The Future for the PRO14 - Part 5 - How are the Unions doing?

First topic message reminder :

Some of the Irish provinces seem to be doing fine.  Munster might be able to pay back a few shillings to Landsdowne HQ this season.  Leinster have finally started sharing. Connacht have survived Mr Grumpy and have managed another Challenge Cup quarter.  Could they make the final?
Ulster need a separate topic to cover all their issues.  Oh - and they have one.  

Italy.  Treviso are now Benetton and improving to the point of it being grudgingly admitted outside of Italy.  Zebre?  See Ulster above.  The FIR continue to fiddle the other unions while Rome burns.  

Scarlets on the other hand continue to see Byrne roam.  And sidestep.  The WRU must be grinning from ear to ear as Scarlets are simply steaming.   Who needs union monies when you can assemble a squad like this?  Top of their conference and finishing top of their pool in front of a packed house to gain a home quarterfinal in the Champions Cup. What more could you ask for?  Possibly a sneaky Welsh cap for Tadgh Beirne but little else to complain about.  If Gatland can harness the Scarlets, a la Leinster and Glasgow, and get Wales moving to the top in the Six Nations, the WRU might need to send a little more love (hard cash) over Llanelli way to encourage them further.  

Dragons got bought by the WRU.  And then hired an Irish coach. And then fixed their pitch.  And then things went so so.  And the jury went out on Jackman.  And then they started losing. A lot.  And then they had lots of announcements about new players for next season. And then they got knocked out of the Challenge Cup.  
And now it’s a wait for another season.  Not sure if the jury has come back in yet but Jackman has a battle on his hands.  

Ospreys continue to plumb new depths and eventually decided to fire their coach after failing in the Champions Cup once again.  Will they be in the Challenge Cup next season?

Cardiff have at least made the knockouts of the Challenge Cup but they’re still batting eyes at the WRU some say.  Will they succumb to the union’s clutches?

All the way down to Port Elizabeth for the new entrants.

The Southern Kings? See Zebre.  X 100.   Massive squad revamp needed and SARU investment.

Cheetahs?   Just when they’d notched another triumph on their league bedpost, came the news that another of their players had been nicked for another SR side. Their top try scorer is leaving too.  They’ve 8 wins in the bag, can they get a few more to make it into the playoffs?  

And finally the Scots.  Cockerill is definitely making inroads and if it doesn’t happen this season, they’ll be making life difficult in 2018/19 for a few of the higher up clubs. Their sassy and classy neighbours look strong prospects for the Championship title with a single loss so far.   Not too long ago, the SRU was making plaintive noises about the costs of running the two clubs and seeking private investors.  Then they went quiet.  Then they announced a profit for the first time in a long while.  And investment in academy is starting to pay off.  And the Test team isn’t doing too shabby either.  SRU CEO, Mark Dodson, says long term objective is to secure external investment to ensure the future of the game.  

We’ve had the first inkling of a change and expected increase in TV revenues for the Championship with EirSport announced as the new broadcaster for games in the Irish territory.  Anayi & Co still have to deliver a substantial increase on previous revenues.  The SARU/SuperSport deal has ensured part of that with a reported 36m six-year agreement.   What will GB deliver?

Private investment and Union control/money.  Will a happy marriage eventually be reached?

SecretFly wrote:]

I'm not concerned with a conflict of interest.

Then you really don't have any right to expect any credibility to be given to anything you post.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

I'll ask you again, do the other Regions (private enterprises, we are told) want the same equal treats from a Union that doesn't own them?

They want what they agreed on. What is happenning is not what was agreed on.

Funny how the Blues didn't want what was agreed on

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/cardiff-blues-taken-over-wru-13008228

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:]

I'm not concerned with a conflict of interest.

Then you really don't have any right to expect any credibility to be given to anything you post.

Says the guy who failed to grasp what Irish tv rights meant, has changed what he claims he was told on a number of occasions and refuses to share the details of the PA because of who asked

They want a slice of WRU money/resources and they want to be called independent and not under any Union influence. That's what they want.

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

I'll ask you again, do the other Regions (private enterprises, we are told) want the same equal treats from a Union that doesn't own them?

They want what they agreed on. What is happenning is not what was agreed on.

Funny how the Blues didn't want what was agreed on

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/cardiff-blues-taken-over-wru-13008228

Where in the article does it state that Cardiff Blues wanted anything that would impinge upon the participatiuon agreement?

