The Indo and the "journalist" Neil Francis embarrassed themself

Beubeu

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/six-nations/irish-news/neil-francis-this-delay-could-prove-convenient-for-ireland-3017139.html

The "journalist" decided to blame the french federation... and looks like he doenst like the french when saying; As usual, the French, in their minimalist and laissez-faire way, did as little as possible to make certain that the match took place.

Ok so the 6N committee decide when the game will be play. The day of the game the ref decide if the pitch is ok. Why would he blame the French? Should I understand that the Indo publish article from journalist who makes no research what so ever? The FFR tried their best to keep the pitch unfrozen all week and were quiet anoyed about the ref's decision. The French television was ok to reschedule the game the afternoon. So Mr Francis should blame the 6N and the IRB but no....
What if the game was in Dublin with the same weather. I would love to know what Neil Francis would have say about it....

A GAA game was cancelled last night by the way... will the Indo blame the GAA?

Benny Cake

I'm inclined to agree with him tbh. This weather was forecast for the past week & a pitch with no undersoil heating was always going to freeze when the covers were removed. Had the FFR been more proactive & moved the start time to midday or had the decency to postpone the game before 50,000 fans had taken their seats in the stadium, then this embarassing debacle could have been avoided...

Fishooks12

Bit harsh on the FFR I agree but I disagree with the use of inverted commas around journalist. Neil is one of the best pundits in Ireland

Beubeu

But only the 6N committee can decide on reschedule the game. Why doesnt he blame them instead? The game should have been played in the afternoon but the FFR or the IRFU cannot decide on that! By the way the Stade de France is not owned by the FFR.

crisco10

Some epic finger pointing going on here.

FFR say that the 6n committee were asked on Thursday could it be a 3pm kick off instead but the 6N said no...

Some people are blaming Pearson (think he is not at all at fault here)

Others are blaming TV networks..

........


Oh and have to disagree, think Francis says some awful junk. He tries to be Ireland Stephen Jones at times.

CatFromHue

I see no problem with his article. He's right about people questioning whether the game could go ahead during the week. Vincent Clerc did it publicly.

I am pie

Francis is a tabloid journalist writing sensationalist poorly researched nonsense for one of irelands biggest rags.

Lapin

Benny Cake wrote: »

pitch with no undersoil heating...

Thats the most surprising thing about this. Such a high profile stadium.

Lapin

Knock knock,

Who's there?

Francis.

Francis who?

France is where the game was cancelled.

I'll close the door on my way out.

mathepac

Beubeu wrote: »

... By the way the Stade de France is not owned by the FFR.

As is common in France, the stadia / playing fields are owned by the local authority on behalf of the State, which might go some way to explaining why there is no underground heating in a relatively modern stadium.

Fishooks12

I am pie wrote: »

Francis is a tabloid journalist writing sensationalist poorly researched nonsense for one of irelands biggest rags.

2 things wrong with this

Number one the indo is not a tabloid, it's a broadsheet, it may be the worst broadsheet in Ireland but not a tabloid.

Number two, while it may be bad if you think it's Irelands biggest rag you must never have read the sun, the star, the mail, the mirror....etc

In fact sports coverage is probably the strongest area in the indo these days

Plus you rarely see tabloids devote more than a page to rugby coverage

greendom

mathepac wrote: »

As is common in France, the stadia / playing fields are owned by the local authority on behalf of the State, which might go some way to explaining why there is no underground heating in a relatively modern stadium.

I bet by this time next year there will be.

greendom

Fishooks12 wrote: »

2 things wrong with this

Number one the indo is not a tabloid, it's a broadsheet, it may be the worst broadsheet in Ireland but not a tabloid.

Well then its a tabloid parading as a broadsheet. Layout of a broadsheet, heart of a tabloid.

molloyjh

greendom wrote: »

mathepac wrote: »

As is common in France, the stadia / playing fields are owned by the local authority on behalf of the State, which might go some way to explaining why there is no underground heating in a relatively modern stadium.

