English clubs threaten USA - All Blacks in Chicago

[smartcooky]

To be fair - I'm not sure how you can interpret the current definition the way the NZRFU have.
According to them June has 5 weekends!

A weekend is both Saturday and Sunday - a Sunday falling in June does not constitute a weekend.

That depends on the country. Some countries have Friday/Saturday weekends (Bahrain for example) and some have Thursday/Friday (Iran). Some have a six day working week with only one weekend day (India/Thailand)

I have always regarded the first weekend day to be the first weekend of any month. Our Pony Club rules say that "...unless otherwise arranged, the grounds committee shall meet on the Friday night immediately before the first weekend in any month" (next meeting is May 30th).

AIUI as far as the iRB is concerned, the first weekend of any month is the first one on which a Sunday falls

[TEXTAREA]Regulation 9.7 Global Release Periods
There are two Global Release Periods.
(a) The June window
The Right to Release for Matches shall apply to each of the senior
National Representative Team, the next senior National
Representative Team and the Under 20 National Representative
Team of a Union in respect of all International Matches, International
Tours and International Tournaments played over a period of three
weekends in June each year, save in a Rugby World Cup year,
during which year the June window shall not operate in respect of
Unions that qualified for the Rugby World Cup. Unless Council
approves otherwise the three weekends in June shall be the second,
third and fourth weekends.[/TEXTAREA]

By my reckoning The 2014 window runs from Saturday 7 June to Sunday 22 June.

ETAS - As usual, the iRB have not written the regulation very carefully.

 

[ratsapprentice]

That depends on the country. Some countries have Friday/Saturday weekends (Bahrain for example) and some have Thursday/Friday (Iran). Some have a six day working week with only one weekend day (India/Thailand)

Oh yes... I'm sure the IRB is accounting for those countries when scheduling it's test windows... that's a smug, smart-arse comment frankly.

AIUI as far as the iRB is concerned, the first weekend of any month is the first one on which a Sunday falls

If they are using that as their definition then fine - but it's plainly retarded.
Using that definition, the first week of June lasts only one day.

 

[Shaggy]

Oh yes... I'm sure the IRB is accounting for those countries when scheduling it's test windows... that's a smug, smart-arse comment frankly.

If they are using that as their definition then fine - but it's plainly retarded.
Using that definition, the first week of June lasts only one day.

I don't see that it matters what the definition of a weekend is in IRB speak ... just so long as everyone is on the same page, and knows when the window(s) open and close

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Well, something has to give ... you could shorten the Aviva Premiership by playing less games ... the 2016 Super Rugby comp looks like it will have one less game/round, even though there will be 18 teams instead of 15

How, though?
I mean don't get me wrong, if we didn't have to go and get ruined at Franklins Gardens and/or Welford Road I'd be happy enough

 

[Shaggy]

How, though?
I mean don't get me wrong, if we didn't have to go and get ruined at Franklins Gardens and/or Welford Road I'd be happy enough

Well they could increase the number of teams, and play in two conferences (more games for the TV partners and Sponsors), less games for the players, less weeks playing ... or they could squeeze in the occasional mid-week game (if they aren't already) ALA the ITM Cup

You could drop a team completely, but I don't suppose anyone would be too keen on that Idea

 

[goodNumber10]

Well they could increase the number of teams, and play in two conferences (more games for the TV partners and Sponsors), less games for the players, less weeks playing ... or they could squeeze in the occasional mid-week game (if they aren't already) ALA the ITM Cup

You could drop a team completely, but I don't suppose anyone would be too keen on that Idea

not under the current agreement, and it won't help with this problem.

I've long thought that a good way to structure the english season would be increase the premiership to 16 teams.

Then play:

Two pools of 8, home & away - so 14 games per team in regular season

Top two from each pool into semi finals. Bottom 1 from each pool into relegation play off.

Total of 16 games if you make the final.