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Don't owners give treats to their own teams?
Is not Dragons now a WRU protectorate?
Why wouldn't they dish out special treats? That's the ownership model RugbyFan himself espouses.
Do the other Regions (private enterprises, we are told) want the same equal treats from a Union that doesn't own them?

The matter of fact that the WRU stepped in and saved Dragons in the first place when they let other regions go bust should be a big enough treat, never mind all the extra's they are getting. If Dragons were flying high, or even being competitive then at least it would be something, but when people see the WRU chucking money at a sinking ship then how do you expect people to act ?

You mean like Cardiff begged the WRU to do?

Yes, but it didn't happen.

Anyway. Like I said, if you want to check up on what RF is saying, just go on other Welsh rugby forums, it is no secret here in Wales what is going on, well saying that, it is a subject that get's spoken about, a lot.

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:]

I'm not concerned with a conflict of interest.

Then you really don't have any right to expect any credibility to be given to anything you post.

Says the guy who failed to grasp what Irish tv rights meant, has changed what he claims he was told on a number of occasions and refuses to share the details of the PA because of who asked

Incorrect a number of times there. I've just shared those details with you.

SecretFly wrote:They want a slice of WRU money/resources and they want to be called independent and not under any Union influence.  That's what they want.

They want the best of both worlds and while Phil 2.0 goes on about the horrors of union ownership he ignores the fact that a private entity within the RRW have released players before they come through the doors because they couldn't afford them and agreed for the WRU to take on their biggest liabilities to free them up to invest in infrastructure

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:]

I'm not concerned with a conflict of interest.

Then you really don't have any right to expect any credibility to be given to anything you post.

The conflict of interest is not relevant to the facts.
The conflict of interest is a separate topic.
The WRU have ownership rights over 1 Region. It is natural that they would invest more in the thing they 'own' than the things they don't 'own'. What you keep saying is that the other regions wanted the same WRU treats but to have their front of 'independence' protected.

SecretFly wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:]

I'm not concerned with a conflict of interest.

Then you really don't have any right to expect any credibility to be given to anything you post.

The conflict of interest is not relevant to the facts.  
The conflict of interest is a separate topic.  
The WRU have ownership rights over 1 Region.  It is natural that they would invest more in the thing they 'own' than the things they don't 'own'.  What you keep saying is that the other regions wanted the same WRU treats but to have their front of 'independence' protected.

The conflict of interest is the entire focus of the debate.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

I'll ask you again, do the other Regions (private enterprises, we are told) want the same equal treats from a Union that doesn't own them?

They want what they agreed on. What is happenning is not what was agreed on.

Funny how the Blues didn't want what was agreed on

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/cardiff-blues-taken-over-wru-13008228

Where in the article does it state that Cardiff Blues wanted anything that would impinge upon the participatiuon agreement?

And where does it state it doesn't?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:]

I'm not concerned with a conflict of interest.

Then you really don't have any right to expect any credibility to be given to anything you post.

Says the guy who failed to grasp what Irish tv rights meant, has changed what he claims he was told on a number of occasions and refuses to share the details of the PA because of who asked

Incorrect a number of times there. I've just shared those details with you.

Really? Where?

marty2086 wrote:

And where does it state it doesn't?

So what on earth is your point then?

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:]

I'm not concerned with a conflict of interest.

Then you really don't have any right to expect any credibility to be given to anything you post.

Says the guy who failed to grasp what Irish tv rights meant, has changed what he claims he was told on a number of occasions and refuses to share the details of the PA because of who asked

Incorrect a number of times there. I've just shared those details with you.

Really? Where?

I've not contradicted myself. You just have poor comprehension skills.

I've just told you what part of the participation agreement the other 3 are unhappy with. This is what you do when your poor understanding of rugby administration is shown up - you demand a stamped, certified copy of an official document to be faxed to you immediately or "it didn't happen".

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

And where does it state it doesn't?

 So what on earth is your point then?

There isn't one, he just likes to argue.

I've told them, to go and look for themselves, but they are happy to ignore it, and keep this thread going down a road they want. It's very tiresome.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

And where does it state it doesn't?

 So what on earth is your point then?