I bet by this time next year there will be.

It's built over an old gasworks so I doubt it....

VinLieger

Fishooks12 wrote: »

Number one the indo is not a tabloid, it's a broadsheet, it may be the worst broadsheet in Ireland but not a tabloid.

Its available in tabloid form as well, therefore its not a broadsheet anymore in my opinion plus the writing in it doesnt deserve to be classed in the same area as other quality broadsheets

Beubeu

Fishooks12 wrote: »

2 things wrong with this

Number one the indo is not a tabloid, it's a broadsheet, it may be the worst broadsheet in Ireland but not a tabloid.

Number two, while it may be bad if you think it's Irelands biggest rag you must never have read the sun, the star, the mail, the mirror....etc

In fact sports coverage is probably the strongest area in the indo these days

Plus you rarely see tabloids devote more than a page to rugby coverage

don't think he was saying that the Indo is a tabloid but Indo is acting as a tabloid sometimes

greendom

molloyjh wrote: »

It's built over an old gasworks so I doubt it....

Really ? Didn't know that ? Perhaps they should restart it - that would warm the soil soon enough

Beubeu

crisco10 wrote: »

Some epic finger pointing going on here.

FFR say that the 6n committee were asked on Thursday could it be a 3pm kick off instead but the 6N said no...

Some people are blaming Pearson (think he is not at all at fault here)

Others are blaming TV networks..

........


Oh and have to disagree, think Francis says some awful junk. He tries to be Ireland Stephen Jones at times.

The ref was right yesterday I think.

This is absolutely true about the FFR asking the 6N committee to move the game at 3pm. But the journalist "forgot" to mention it.

Finally where is the comment about "global-warming theorists" coming from?

Reloc8

If that pitch was unplayable on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday at 9:00pm, what in the name of goodness led the French organisation to believe it would, miraculously, be playable on Saturday at 9:00pm, in light of the forecast ?

It was ridiculous to leave this decision so late in the day.

Unless the FFR can show that they notified the tournament organisers that the pitch was unplayable during the week and that they believed it would be unplayable on Saturday then they must accept a large portion of the blame for this farce.

Not to mention the constant assurances coming from the Stadium team during the week and on Saturday that they were confident the pitch would be playable.

Ridiculous, Amateurish, Laughable, Embarrassing.

And I would have hoped that the FFR would have the maturity to at least admit that they made a mistake, and apologise for it (they arn't the only guilty party either but as this thread was launched in defence of the FFR lets stay on topic). And I stress, if the FFR want to exonerate themselves then lets see the proof about their communications to IRB/6 Nations. Funny thing is that I havn't seen any one else in print over here yet saying that FFR asked for a 3 o'clock kick off.

Beubeu wrote: »

Finally where is the comment about "global-warming theorists" coming from?

It was a joke.

JustinDee

Beubeu wrote: »

But only the 6N committee can decide on reschedule the game. Why doesnt he blame them instead? The game should have been played in the afternoon but the FFR or the IRFU cannot decide on that! By the way the Stade de France is not owned by the FFR.

For a stadium with such poor facilities and obvious inability to cope with such conditions (it has been below freezing last two seasons running), the 9pm start is an obvious problem.
Home union is responsible for venue and the fact there was no alternative venue in contingency plan, backs up what Franno has said really.

Pendrago

in particular?

Looks to me that both camps, the ref, half the Rugby world, were wearing blinkers all week, the forecast was for several degrees under, it had been like that for the best part of two weeks, what part of freezing is not understood? Water boils @ 99.97 degrees Celcius, water (and anything that contains water, like err, soil) freezes @ 0 degrees C. Ipso Facto.

