Andrea Piardi

[Mipper]

Yes, I do. Does anyone on here believe that the female referees officiating the women internationals are the best referees available?
I understand why its done, but let's not play emperor's new clothes

As for Women's Internationals, I don't recall seeing any referee who looked wrong, although this is a relatively small sample size. Yes, I do believe they are the best available.

If however, Dickie, you remind yourself of the title of this (your) thread, it isn't about Women's Internationals, its about your criticism of Andrea Piardi as a supposed diversity hire. Pivoting to broadly criticise Women refs in Womens Internationals is very poor too.

But as Marc points out, you are rightly free to air whatever views you see fit. As are we all.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I'm not entirely sure that I understand the first part of that.

As for your assertion that we should be free to say what we think, I would absolutely agree. But this right should not prevent us from criticism for what we say. As we see in the 'real world', the concept of free speech comes with responsibilities and at a time when there is an active thread around MOA, I find it very poor that anyone on this forum should use the forum to criticise a ref in the way it was done.

It is ludicrous to suggest that my use of the word 'sarcasm' is just my perspective of a 'genuine question'. Does anyone on here truly believes International Rugby uses diversity hires?

On a side note, you'll find that Twitter entertains many millions who openly say what they think.

Well simply, what one person sees as Sarcasm on a forum others see as discussion. Which take the individual has depends on what their "agenda" is. Of course freedom of speech works both ways. If it did not it would not be freedon of speech. Dickie had the right to make his comment.You have the right to say he was wrong (hense me typing "He's asking a question that should be answered in the affermative OR the negative as required.") and I have the right to say he was right. etc that is how it works. As long as we do not break specific laws etc.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Yes, I do. Does anyone on here believe that the female referees officiating the women internationals are the best referees available?
I understand why its done, but let's not play emperor's new clothes

In the Wlsh / Irish / Scottish etc league a few years go we had to have referees from each of the three nations . At that time the Scottish referees were just not up to the jb and frequent complqints were made. The reply came back stating they were the best the Scots had and we had to put up with it as the three nations had to have equal appointments despit the quality. So yep I agree it is / was done. Not saying by reffing the games some did not eventually come up to standard. But the appointments were made politically not on ability.

 

[SimonSmith]

Two issues here:

WhenI do my club's reports on referees I always find it easier to be critical wen we have won and especilly convincingly. Much harder to be critical when we lose. Why should that be? The prerformance is the same. But I don't wish to be accused of sour grapes.

But the referee needs honesty if I'm crap I need to be told that (though tghere i aa way to say itand way no to say it).

I remember a game that my club lost a few years ago. Wewhere man shamed in the scrum and soundly beaten on the scoreboard. The WRU assessor (a former IRB International refere) appologetically looked to me on a number of occasions as the referee pingged our scrum for the other sides offences (our scum was not great but a stream of pens came from their tight head borining in on the hooker).

After around 65 minutes their captain came off and, in front of the assessor said "this is great we do what the f%^k we like and he gives us a f&%&I%g penalty!!!" His teammates laughed. He was telling the truth. The assessor made ntoes and we both shook our heads.

After the game I thanked the ref and his team and added; "you need to learn about and understand the scrum". The scrum was the only "minus" on the feedback report.

Now should I have "shut up like a good loser?" NO! It had to be said. Yes I knew the "official" feedback from the assessor was also going to black mark the scrums. So, my voice was ono lone voice in the wind.

Was I "criticising a ref because your team lost" and acting in a "shameful" way? I guess you'd say I was. I fundementally Worth noting that referee went on to reach a very good standard. He had several positive reports in games we both won and lost from me. Hopefully my words contributed to abit of soul searching. Who knows?

We also know that life is full of People getting appointments for the wrong reasons. Why should rugby be any different? I find Dickie posts a bit of crap from time to time. But I don't find his post to be a case of "Dickie, you're just being an arse now.

I thought it was the poms you lot accused of whinging. every time Australia lost, Aussie fans blamed the ref. You should be better than this." He's asking a question that should be answered in the affermative OR the negative as required.

I don't think saying the referee had a bad game, and here's my data points, is inherently a bad thing. Accusing the referee of being a diversity hire, on the other hand, very much is.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I don't think saying the referee had a bad game, and here's my data points, is inherently a bad thing. Accusing the referee of being a diversity hire, on the other hand, very much is.