Pool can be selected on draw with teams seeded - so top two teams of last years pool avoid each other in the pool stages and so on.

Coupled with the European Comeptition you can make top 3 from eahc pool qualify.

Just pie in the sky i suppose but i reckon it coudl be a good format.

 

[Shaggy]

not under the current agreement, and it won't help with this problem.

I've long thought that a good way to structure the english season would be increase the premiership to 16 teams.

Then play:

Two pools of 8, home & away - so 14 games per team in regular season

Top two from each pool into semi finals. Bottom 1 from each pool into relegation play off.

Total of 16 games if you make the final.

Pool can be selected on draw with teams seeded - so top two teams of last years pool avoid each other in the pool stages and so on.

Coupled with the European Comeptition you can make top 3 from eahc pool qualify.

Just pie in the sky i suppose but i reckon it coudl be a good format.

No of course, no major restructure could be done until the current agreement expires ... under your proposed format, everybody wins - the teams/players play less games, more games televised/more money generated, more exposure for the sponsors etc.

Having said all of that, a lot of the fans in Super Rugby hate the Conference format ... many (myself included) liked the Super 12, because everybody played everybody, and team quality/competitiveness was better, but, the pressure on the rugby calendar and pressure to generate more income has meant that the Conference systems are becoming a necessary evil

 

[goodNumber10]

No of course, no major restructure could be done until the current agreement expires ... under your proposed format, everybody wins - the teams/players play less games, more games televised/more money generated, more exposure for the sponsors etc.

Having said all of that, a lot of the fans in Super Rugby hate the Conference format ... many (myself included) liked the Super 12, because everybody played everybody, and team quality/competitiveness was better, but, the pressure on the rugby calendar and pressure to generate more income has meant that the Conference systems are becoming a necessary evil

I preferred it as well, but they didn't play home and away did they, it was just once each. just a straight round robin log.

I think the biggest problem in the conference system is the fact people play some teams twice, and others only once and so on... it's a shambles

 

[Shaggy]

I preferred it as well, but they didn't play home and away did they, it was just once each. just a straight round robin log.

I think the biggest problem in the conference system is the fact people play some teams twice, and others only once and so on... it's a shambles

I wish you wouldn't use technical terms like "Shambles" but yes, you're right ... they try to organise the shambles by making sure that if get one team only once one year, you get them twice the next year

It's not really a fair system, but ... what can you do?

 

[smartcooky]

not under the current agreement, and it won't help with this problem.

I've long thought that a good way to structure the english season would be increase the premiership to 16 teams.

Then play:

Two pools of 8, home & away - so 14 games per team in regular season

Top two from each pool into semi finals. Bottom 1 from each pool into relegation play off.

Total of 16 games if you make the final.

Pool can be selected on draw with teams seeded - so top two teams of last years pool avoid each other in the pool stages and so on.

Coupled with the European Comeptition you can make top 3 from eahc pool qualify.

Just pie in the sky i suppose but i reckon it coudl be a good format.

Or your could rank the teams at the end of the season, Premiers ranked 1 and the runner up ranked 2, the remaining 3 to 16 based on their table points... odds into one pool, evens into the other.

 

[psychic duck]

Exactly, all IRB tournaments fall within a statutory test window. Because it doesn't align with the tier one test windows doesn't mean it's not in a test window.

In RWC year there is no November test window, the window is moved and extended to accomodate the World Cup. There is no special exemption, the window is at a different period - hence the problems with the fijian players in the Top 14.

No, goodNumber10, you have your facts wrong on this matter. Olyy is right in saying specifically that RWC qualifiers make their own release window, but you are wrong in saying all IRB tournaments do, as was pointed out by Little Guy. The beginning of the IRB Pacific Nations Cup last year fell outside the release window, that is an indisputable fact. The ENC has had games outside the release window in the past as well.