Fishooks12

VinLieger wrote: »

Its available in tabloid form as well, therefore its not a broadsheet anymore in my opinion plus the writing in it doesnt deserve to be classed in the same area as other quality broadsheets

I'm not defending the writing because for the most part it's pretty poor but it's still no where near as bad as any of the red tops while not being as good as the other broadsheets

Beubeu

Reloc8 wrote: »

If that pitch was unplayable on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday at 9:00pm, what in the name of goodness led the French organisation to believe it would, miraculously, be playable on Saturday at 9:00pm, in light of the forecast ?

It was ridiculous to leave this decision so late in the day.

Yes I agree it was ridiculous but even the ref and the committee said it was playable friday nigh.
The 6N committee is the ONE and only the ONE who decides if a game has to go ahead or not and if it has to be rescheduled.
The FFR's president talked about it (you can listen to the interview if you speak french).

JustinDee

Beubeu wrote: »

Yes I agree it was ridiculous but even the ref and the committee said it was playable friday nigh.
The 6N committee is the ONE and only the ONE who decides if a game has to go ahead or not and if it has to be rescheduled.
The FFR's president talked about it (you can listen to the interview if you speak french).

I just told you that home union is responsible for the venue.
Given that no undersoil heating is in place, the home union were responsible for providing an alternative. They didn't.

Beubeu

JustinDee wrote: »

For a stadium with such poor facilities and obvious inability to cope with such conditions (it has been below freezing last two seasons running), the 9pm start is an obvious problem.
Home union is responsible for venue and the fact there was no alternative venue in contingency plan, backs up what Franno has said really.

9pm start was decided by the 6M committee period. (stupid decision I agree but the rugby is popular so an evening game is better for the tv)

Home union is responsible for venue and the fact there was no alternative venue in contingency plan: True as well. But its freezing everywhere in France anyway! This game should have been cancelled during the week but the 6N committee didn't want to (even the night before the committee and the ref said it was ok)

Reloc8

Look, it would appear that you signed up to defend the FFR against Neil Francis and the Sunday Independent.

Bearing in mind how must people view the Sunday Independent and how a lot of rugby people if not most people view Neil Francis as a pundit, the fact that you're not getting much traction should be a big red warning signal.

This was not a well managed occasion and it badly affected 00,000's of people financially, including many traveling fans (I include those who travelled from inside France).

No one sensible would say it is all the FFR's fault. But on what is objectively known (as opposed 'but he said that they said that he said') they have a share in the responsibility.

If they thought the venue was unsuitable, due to the weather or for any other reason, they could have closed the venue, during the week, or on Friday, or at any stage before the day of the match really. They didn't.

We'll wait and see on what else emerges but at the moment they look very much like they are trying very hard to blame everyone else but the FFR. A bit like the title of your thread. However much the Sunday Independent and Neil Francis embarrassed themselves, you'll find that most people this weekend are a bit more certain that all involved including the FFR in 'organising' this absolute farce have embarrassed themselves.

JustinDee

Beubeu wrote: »

Home union is responsible for venue and the fact there was no alternative venue in contingency plan: True as well. But its freezing everywhere in France anyway! This game should have been cancelled during the week but the 6N committee didn't want to (even the night before the committee and the ref said it was ok)

Two words for you: undersoil heating.

FFR should have provided a suitable venue. They didn't.

jimbomalley

molloyjh wrote: »

It's built over an old gasworks so I doubt it....

interesting place for a stadium to be built but seeing as the foundations for the stands are many metres below ground level i cannot see how the (old and disused) gas works affects installation of hot water piping half a meter below the pitch. poor planning by the developer here.

Gracelessly Tom

Pendrago wrote: »

in particular?

Looks to me that both camps, the ref, half the Rugby world, were wearing blinkers all week, the forecast was for several degrees under, it had been like that for the best part of two weeks, what part of freezing is not understood? Water boils @ 99.97 degrees Celcius, water (and anything that contains water, like err, soil) freezes @ 0 degrees C. Ipso Facto.

Wrong. Not all substances that contain water freeze @ 0 degrees celsius. Ipso facto.