So do we ignore such actions on the part of the unions? There have been clear examples of "positive discrimination" if you prefer that term in rugby and indeed all walks of life where people have been promoted above their level for reasons that are not releted to the job itself. That is not right.

Perhaps what I am ulitmately saying is this:

Attacked Dickies argument NOT the subject of his argument. Show how he is wrong to make the claim that there was a "diversity hire2, rathe than argue whether he has the right to call "diversity hire" out.

 

[Volun-selected]

…people have been promoted above their level for reasons that are not releted to the job itself. That is not right.

Unfortunately, it does seem to be a general pattern that people get promoted to their level of incompetence - at least in pretty much all the corporations I’ve worked in.

But until you reach that one step too far, how do you know?

Criticism of calls, especially where we have quality tv footage, and the debate we all then have is probably one of the greatest strengths of this forum. Its certainly helped me understand the application of the laws.

When we start using labels like diversity hire, etc. then I generally need to see more evidence than one bad game. We’ve all had at least one of those in our time. If there’s a pattern of deficiencies then the label is easier to defend. One bad match and it lands as a pejorative.

 

[Rich_NL]

When we start using labels like diversity hire, etc. then I generally need to see more evidence than one bad game. We’ve all had at least one of those in our time. If there’s a pattern of deficiencies then the label is easier to defend. One bad match and it lands as a pejorative.

Especially when it was on the back of a match that the ref's home team happened to lose.

 

[Dickie E]

Unfortunately, it does seem to be a general pattern that people get promoted to their level of incompetence - at least in pretty much all the corporations I’ve worked in.

But until you reach that one step too far, how do you know?

Criticism of calls, especially where we have quality tv footage, and the debate we all then have is probably one of the greatest strengths of this forum. Its certainly helped me understand the application of the laws.

When we start using labels like diversity hire, etc. then I generally need to see more evidence than one bad game. We’ve all had at least one of those in our time. If there’s a pattern of deficiencies then the label is easier to defend. One bad match and it lands as a pejorative.

And that's fair enough and I'm happy to itemise the specific issues & game times but not much point if nobody else has seen the game or is interested in the discussion points.
Overall he had that look of "deer in the headlights" which made me wonder about his appointment (but then again I think the same of Nic Berry so what do I know)

 

[SimonSmith]

So do we ignore such actions on the part of the unions? There have been clear examples of "positive discrimination" if you prefer that term in rugby and indeed all walks of life where people have been promoted above their level for reasons that are not releted to the job itself. That is not right.

Perhaps what I am ulitmately saying is this:

Attacked Dickies argument NOT the subject of his argument. Show how he is wrong to make the claim that there was a "diversity hire2, rathe than argue whether he has the right to call "diversity hire" out.

Referees, in order to progress, must get games above their normal operating level.

When I was in the UK, going out on exchange was usually a level higher than my comfort level, and it could show. But that didn't make me a "diversity" exchange. It just meant I was getting stretched. It's a pity we don't show other referees the same grace as they try to get to the higher level Elite games.

He handled NZ/ARG, which I would argue is a higher level game, and seems to have gone OK. I don't remember Ireland/Wales being a shitshow.

But put in an average performance against Australia, and all of a sudden you're a "diversity" referee.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Referees, in order to progress, must get games above their normal operating level.

When I was in the UK, going out on exchange was usually a level higher than my comfort level, and it could show. But that didn't make me a "diversity" exchange. It just meant I was getting stretched. It's a pity we don't show other referees the same grace as they try to get to the higher level Elite games.

He handled NZ/ARG, which I would argue is a higher level game, and seems to have gone OK. I don't remember Ireland/Wales being a shitshow.

But put in an average performance against Australia, and all of a sudden you're a "diversity" referee.

1: Of course they do.
2: Im sure that at time we do struggle in testing situations and indeedwedowhen we have "one of thoses game".
3 & 4: And there is the replu that was pertinant to the discussion. That is , attack the argument not the right to ask the question.

 

[SimonSmith]

1: Of course they do.
2: Im sure that at time we do struggle in testing situations and indeedwedowhen we have "one of thoses game".
3 & 4: And there is the replu that was pertinant to the discussion. That is , attack the argument not the right to ask the question.