It's like have to teach a child to not draw outside the lines

WRU buy Dragons
3 other regions are not happy with the preferential treatment
One of said 3 begs for preferential treatment
Contradictory

LordDowlais wrote:

I've told them, to go and look for themselves, but they are happy to ignore it, and keep this thread going down a road they want. It's very tiresome.

It's all very odd. I'm sure if I claimed that night was night and day was day, they would argue those facts with me somehow.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:]

I'm not concerned with a conflict of interest.

Then you really don't have any right to expect any credibility to be given to anything you post.

The conflict of interest is not relevant to the facts.  
The conflict of interest is a separate topic.  
The WRU have ownership rights over 1 Region.  It is natural that they would invest more in the thing they 'own' than the things they don't 'own'.  What you keep saying is that the other regions wanted the same WRU treats but to have their front of 'independence' protected.

The conflict of interest is the entire focus of the debate.

Not the focus of the part of the debate where allegedly independent, privately run entities want the same Union treats given to them as a Union owned team.

Conflict of interest?

Conflict of meaning?

And considering you make a big deal of ending Union influence in the League completely........ you have to tidy up your conflict of meaning before anyone has to debate conflict of interest.

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

And where does it state it doesn't?

 So what on earth is your point then?

It's like have to teach a child to not draw outside the lines

WRU buy Dragons
3 other regions are not happy with the preferential treatment
One of said 3 begs for preferential treatment
Contradictory

One of those 3 did not beg for preferential treatment. They offered a "babysitting" solution. A temporary solution. Which is what the other 3 had no problem with the Dragons doing either. It's when it because clear that resources are being used on top of that temporary lifeline solution that questions must be answered. This has been explained today on this thread but you seem to be willing to make an argument out of thin air.

So to tidy up the last bulk of posts.... yet one more time Welsh rugby - the 'private' bit and the Union bit - are once more at war with each other?

That cease fire didn't last long. More disruption for the Never Content League as one Nation's League teams and their overseeing Union is at loggerheads again.

And here was me thinking it would be all sorted out now that a true rugby legend is the head of the WRU. That was all the publicity when he was elected....finally a rugby man that has the interests of rugby at heart.
His honeymoon didn't last long either.

LordDowlais wrote:Well lets talk about the point in hand then marty.

What do you think could be done to improve the standard of officiating in our league?

What do you reckon could be done to get more Scottish, Italian and South African officials in our league ?

How do you rate the standard of officiating in our league ?

We can start from that.

Since there is some debate about facts:

Why does the standard of officiating need to improve? Where is your evidence to indicate that the current standard is any worse than any other League?

Why does nationality matter? Is there any evidence of officials' nationality causing any bias in their decision making?

Standard of officiating in Pro14 League - rating 427.

The Great Aukster wrote:Why does the standard of officiating need to improve?

Because the standard is woeful, and it causes these arguments all the time.

The Great Aukster wrote: Where is your evidence to indicate that the current standard is any worse than any other League?

I don't have any, but I never claimed anything different either, the thing is, other leagues, that my teams do not play in, do not concern me.

The Great Aukster wrote:Why does nationality matter?

I never said it does, in fact, I gave said the complete opposite. What another strange thing to bring up, but yes it's us Welsh fans who bring nationality into all the time.

The Great Aukster wrote:Is there any evidence of officials' nationality causing any bias in their decision making?

No, there isn't, but nobody said there was either. Why do you mention this ?

I think that because there are a lack of quality refs, from all nations in our league, when an Irish ref is in charge of an Irish team, then he makes a marginal call, then all the accusations start to fly. Let's not forget Pat Lamb saying as much after a Connacht V Cardiff game with regards to a Welsh official, so it's not just privvy to members on here.

Scarlets vs Ulster
@ Parc y Scarlets
24 February 2018
Referee: Ian Davies (Wales)
Assistant referees: Gwyn Morris (Wales), Elgan Williams (Wales)
Television match official: Sean Brickell (Wales)

Awful appointments. Absolutely dreadful.

and this:

Ospreys vs Cheetahs
@ Liberty Stadium
Referee: Ben Whitehouse (Wales)
Assistant referees: Adam Jones (Wales), Dewi Phillips (Wales)

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

And where does it state it doesn't?

 So what on earth is your point then?