The french have to take the majority of the blame here, no under soil heating, minus temps all week and their own players saying the pitch wouldn't be playable. If I was one of the many Irish who flew over for the game I'd be raging right now. And the balls of the announcer to say "keep your tickets, they are valid for the refixed game"! What about the flight costs? Are they covered?

The stadium will be void of Irish fans on the 2nd march. Absolute disgrace, the ffr and the 6 N committee have a lot to answer for.

Tox56

Gracelessly Tom wrote: »

Wrong. Not all substances that contain water freeze @ 0 degrees celsius. Ipso facto.

The french have to take the majority of the blame here, no under soil heating, minus temps all week and their own players saying the pitch wouldn't be playable. If I was one of the many Irish who flew over for the game I'd be raging right now. And the balls of the announcer to say "keep your tickets, they are valid for the refixed game"! What about the flight costs? Are they covered?

The stadium will be void of Irish fans on the 2nd march. Absolute disgrace, the ffr and the 6 N committee have a lot to answer for.

I don't know what else he was supposed to do, so many people would have got rid of them/torn them up in disgust.

Yes it's a shambles, but that's an awkward situation where it could be even worse if you don't say it.

jimbomalley

Pendrago wrote: »

in particular?

Looks to me that both camps, the ref, half the Rugby world, were wearing blinkers all week, the forecast was for several degrees under, it had been like that for the best part of two weeks, what part of freezing is not understood? Water boils @ 99.97 degrees Celcius, water (and anything that contains water, like err, soil) freezes @ 0 degrees C. Ipso Facto.

not exactly true, water droplets can exist in liquid form at temperatures from 0 to - 40 degrees C due to the curvature of the surface, freezing only upon contact with a soild surface and are known as supercooled water droplets. **nerd alert**:D

Beubeu

jimbomalley wrote: »

interesting place for a stadium to be built but seeing as the foundations for the stands are many metres below ground level i cannot see how the (old and disused) gas works affects installation of hot water piping half a meter below the pitch. poor planning by the developer here.

its not the best stadium that's for sure but the FFR is planning to build a new one.

cb_

molloyjh wrote: »

It's built over an old gasworks so I doubt it....

Got to point out that this is an insane excuse! Under soil heating is just some pipes with hot water flowing through them. Yes there must be an associated furnace to heat said water, but there must be something equivalent to provide heating/hot water for the stadium. There is no additional source of ignition and I struggle to understand how it is not possible in such a stadium to do this in a safe and sensible manner. Either the stadium is safe or it's not. If it's that liable to blow then it shouldn't be there in the first place. What if someone lights a cigarette?

The AVIVA has under soil heating, so this would never have happened in Dublin. It's hard to imagine that we Irish would actually be better organised for such an event than the French. However this is the real issue. Organisation. Everyone knew that there was no under soil heating in place yet tried to go forward with an night game in winter, during a week when every night at 9pm before the game, the pitch had been unplayable. So this comes down to an issue of greed (for night time TV money) and lack of organisation.

This brings us to the issue of night time games, while not traditional and can be unfavorable for supporters, I'm not totally against them, as they can contribute to a certain element of theater, which can I think add to the atmosphere of games. Provided they are held on Saturday night, I have no major problem with them. However, I think the lesson is clear - they should not be scheduled for night time in February, unless there is under soil heating in place!

iroced

JustinDee wrote: »

I just told you that home union is responsible for the venue.
Given that no undersoil heating is in place, the home union were responsible for providing an alternative. They didn't.

They did. They asked to put the match at 3pm. French TVs were OK with that. 6N committee refused !

As an example, all the TOP 14 (and inferior leagues) games did go ahead with earlier schedules (best example being the game in Clermont which is a much colder place than Paris).


