Hibbard - something doesn't add up...

First topic message reminder :

BBC wrote:Wales forwards coach Robin McBryde has warned hooker Richard Hibbard he is "playing with fire" if he is injured for Gloucester on Friday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/30055877

Something doesn't smell right here...

I thought he was being rested, but it seems he wasn't selected due to a foot injury. If that is the case, why has he been released back to Gloucester for this weekend. If he wasn't released, how come he has left camp. If he has been released from camp BECAUSE of an injury, why would Gloucester pick him. Are Gloucester ALLOWED to pick him whilst selected for national duties within IRB agreed window.

I don't follow this, it just doesn't add up, there has to be something else going on here... anyone have any ideas or even info that sheds a light...

maestegmafia wrote:Is that because it is in the PRLs interest to release in one case, but not in the other...???

USA Rugby approached the PRL with a proposal. The WRU has never done so. There's no mystery here.

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Is that because it is in the PRLs interest to release in one case, but not in the other...???

USA Rugby approached the PRL with a proposal. The WRU has never done so. There's no mystery here.

Really..?

There have been a number of occasions reaching back to Dwayne Peel at Sale where the WRU has request a welsh player and the club agree that they are happy to release him only for the PRL to step in at the Eighteenth hour.

It is not an even playing field...

maestegmafia wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Is that because it is in the PRLs interest to release in one case, but not in the other...???

USA Rugby approached the PRL with a proposal. The WRU has never done so. There's no mystery here.

Really..?

There have been a number of occasions reaching back to Dwayne Peel at Sale where the WRU has request a welsh player and the club agree that they are happy to release him only for the PRL to step in at the Eighteenth hour.

You've answered your own point. The WRU has only tried dealing directly with a player and his club when they should be dealing with the PRL.

What is so hard to understand. Clubs don't control player release outside window. It's like asking your kids teacher if he can have a week off. He or she might say yes but actually they are come rely irrelevant. It's up to the school. And the WRU know this perfecty well. Saints paid £60,000 fine for releasing North last year. If the WRU were willing to pay Glaws's fine then I am sure they would consider releasing Hibbard against PRL instructions.

But this whining about the PRL us just pathetic. The Eagles made a deal with the PRL. Why does the WRU try to pretend that the PRL doesn't exist?

I not got a deal with the PRL its the Union in first instance for arranning games outside window the know the score.

I am confused on this instance though seems conflicting reports and the rules etc.

bedfordwelsh wrote:I not got a deal with the PRL its the Union in first instance for arranning games outside window the know the score.

I am confused on this instance though seems conflicting reports and the rules etc.

"Those games" fund "the game".

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:Is that because it is in the PRLs interest to release in one case, but not in the other...???

USA Rugby approached the PRL with a proposal. The WRU has never done so. There's no mystery here.

Really..?

There have been a number of occasions reaching back to Dwayne Peel at Sale where the WRU has request a welsh player and the club agree that they are happy to release him only for the PRL to step in at the Eighteenth hour.

You've answered your own point. The WRU has only tried dealing directly with a player and his club when they should be dealing with the PRL.

Wait a second, we keep being told by England fans that the clubs are the PRL. So it makes no difference whether they speak to any club.

quinsforever wrote:What is so hard to understand. Clubs don't control player release outside window.  It's like asking your kids teacher if he can have a week off. He or she might say yes but actually they are come rely irrelevant. It's up to the school. And the WRU know this perfecty well. Saints paid £60,000 fine for releasing North last year. If the WRU were willing to pay Glaws's fine then I am sure they would consider releasing Hibbard against PRL instructions.

But this whining about the PRL us just pathetic. The Eagles made a deal with the PRL. Why does the WRU try to pretend that the PRL doesn't exist?

Maybe the individual clubs that the WRU are dealing with might ring Head Office and let their PRL know about negotiating stuff?  If the clubs 'controlled' by PRL don't know where PRL head office is, you can't blame the WRU for ignoring head office.

It seems clubs in England are all stand-alone private entities  looking out for their unique and very personal poor selves at one point, and then they're all part of a big UNION called PRL at another debating point.  Which is it?  Sounds to me like PRL are the 'Union' that controls English Premiership clubs.  I thought the independently minded clubs didn't like Union interference in the private affairs of private clubs?

Fly,

They obviously did, and the PRL said Hibbard wouldn't be released.

Because once again it wasn't the WRU that communicated with the PRL.

Maes, "the game" in England is not funded by your extra AIs. Nor is the regional and club game in Wales. Seems like the only thing that is funded by "those games" is reducing the MS debt, and Roger's ego.

Why wasn't your first AI vs AUS sold out by the way? Maybe even the pink hatters are getting weary of the extra games?

Point is Quins, is it or should it not be the business of the indivdual clubs themselves to dictate who plays for them and when?  
So be it then and on their head may it be on the playing field if making those independent choices affects their performances negatively - that's their business surely as privately funded privately owned clubs?
Why should a combination of rival clubs decide which players they can let go to International and when?  Because that in theory is what PRL is - a combination of rivals to the club that isn't being given autonomy of choice at it's own club.