It's like have to teach a child to not draw outside the lines

WRU buy Dragons
3 other regions are not happy with the preferential treatment
One of said 3 begs for preferential treatment
Contradictory

One of those 3 did not beg for preferential treatment. They offered a "babysitting" solution. A temporary solution. Which is what the other 3 had no problem with the Dragons doing either. It's when it because clear that resources are being used on top of that temporary lifeline solution that questions must be answered. This has been explained today on this thread but you seem to be willing to make an argument out of thin air.

So asking the WRU to pay their bills for them which at the time wasn't happening at any of the other regions wouldn't have been preferential?

preferential

/ˌprɛfəˈrɛnʃ(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: preferential

of or involving preference or partiality; constituting a favour or privilege.

And that is covered in the PA where?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Scarlets vs Ulster
@ Parc y Scarlets
24 February 2018
Referee: Ian Davies (Wales)
Assistant referees: Gwyn Morris (Wales), Elgan Williams (Wales)
Television match official: Sean Brickell (Wales)

Awful appointments. Absolutely dreadful.

and this:

Ospreys vs Cheetahs
@ Liberty Stadium
Referee: Ben Whitehouse (Wales)
Assistant referees: Adam Jones (Wales), Dewi Phillips (Wales)

It really is, I would have much preferred Whitehouse

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

And where does it state it doesn't?

 So what on earth is your point then?

It's like have to teach a child to not draw outside the lines

WRU buy Dragons
3 other regions are not happy with the preferential treatment
One of said 3 begs for preferential treatment
Contradictory

One of those 3 did not beg for preferential treatment. They offered a "babysitting" solution. A temporary solution. Which is what the other 3 had no problem with the Dragons doing either. It's when it because clear that resources are being used on top of that temporary lifeline solution that questions must be answered. This has been explained today on this thread but you seem to be willing to make an argument out of thin air.

So asking the WRU to pay their bills for them which at the time wasn't happening at any of the other regions wouldn't have been preferential?

preferential

/ˌprɛfəˈrɛnʃ(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: preferential

of or involving preference or partiality; constituting a favour or privilege.

And that is covered in the PA where?

I've now told you 3 times - that the Union saving a region from going under is never going to be frowned upon by other regions as thy know it could be themselves one day. This is not seen as "preferential treatment", more a necessary lifesaving excercise. It's the addons afterwards that they are annoyed about.

How many times do you want me to type this?

LordDowlais wrote:

I think that because there are a lack of quality refs, from all nations in our league, when an Irish ref is in charge of an Irish team, then he makes a marginal call, then all the accusations start to fly. Let's not forget Pat Lamb saying as much after a Connacht V Cardiff game with regards to a Welsh official, so it's not just privvy to members on here.

And what happened Lam?

And did all the people who have this 'official' business as their number one cause of contention about the League come out here in heavy support of Lam and his perceptions?

Maybe you all did. I don't know. So I'm asking you? Did you like what Lam said at the time? Did you get out there in forums to support his view/perception?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

And where does it state it doesn't?

 So what on earth is your point then?

It's like have to teach a child to not draw outside the lines

WRU buy Dragons
3 other regions are not happy with the preferential treatment
One of said 3 begs for preferential treatment
Contradictory

One of those 3 did not beg for preferential treatment. They offered a "babysitting" solution. A temporary solution. Which is what the other 3 had no problem with the Dragons doing either. It's when it because clear that resources are being used on top of that temporary lifeline solution that questions must be answered. This has been explained today on this thread but you seem to be willing to make an argument out of thin air.

So asking the WRU to pay their bills for them which at the time wasn't happening at any of the other regions wouldn't have been preferential?

preferential

/ˌprɛfəˈrɛnʃ(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: preferential

of or involving preference or partiality; constituting a favour or privilege.

And that is covered in the PA where?

I've now told you 3 times - that the Union saving a region from going under is never going to be frowned upon by other regions as thy know it could be themselves one day. This is not seen as "preferential treatment", more a necessary lifesaving excercise. It's the addons afterwards that they are annoyed about.

How many times do you want me to type this?

Except that's not what you wrote before and didn't answer the PA question, funny that

SecretFly wrote:

And what happened Lam?

He moved to a competent rugby structure where they have neutral officials.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

And what happened Lam?

He moved to a competent rugby structure where they have neutral officials.

Neutral officials. Refs and TMOs from all over England.... in an English League with teams from various regions of ... England. None of the refs and TMOs have addresses or came into rugby through club affiliations or anything like that All neutral and brain dead - certified BS 502206.

Now what happened Lam and did you agree with his perceptions at the time?