As for the Stade de France, as previously said it's build over an old gasworks so nothing can be done (it was actually a huge problem for WC 98 as the picth was getting "yellow" quickly...). The only solution for this weather is to put a synthetic pitch (not sure if it already exists in rugby) or adding a roof to the stadium...
WC 98 was a disaster in terms of building/management of sport infrastructures in France. We didn't take advantage of it to modernise our stadia (the exact contrary of Germnay 2006). A lot of French soccer clubs are financially suffering from these incredible mistakes. Fortunately we got Euro 2016 to make up for the 98' amateurism...:rolleyes:

But the FFR has nothing to do with that. The president is actually quite angry about the whole situation. He bemoans the fact that they were never really taken into consideration during the week about the final decision.

jacothelad

jimbomalley wrote: »

not exactly true, water droplets can exist in liquid form at temperatures from 0 to - 40 degrees C due to the curvature of the surface, freezing only upon contact with a soild surface and are known as supercooled water droplets. **nerd alert**:D

Condensation Nucleii. Nerd also.

Beubeu

Reloc8 wrote: »

Look, it would appear that you signed up to defend the FFR against Neil Francis and the Sunday Independent.

Bearing in mind how must people view the Sunday Independent and how a lot of rugby people if not most people view Neil Francis as a pundit, the fact that you're not getting much traction should be a big red warning signal.

This was not a well managed occasion and it badly affected 00,000's of people financially, including many traveling fans (I include those who travelled from inside France).

No one sensible would say it is all the FFR's fault. But on what is objectively known (as opposed 'but he said that they said that he said') they have a share in the responsibility.

If they thought the venue was unsuitable, due to the weather or for any other reason, they could have closed the venue, during the week, or on Friday, or at any stage before the day of the match really. They didn't.

We'll wait and see on what else emerges but at the moment they look very much like they are trying very hard to blame everyone else but the FFR. A bit like the title of your thread. However much the Sunday Independent and Neil Francis embarrassed themselves, you'll find that most people this weekend are a bit more certain that all involved including the FFR in 'organising' this absolute farce have embarrassed themselves.

Nope I don't defend the FFR against Neil Francis. Its just that Neil Francis forgot to mention some fact about how the 6N is programmed and the fact that the FFR did everything to keep the pitch unfrozen (they had covered the pitch after France Italy). Of course undersoil heating will solve the problem but the Stade de France doesn't have it.... Lets say the FFR decided to move the game to Bordeaux or Toulouse. Some supporters wont be able to enter the stadium even with a valid ticket.The best call was to cancel the game. But it should have be done a long time ago.

JustinDee

iroced wrote: »

They did. They asked to put the match at 3pm. French TVs were OK with that. 6N committee refused !

As an example ... etc

Alternative Venue

I know the protocols involved in the staging of an international and also who is responsible for what. The FFR are responsible for the provision of the venue. Not the Six Nations committee (at which sits French members, by the way).
Thinly veiled passings of blame on the ref are bad enough but neglect of all responsibility in the provision of a functional international venue for the fixture lies squarely at the feet of the host union, as it would here if similar happened.

You'll have to prove this alleged wanting of schedule change by home union, by the way.

molloyjh

JustinDee wrote: »

iroced wrote: »

They did. They asked to put the match at 3pm. French TVs were OK with that. 6N committee refused !

As an example ... etc

Alternative Venue

I know the protocols involved in the staging of an international and also who is responsible for what. The FFR are responsible for the provision of the venue. Not the Six Nations committee (at which sits French members, by the way).
Thinly veiled passings of blame on the ref are bad enough but neglect of all responsibility in the provision of a functional international venue for the fixture lies squarely at the feet of the host union, as it would here if similar happened.

You'll have to prove this alleged wanting of schedule change by home union, by the way.

Would an alternate venue have been a realistic option given the lateness of the postponement or would they have moved it earlier when there was some doubt?

JustinDee

molloyjh wrote: »

Would an alternate venue have been a realistic option given the lateness of the postponement or would they have moved it earlier when there was some doubt?

Beginning of the week an alternative could have been organised and announced. Forecast was known and wasn't ever improving. Research on venue over the past three years would show that there were games played there in evening time during cold snaps. This game was even later in the day than before but without one scrap of contingency looked into whatsoever.

