fee as well as their match fee not if they were employed by the RFU, try reading it again

Then when your done the apology you were so keen on me giving earlier may be appropriate coming from you now

Marty, no wonder you argue with everybody on here. Your arrogance is astounding. I give up talking with you on this.

You made a statement, you cannot back it up. Yet it is me who is in the wrong ? Only on V2.

Like making up your own meaning of words!

LordDowlais wrote:Marty, no wonder you argue with everybody on here. Your arrogance is astounding. I give up talking with you on this.

You made a statement, you cannot back it up. Yet it is me who is in the wrong ? Only on V2.

Which statement are you talking about?