SecretFly wrote:Now what happened Lam and did you agree with his perceptions at the time?

Nobody agreed with them, yet we could all understand where he was coming from. It just illustrates that we find ourselves in a position that leaves us open to these accusations, and it puts our league in a bad light, it's not very professional looking.

I was talking to ld rather than you rugby fan but your initial claim wasn't correct and it was actually the dragons choice not.to play him as you confirmed in a later post.

No 7&1/2 wrote: it was actually the dragons choice not to play him

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Now what happened Lam and did you agree with his perceptions at the time?

Nobody agreed with them, yet we could all understand where he was coming from. It just illustrates that we find ourselves in a position that leaves us open to these accusations, and it puts our league in a bad light, it's not very professional looking.

It didn't put the League in a bad light.  It put him in a bad light and he was disciplined for it.  Bringing the game into disrepute.

Also - so nobody agreed with Lam's perceptions?  Not one Connacht supporter shared his view?

You either believe bias happens - and at a Nationality level - or you don't.  You can't say 'we don't believe it happens but people do believe it happens and therefore we need safeguards.'
Who are the people that shared Lam's perceptions?  You say it is a problem of perception so you should have been agreeing with his perception on the night that a Welsh ref allowed bias to colour his reading of the laws of the game.

PLUS - being paid directly by the Pro14 entity (already owned in itself by the Unions involved) will not dissuade a coach or players or fans from thinking what Lam thought on that night.  His perception had nothing to do with the ref's source of income and everything to do with him being a Welsh ref officiating at a game between an Irish side and a Welsh side.
PLUS  - If Benetton were due to gain ground in the League by virtue of Ospreys beating Leinster, would not a 'neutral' Italian ref be open to perception of bias?  

Leagues are complicated things with points and bonus points, home and away etc etc.  To say any ref becomes instantaneously free from the perception of bias simply because he gets paid by something called 'Pro14' is not logical.  Of course the 'perception of bias' will continue for as long as teams from different regions/Nations play against each other.

Yes so as I said not the fact you originally claimed. When I read down to be fair it had been pointed out to you several times.

SecretFly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Now what happened Lam and did you agree with his perceptions at the time?

Nobody agreed with them, yet we could all understand where he was coming from. It just illustrates that we find ourselves in a position that leaves us open to these accusations, and it puts our league in a bad light, it's not very professional looking.

It didn't put the League in a bad light.  It put him in a bad light and he was disciplined for it.  Bringing the game into disrepute.

Also - so nobody agreed with Lam's perceptions?  Not one Connacht supporter shared his view?

You either believe bias happens - and at a Nationality level - or you don't.  You can't say 'we don't believe it happens but people do believe it happens and therefore we need safeguards.'
Who are the people that shared Lam's perceptions?  You say it is a problem of perception so you should have been agreeing with his perception on the night that a Welsh ref allowed bias to colour his reading of the laws of the game.

PLUS - being paid directly by the Pro14 entity (already owned in itself by the Unions involved) will not dissuade a coach or players or fans from thinking what Lam thought on that night.  His perception had nothing to do with the ref's source of income and everything to do with him being a Welsh ref officiating at a game between an Irish side and a Welsh side.
PLUS  - If Benetton were due to gain ground in the League by virtue of Ospreys beating Leinster, would not a 'neutral' Italian ref be open to perception of bias?  

Leagues are complicated things with points and bonus points, home and away etc etc.  To say any ref becomes instantaneously free from the perception of bias simply because he gets paid by something called 'Pro14' is not logical.  Of course the 'perception of bias' will continue for as long as teams from different regions/Nations play against each other.

Was an issue with Lams complaints not something to do with a previous comment made by Hodges?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes so as I said not the fact you originally claimed. When I read down to be fair it had been pointed out to you several times.

And he has yet to answer why the Dragons takeover goes against the PA but the Blues getting their bills paid by the WRU wouldn't have

marty2086 wrote:

Was an issue with Lams complaints not something to do with a previous comment made by Hodges?

Good memory marty.  Just shows you how much I think about these things.

Yes.  There was an alleged car park encounter now that I remember it.

Irish rugby seems to do a lot of its most intriguing work in carparks.  Howlett let off steam in one.  Lam talked about the reprimand and threat that happened in one...and of course, it seems Joe and Zebo had a famous (though never spoken about again only by me) clash in an underground one.