It's stated in Regulation 9 that only the World Cup + qualifiers, World Cup 7's, Olympic 7's + qualifiers, and the Lions tour are known as Designated Release Events. Hence why USA could field a full team with Samu Manoa etc in Uruguay recently. All of this is backed up here http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/27/42327_pdf.pdf

 

[welshglory]

For what it's worth i'd love to see the 6 nation's moved.
a) so it's played in better conditions and the enc in its harsh russian and continental european weather
b) less disjointed fixture list
c) so we can shift to a european cup in the future
d) we can have a better, more consistent product at the level below internationals as a result if this

 

[goodNumber10]

No, goodNumber10, you have your facts wrong on this matter. Olyy is right in saying specifically that RWC qualifiers make their own release window, but you are wrong in saying all IRB tournaments do, as was pointed out by Little Guy. The beginning of the IRB Pacific Nations Cup last year fell outside the release window, that is an indisputable fact. The ENC has had games outside the release window in the past as well.

I never said they create their own, i said they fall within... small but big difference.

It's stated in Regulation 9 that only the World Cup + qualifiers, World Cup 7's, Olympic 7's + qualifiers, and the Lions tour are known as Designated Release Events. Hence why USA could field a full team with Samu Manoa etc in Uruguay recently. All of this is backed up here http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/23/27/42327_pdf.pdf

*sigh*

from your document:

The Right to Release for Matches shall apply to each of the senior
National Representative Team, the next senior National Representative
Team and the Under 20 National Representative Team of a Union in
respect of all International Matches, International Tours and International
Tournaments played over a period of three weekends in June each year,
save in a Rugby World Cup year, during which year the June window
shall not operate in respect of Unions that qualified for the Rugby World
Cup. Unless Council approves otherwise the three weekends in June shall
be the second, third and fourth weekends.

neither you or I can prove it's one or the other, so do we really need to keep going over, and over, and over and over this?

The crux of this whole argument is that England are no worse than NZ or any other nation when it comes to player release.

 

[psychic duck]

neither you or I can prove it's one or the other, so do we really need to keep going over, and over, and over and over this?

The crux of this whole argument is that England are no worse than NZ or any other nation when it comes to player release.

But it is fully proven beyond debatable evidence. The PNC fell outside the IRB's 3 week June window and wasn't considered amongst the designated release events. The point is proven in the Reg. 9 document. Just looking at the team selections of those May games is also pretty conclusive evidence it wasn't in the release window to be honest as well, the CEO of USA rugby even said this "They were never going to play against Canada because it is outside the international release window and we are only selecting domestic players."

The comments of a highly knowledgeable Canadian rugby observer, the USA CEO, Regulation 9 itself, all go directly against your claim. Are you still going to ignore all that?

 

[goodNumber10]

But it is fully proven beyond debatable evidence. The PNC fell outside the IRB's 3 week June window and wasn't considered amongst the designated release events. The point is proven in the Reg. 9 document. Just looking at the team selections of those May games is also pretty conclusive evidence it wasn't in the release window to be honest as well, the CEO of USA rugby even said this "They were never going to play against Canada because it is outside the international release window and we are only selecting domestic players."

The comments of a highly knowledgeable Canadian rugby observer, the USA CEO, Regulation 9 itself, all go directly against your claim. Are you still going to ignore all that?

Who's the highly knowledgable Canadian Rugby Observer? The guy who sent me a stroppy message and a vote down because i won't agree with him?

I really can't be bothered to keep this discussion going. The IRB window in 2013 ran for way more than 3 weeks, the final lions test was on the 6h of July, the first Lions test was the 1st of June, thats 6 weeks. That proves in itself the Test window was not the normal 3 weekends in June during year 2013.

IRB reg 9 has a change clause Written in, the "unless" statement. The 2013 test windwo ran from 25/26 may till 6th July.

 

[psychic duck]

Who's the highly knowledgable Canadian Rugby Observer? The guy who sent me a stroppy message and a vote down because i won't agree with him?