Host venue is host union's responsibility. The Six Nations committee doesn't appoint a venue. It will work out a time. If the time was an issue to the FFR, this would have been sorted out ages ago instead of leaving over 70,000 sitting on their keysters in an antiquated dump with nothing to show for it.

molloyjh

JustinDee wrote: »

Beginning of the week an alternative could have been organised and announced. Forecast was known and wasn't ever improving. Research on venue over the past three years would show that there were games played there in evening time during cold snaps. This game was even later in the day than before but without one scrap of contingency looked into whatsoever.

Host venue is host union's responsibility. The Six Nations committee doesn't appoint a venue. It will work out a time. If the time was an issue to the FFR, this would have been sorted out ages ago instead of leaving over 70,000 sitting on their keysters in an antiquated dump with nothing to show for it.

So the blame would lie more with the FFR than anyone? Changing the time of the game is a far less realistic option than changing the venue and if anything changing the time only highlights the fact that no alternative venue was available. Any idea what venue could have been used?

RandolphEsq

jacothelad wrote: »

Condensation Nucleii. Nerd also.

For you guys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRsPheErBj8

Piliger

Neil Francis was absolutely right. The game was in France. They had the responsibility all week. They set the game for a ridiculous time.
Tony Ward said the pitch was essentially unplayable all week.
The FFR put the ref in an invidious position when they should have called it off half way through the week. It's clear to me that he felt under pressure all Saturday and I commend him for having the balls to do the right thing, someone WOULD have been seriously hurt. I have no doubt about it.


Also I don't believe a word of the Bu11sh1t about this gasworks preventing under heating. It's a French excuse.

plasmaguy

If there was to be an alternative venue, for the rematch, what about the Millenium Stadium or Twickenham?

Some Irish fans could go over and back on the same day, also many of the French.

I think the French should be punished in some way at least for this farce.

Beubeu

JustinDee wrote: »

Alternative Venue

You'll have to prove this alleged wanting of schedule change by home union, by the way.

Well you can check that on the net:

in French:
Alors le président de la Fédération peut s'en prendre au Comité des Six nations (qui a refusé la proposition de France Télévisions d'avancer le match à 15h)

In English: The FFR's president can be mad at the 6N committee (who refused French television's proposal to reschedule the game at 3pm)

URL http://tournoi-6-nations.sport.francetv.fr/rugby/international/129380-camou-en-col%C3%A8re-les-supporters-aussi


I know the French stadium isn't great and under extreme weather they have problem but this could have been avoided if the game was played during the afternoon.... but money rules the rugby I'm afraid.

plasmaguy

I also think the excuse about the gasworks is also just that, an excuse.

The designers of the stadium should be shot for not doing more to heat the pitch. If you can build foundations for the stands, how difficult to dig up some of the remaining gas pipes?

And surely there is no gas actually going under the stadium?

No-one does farce better than the French.

Beubeu

Piliger wrote: »

Neil Francis was absolutely right. The game was in France. They had the responsibility all week. They set the game for a ridiculous time.
Tony Ward said the pitch was essentially unplayable all week.
The FFR put the ref in an invidious position when they should have called it off half way through the week. It's clear to me that he felt under pressure all Saturday and I commend him for having the balls to do the right thing, someone WOULD have been seriously hurt. I have no doubt about it.


Also I don't believe a word of the Bu11sh1t about this gasworks preventing under heating. It's a French excuse.

Jeeezzzz do you read what people have said so far? The FFR DOESN'T set the time for the game. The 6N committee DO!!

Dermo

Beubeu wrote: »

Jeeezzzz do you read what people have said so far? The FFR DOESN'T set the time for the game. The 6N committee DO!!

Can you not see that both FFR and 6N are at fault for this.
The 6N committee are at fault because they refused to move the game to 3pm on Saturday and they are in charge of the time of the game.
The FFR are also at fault because they did not provide a venue that could host the game at the scheduled time and they are in charge of where the game is played.