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes so as I said not the fact you originally claimed. When I read down to be fair it had been pointed out to you several times.

And he has yet to answer why the Dragons takeover goes against the PA but the Blues getting their bills paid by the WRU wouldn't have

Answered it 3 times.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes so as I said not the fact you originally claimed. When I read down to be fair it had been pointed out to you several times.

And he has yet to answer why the Dragons takeover goes against the PA but the Blues getting their bills paid by the WRU wouldn't have

Answered it 3 times.

No you talked of complaints from the other regions but you haven't stated how the Blues deal wouldn't have breached the PA

SecretFly wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Was an issue with Lams complaints not something to do with a previous comment made by Hodges?

Good memory marty.  Just shows you how much I think about these things.

Yes.  There was an alleged car park encounter now that I remember it.

Irish rugby seems to do a lot of its most intriguing work in carparks.  Howlett let off steam in one.  Lam talked about the reprimand and threat that happened in one...and of course, it seems Joe and Zebo had a famous (though never spoken about again only by me) clash in an underground one.

Was the Joe/Zebo one over his cats?

I remember it because it was a strange accusation and seemed like a strange thing for a ref to say

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: it was actually the dragons choice not to play him

I'm pretty sure it was the Dragons choice. Henson even sent a tweet out after the first time he got dropped acknowledging his form wasn't good enough this season. He actually received a lot of praise for it for once in his career. Henson hasn't played good rugby consistently for at least 7 years now, it's pretty amazing that hes still a professional rugby player.

The Great Aukster wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Well lets talk about the point in hand then marty.

What do you think could be done to improve the standard of officiating in our league?

What do you reckon could be done to get more Scottish, Italian and South African officials in our league ?

How do you rate the standard of officiating in our league ?

We can start from that.

Since there is some debate about facts:

Why does the standard of officiating need to improve? Where is your evidence to indicate that the current standard is any worse than any other League?

Why does nationality matter? Is there any evidence of officials' nationality causing any bias in their decision making?

Standard of officiating in Pro14 League - rating 427.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LordDowlais wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Why does the standard of officiating need to improve?

Because the standard is woeful, and it causes these arguments all the time.

In your opinion it is woeful which is fine, but if it is no worse than every other League then presumably you would also describe the standard of other Leagues as equally woeful?

LordDowlais wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote: Where is your evidence to indicate that the current standard is any worse than any other League?

I don't have any, but I never claimed anything different either, the thing is, other leagues, that my teams do not play in, do not concern me.

OK so the Pro14 officiating cannot be called a joke any more than any other League without a means of comparison. The standard and consistency of officiating is therefore an issue for World Rugby rather than the Pro14.

LordDowlais wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Why does nationality matter?

I never said it does, in fact, I gave said the complete opposite. What another strange thing to bring up, but yes it's us Welsh fans who bring nationality into all the time.

You posted:

LordDowlais wrote:What do you reckon could be done to get more Scottish, Italian and South African officials in our league ?

That post implies that you would like to get more Scottish, Italian and South African officials in the Pro14. The adjectives relate to nationality not quality, experience or consistency, so again - Why does nationality matter?

LordDowlais wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Is there any evidence of officials' nationality causing any bias in their decision making?

No, there isn't, but nobody said there was either. Why do you mention this ?

Thank you. It is good to know you no longer need to qualify officials with their nationality, since that would imply that you consider this to be a factor in their impartiality.

LordDowlais wrote:I think that because there are a lack of quality refs, from all nations in our league, when an Irish ref is in charge of an Irish team, then he makes a marginal call, then all the accusations start to fly. Let's not forget Pat Lamb saying as much after a Connacht V Cardiff game with regards to a Welsh official, so it's not just privvy to members on here.

Your opinion is that there is a lack of quality refs without any basis in fact. You have said that nationality doesn't matter yet contradict yourself by saying it leads to accusations.
Pat Lam also related an encounter with the Late Anthony Foley - "We spent the whole night talking and drinking Guinness," said Lam. "It was a great night." so by your logic that must mean all coaches spend their time drinking? If you can be bothered why not compile 30 plus (for statistical validity) examples of these so-called accusations flying and there might be grounds to have a meaningful discussion.

Good god, some of you love avoiding the point and always try and be clever. Well done The Great Aukster.

The point I am trying to make is, that we are in a position that gives the people who want to hate, laugh, pick holes in our league the ammunition to do so.