I really can't be bothered to keep this discussion going. The IRB window in 2013 ran for way more than 3 weeks, the final lions test was on the 6h of July, the first Lions test was the 1st of June, thats 6 weeks. That proves in itself the Test window was not the normal 3 weekends in June during year 2013.

IRB reg 9 has a change clause Written in, the "unless" statement. The 2013 test windwo ran from 25/26 may till 6th July.

And as previously pointed out Reg. 9 states the Lions tours are an IRB Designated Release Event that can happen outside the usual release window. That didn't apply to any other matches over the June period, hence why USA fielded a weakened team in May outside the release window.

No wonder the well informed Canadian rugby observer in question sent you that message, you are still sticking to an argument that is has been proven to be so undeniably false it's equivalent to arguing 1+1=3.

 

[LittleGuy]

Who's the highly knowledgable Canadian Rugby Observer? The guy who sent me a stroppy message and a vote down because i won't agree with him?

I really can't be bothered to keep this discussion going. The IRB window in 2013 ran for way more than 3 weeks, the final lions test was on the 6h of July, the first Lions test was the 1st of June, thats 6 weeks. That proves in itself the Test window was not the normal 3 weekends in June during year 2013.

IRB reg 9 has a change clause Written in, the "unless" statement. The 2013 test windwo ran from 25/26 may till 6th July.

Are you trolling us? I have never seen anyone debate a pedantic point, that they were wrong on for so long as you. You are completely incapable of admitting even a small error in this, as I and Psychic and others have pointed out it was well known that the first two games of the PNC last year lay outside the window, which I very nicely pointed out to you the first three times(than got frustrated because you are like a brick wall), but which you've still stuck to your guns on. Even twisting the facts we've sent you to somehow fit your interpretation.

 

[goodNumber10]

Yes, yes of course. I don't agree with you so naturally I'm just trolling.

Let's make it a personal thing and start slinging insults. That'll sort everything out.

 

[LittleGuy]

Yes, yes of course. I don't agree with you so naturally I'm just trolling.

Let's make it a personal thing and start slinging insults. That'll sort everything out.

Well you've been dealing as good as you've been receiving on the personal front but nice way to change the issue and make yourself a victim.

It's not a point of view that can be disagreed on as PD said you are arguing that 1+1=3 it's not an opinion, it's a fact. a.k.a. Canada beat U.S.A. 16-9 on May 25th 2013 is a fact. "Canada played poorly in that matchup" would be an opinion.

It's not my opinion that those two games were played outside the test window, it's a fact based on overwheling evidence, that you have utterly failed to prove otherwise.

 

[welshglory]

This is why we need to think about disbanding tournaments like the 6 nations and RC or at least moving them to alternative years.
Have a real variety in tests and make these old traditions really special and unique not just a yearly permanent fixture.
I'm personally bored of watching the same internationals every year, and there are plenty of others. That's why i love it when a world class unique club game is played, it's something different and exciting.
These t2 nations can't even play competitive tests against each other because the international fixture list is so full because of the yearly tournaments. It's not because of the club fixtures either, even if the NH fixture list was similar to the SH there still wouldn't be enough time for the yearly events plus competitive tests for t2 against t2 and lower t1's.
Rant Over!!!

The only real argument is the financial one. Otherwise there is not incentive to stop these guys playing more against everybody. If they are able to get up to a good level then the market will expand anyway and then it will move on to next tier and so on.

Edit:
Financial argument meaning that these tournaments are money makers for the top international teams, not that there wouldn't be financial incentive to play tier 2 timers which would be a disgusting argument.
Find other ways to make money, international rugby isn't supposed to be about making money, or even supporting your whole countries rugby system which i find ridiculous because it effectively leaves the IRB with no choice but to let you keep your money makers or else you would go broke and your rugby system would go broke when you shouldn't be reliant on these methods in the first place. So think before you criticise the IRB, they have no choice. Find other ways to support your countries rugby selfish a**h**s.