Slight disagree.

Questioning how good the referee was is absolutely a legitimate question.

Casting aspersions about his selection and putting it down to "diversity"...not so much.

 

[Dickie E]

Slight disagree.

Questioning how good the referee was is absolutely a legitimate question.

Casting aspersions about his selection and putting it down to "diversity"...not so much.

Well, that's 3 or 4 times you've expressed that view. I'm sure you're not as whiny & pompous as you're starting to sound

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Casting aspersions about his selection and putting it down to "diversity"...not so much.

Questioning the Appointment policy is a legitimate stance. Of course you need to back it up if yo umake the argument or disagree with it. Come on we are all grown ups. we know people get appointments in EVERY walk of life for reasons other than the ability to do the job. To pretend otherwise is naive at best. If you have two (or more) equal candidates for a post then go to diversity as a "tie breaker" but. The process has to be open and clear.

 

[SimonSmith]

Well, that's 3 or 4 times you've expressed that view. I'm sure you're not as whiny & pompous as you're starting to sound

Equally, Dickie, I'm sure you're not quite as MAGA-type as you're presenting.

 

[SimonSmith]

Questioning the Appointment policy is a legitimate stabce. Of course you need to back it up if yo umake the argument or disagree with it. Come on wwe are all grown ups. we know people get appointments in EVERY walk of life for reasons other than the ability to do the job. To pretend otherwise is naive at best. If you have two (or more) equal candidates for a post then go to diversity as a "tie breaker" but. The process has to be open and clear.

So, based on his refereeing background, why do you think "diversity" is appropriate?

Is it because he's from Italy who are only 2 places under Australia in the world rankings? Nic Berry - diversity appointment!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

So, based on his refereeing background, why do you think "diversity" is appropriate?

Is it because he's from Italy who are only 2 places under Australia in the world rankings? Nic Berry - diversity appointment!

I was not aware there was a world ranking of referees Surely you are not equating referees with the national teams. That would be a tad foolish. If you look at experience of Italian referees they do not have the number of high profile games / big match experience of some other countries. Of course there is the lack of experience so no big games and how do you get the experience conundrum to solve.

However, you still miss the point. The question was:

"Andrea was the man in the middle for Ireland v Aust. I thought he looked somewhat out of his depth with poor decisions favouring both teams.
If there is such a thing as a diversity hire, I wonder if its him?"

The answer is either:
"Yes, because...."

or

"No, because..."

Why can't you just answer the question? Rather than attack the question itself. It really not that complicated. For me it is "Don't know, I've not seen him referee.

 

[Balones]

Basically we will never know unless the person/people who appointed him let everyone know. And that is very unlikely to happen. So it’s a case of ‘flogging a dead horse’.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Well indeen but most debate is ultimately irrelevant. But if we never did it there would be little point in this forum.

 

[SimonSmith]

I was not aware there was a world ranking of referees Surely you are not equating referees with the national teams. That would be a tad foolish. If you look at experience of Italian referees they do not have the number of high profile games / big match experience of some other countries. Of course there is the lack of experience so no big games and how do you get the experience conundrum to solve.

However, you still miss the point. The question was:

"Andrea was the man in the middle for Ireland v Aust. I thought he looked somewhat out of his depth with poor decisions favouring both teams.
If there is such a thing as a diversity hire, I wonder if its him?"

The answer is either:
"Yes, because...."

or

"No, because..."

Why can't you just answer the question? Rather than attack the question itself. It really not that complicated. For me it is "Don't know, I've not seen him referee.

If you can't see why that's an immediately offensive question, I suspect that's a reflection on you rather than me.

"Diversity hire" is the new right wing attack on minorities. See also "DEI hires". The immediate connotation is that ability isn't a factor in an appointment. I supplied the evidence showing why that argument was BS. We wouldn't tolerate it on any other ground, but just because a referee is Italian his appointment is a bit sus?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It's offensive if you want to mke it so. Perhaps if you had dealt with the quesrtion from the start instaed of making it about politics we'd have got to the answer more quickly. I'm about as far from right win as yo ucan hope to find but I can see beyond the political claptrap.
al lot of referees from a lot of countries and a lot of female referees are not ready for the top games due to the lack of being given suitable games for them to progress up the ladder. That is a sad truth not politics.