As I have said, I do not care about other leagues, if their officials are no better, then that's their problem, not ours. I only care about our league.

I also want more refs from the other nations involved so that we can then have a Scottish/Italian/South African ref reffing games between other nations teams, and if there is a bad performance, we will not get national bias as an accusation, taking that stupid argument away from our league all together, because people will/are using it as a tool to ridicule the Pro14.

At the moment, we have Irish refs officiating Irish sides, and Welsh refs officiating Welsh sides, it' not their fault, as there is not enough refs from other nations to do the job.

But guess what ? If one of the refs has a howler, then national bias will raise it's ugly head, again, when in truth, there is not bias, just poor officiating.

We need to get away from it.

marty2086 wrote:t you haven't stated how the Blues deal wouldn't have breached the PA

https://www.606v2.com/t67100p350-the-future-for-the-pro14-part-5-how-are-the-unions-doing#3678116

Yes Marty. I have. Repeatedly. But, just for you, because your my favourite - I'll spell it out for a 4th time : Cardiff Blues didn't suggest they would be doing anything that would breach the PA. The Dragons and their use of money since being "saved" (which all 4 agreed was ok) is what is questionable.

Now if you have any evidence that Cardiff Blues have at any point planned to spend money given to them by their Union on something other than what has been agreed by all 5 parties, I'd love to hear it. It would be a real scoop.

Cheers.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:t you haven't stated how the Blues deal wouldn't have breached the PA

https://www.606v2.com/t67100p350-the-future-for-the-pro14-part-5-how-are-the-unions-doing#3678116

Yes Marty. I have. Repeatedly. But, just for you, because your my favourite - I'll spell it out for a 4th time :  Cardiff Blues didn't suggest they would be doing anything that would breach the PA. The Dragons and their use of money since being "saved" (which all 4 agreed was ok) is what is questionable.

Now if you have any evidence that Cardiff Blues have at any point planned to spend money given to them by their Union on something other than what has been agreed by all 5 parties, I'd love to hear it. It would be a real scoop.

Cheers.

that no one regional entity will have additional WRU resources spent on them other than those agreed on in the PA

So where exactly was it agreed in the PA that the Blues takeover was ok?

3 Union financed/non-Union/Union hating teams and 2 more refs, one each from Scotland and Italy. That's the sum total of the Pro14s difficulties as continually outlined here repeatedly.

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:t you haven't stated how the Blues deal wouldn't have breached the PA

https://www.606v2.com/t67100p350-the-future-for-the-pro14-part-5-how-are-the-unions-doing#3678116

Yes Marty. I have. Repeatedly. But, just for you, because your my favourite - I'll spell it out for a 4th time :  Cardiff Blues didn't suggest they would be doing anything that would breach the PA. The Dragons and their use of money since being "saved" (which all 4 agreed was ok) is what is questionable.

Now if you have any evidence that Cardiff Blues have at any point planned to spend money given to them by their Union on something other than what has been agreed by all 5 parties, I'd love to hear it. It would be a real scoop.

Cheers.

that no one regional entity will have additional WRU resources spent on them other than those agreed on in the PA

So where exactly was it agreed in the PA that the Blues takeover was ok?

5th time: the bit that states that it's ok for all 4 to retrospectively agree on this time of life saving action by the Union.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:t you haven't stated how the Blues deal wouldn't have breached the PA

https://www.606v2.com/t67100p350-the-future-for-the-pro14-part-5-how-are-the-unions-doing#3678116

Yes Marty. I have. Repeatedly. But, just for you, because your my favourite - I'll spell it out for a 4th time :  Cardiff Blues didn't suggest they would be doing anything that would breach the PA. The Dragons and their use of money since being "saved" (which all 4 agreed was ok) is what is questionable.

Now if you have any evidence that Cardiff Blues have at any point planned to spend money given to them by their Union on something other than what has been agreed by all 5 parties, I'd love to hear it. It would be a real scoop.

Cheers.

that no one regional entity will have additional WRU resources spent on them other than those agreed on in the PA

So where exactly was it agreed in the PA that the Blues takeover was ok?

5th time: the bit that states that it's ok for all 4 to retrospectively agree on this time of life saving action by the Union.

I can't see that bit in the PA

marty2086 wrote:
I can't see that bit in the PA

No? That's a shame for you.