This could have been solved by the FFR or the 6N earlier in the week but both organisations have now come out looking extremely incompetent.

pat_mas

The FFR nor the French TV are to blame (even though I'm quite surprised that the French TV acted responsibly). The FFR asked for the match to be played at an earlier time in the day (3 pm) they were joined by the French TV when they submited the request to the 6N Committee who btw refused such a move.
And just to make things clear wrt the FFR, all Federal 1/2/3 matches were cancelled in France this week. I do know that when it comes to Rugby in France there's big money involved and preserving TV rights is like the most important thing to the organizers but this time even the TV asked to move this game. I still believe that the French TV can't get away from a partial responsability as they're the ones who asked for late games 2 or 3 years ago (I think it was France vs Wales on a Friday night).
I know it's common to blame the French for being messy but this time I think its a simple way to not assuming responsabilities. And as pointed out by P-S-A where do we stand now ? As per the rules of the 6N a match must be replayed within 2 weeks and some say it could be postponed to 3 weeks ... looks like the professionnals of Rugby (6N Committee ) are amateurs !!!

I do hope that those who made the trip to France will be refunded (flight+hotel+match ticket) but I'm probably being too naive there.

Beubeu

Dermo wrote: »

Can you not see that both FFR and 6N are at fault for this.
The 6N committee are at fault because they refused to move the game to 3pm on Saturday and they are in charge of the time of the game.
The FFR are also at fault because they did not provide a venue that could host the game at the scheduled time and they are in charge of where the game is played.

This could have been solved by the FFR or the 6N earlier in the week but both organisations have now come out looking extremely incompetent.

The only thing the FFR could and should have done is to move the game to a stadium where it was possible to do. But the Stade de France is the biggest stadium in France which means that supporters wont be able to use their tickets simply because the other stadiums are not big enough. Do people think it was the right option?

The game was cancelled by the ref (who said on friday night that it will be ok for sat night).

The 6N committee believed that covering the pitch will be enough.... well it wasn't and the 6N refused to change the time of the game.

My point was that despite all those facts and even if the FFR is not at 100% innocent, this journalist decide to blame the FFR, and by some extension the french, and didn't mention the 6N committee.... it will be easy for him to ask question, this committee is in Dublin!

JustinDee

molloyjh wrote: »

So the blame would lie more with the FFR than anyone? Changing the time of the game is a far less realistic option than changing the venue and if anything changing the time only highlights the fact that no alternative venue was available. Any idea what venue could have been used?

Times were finalised last year. Plenty of time to work on contingencies.
Regardless what some posters are saying in defence of their home union, the responsibility still lay with that union. Nothing was done. Now as usual, its blame everyone else but those responsible.

Even with the usual paranoid hints that the Six Nations organisation is based in Dublin, the fact that it has plenty of French representation within is conveniently ignored.

Take the game from Paris in future. It doesn't have stadia up-to-date for the job.

Dermo

Beubeu wrote: »

The only thing the FFR could and should have done is to move the game to a stadium where it was possible to do. But the Stade de France is the biggest stadium in France which means that supporters wont be able to use their tickets simply because the other stadiums are not big enough. Do people think it was the right option?

The game was cancelled by the ref (who said on friday night that it will be ok for sat night).

The 6N committee believed that covering the pitch will be enough.... well it wasn't and the 6N refused to change the time of the game.

My point was that despite all those facts and even if the FFR is not at 100% innocent, this journalist decide to blame the FFR, and by some extension the french, and didn't mention the 6N committee.... it will be easy for him to ask question, this committee is in Dublin!

I agree with you about the article and that it doesn't show the facts. (It being in the Indo should tell everyone that)

In my opinion the FFR are not 100% to blame, maybe not even 50% to blame. In all fairness they did offer a solution of changing the time.
But one of the major points is that the stadium is their responsibility and in the end they did not provide a suitable stadium to play the game.