PRL is a Union then? - controlling and restricting the private decisions of independent, free standing clubs who should have the financial autonomy to choose what to do with players they 'own'?  
That's a question btw, not my opinion.

no the PRL is not a "Union".

it is a company set up to maximise the profits of its shareholders.

that is all you need to know to understand why they have the final say over individual clubs.

and thats also why the WRU wont deal with them - because the WRU are too cheap, especially with respect to their own regions, to want to be seen to pay the PRL for access to players outside the IRB window.

If Hibbard were English there would be no problem about his release. Naturally the PRL have their own selfish interests at heart - English club rugby will always take precedence over foreign Test rugby. Foreign Test players with any aspiration to play more Test rugby would do well to note the impediments they are likely to face before they sign up in such club dominated countries - caveat emptor.

It's a Union...it dictates in an overall capacity what rules the clubs play by that strays away from activity within the Aviva League itself.

It's a Union.  Smaller clubs within that Union at the bottom of the Union just take directions - the larger clubs at the top of the financial pile dictate policy by virtue of influence.

It's a Union.  It has ridiculed Unions but it is a Union itself.  It's simply stepped into RFU's shoes and made RFU more a token 'honorary' CEO - but PRL fulfils the duties of the English Union...dictating where International players go and when.

The Great Aukster wrote:If Hibbard were English there would be no problem about his release. Naturally the PRL have their own selfish interests at heart - English club rugby will always take precedence over foreign Test rugby. Foreign Test players with any aspiration to play more Test rugby would do well to note the impediments they are likely to face before they sign up in such club dominated countries - caveat emptor.

"If Hibbard were English there would be no problem about his release" - yes, because the RFU would be directly compensating the club concerned for his release as agreed between RFU and PRL

"Naturally the PRL have their own selfish interests at heart " - they exist solely to maximise the money to the shareholders of the PRL. The PRL is not a person, it's neither selfish nor generous.

"Foreign Test players with any aspiration to play more Test rugby would do well to note the impediments they are likely to face before they sign up in such club dominated countries - caveat emptor" - utter cobblers. IRB rules are very clear regarding international windows. PRL follows these rules to the letter. And yet Wales insist on playing an extra international match every single year outside the window.

Before you criticise the PRL and the English, you might want to consider that if the WRU hadnt made such an utter horlix of their own relationship between region and country, then all their stars wouldnt have left. Blaming the PRL for all evil is no more than i have come to expect from you. Did you know that apparently the PRL are a major contributor to global warming?

Yes, it is...................... it IS a major contributor to Global Warming quins.

Why do you make light of that?  Can you imagine the energy we all wasted online this last year debating the intricacies of the PRL battle with Unions

Scandalous wastage of electricity and energy!  Scandalous.

And then to think.................... it was all Union against Union anyway  The UN should step in promptly, we're wasting more energy now.

SecretFly wrote:It's a Union...it dictates in an overall capacity what rules the clubs play by that strays away from activity within the Aviva League itself.

It's a Union.  Smaller clubs within that Union at the bottom of the Union just take directions - the larger clubs at the top of the financial pile dictate policy by virtue of influence.

It's a Union.  It has ridiculed Unions but it is a Union itself.  It's simply stepped into RFU's shoes and made RFU more a token 'honorary' CEO - but PRL fulfils the duties of the English Union...dictating where International players go and when.

No. No. No. You are talking such rubbish just to try to get a rise out of people.

It is a company maximising proft not a Union.

It already has a "Union" overseeing it, the RFU. There can only be 1 "Union" in any country as per IRB rules. if there are two, then 1 isnt sanctioned and wont be allowed to play the sport, use refs, call itself rugby union, etc.

PRL actually rubs along very well with the RFU nowadays. Great player release, training days, EPS, 70%+ english qualified players in matchday squads. It's the Unions of other countries that refuse to deal with the PRL as they are adopting the ostrich approach to the future of the sport - stick head in sand and pretend the unions still run all levels of the game and that its still amateur.

Stop spouting cr4p that you dont believe. its annoying.

quinsforever wrote:Did you know that apparently the PRL are a major contributor to global warming?

I didn't but it is apparent you are.

It's a Union in everything but name, quins.  That's fact.  And of course it avoids the name so as to keep up appearances that it's a collection of 'autonomous' clubs.

It's the EU - where everyone runs around saying they are Independent nations but everyone knows the truth they don't want to admit to their populations - that the EU is an Empire, and Individual nations just do obediently what they're told to do

The Great Aukster wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Did you know that apparently the PRL are a major contributor to global warming?

I didn't but it is apparent you are.

I am surprised they have time to fit that in, what with all the seal clubbing, badger baiting and the like...!

maestegmafia wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Did you know that apparently the PRL are a major contributor to global warming?

I didn't but it is apparent you are.

I am surprised they have time to fit that in, what with all the seal clubbing, badger baiting and the like...!

sharp!

quinsforever wrote:Fly,

They obviously did, and the PRL said Hibbard wouldn't be released.

Because once again it wasn't the WRU that communicated with the PRL.

Maes, "the game" in England is not funded by your extra AIs. Nor is the regional and club game in Wales. Seems like the only thing that is funded by "those games" is reducing the MS debt, and Roger's ego.

Why wasn't your first AI vs AUS sold out by the way? Maybe even the pink hatters are getting weary of the extra games?

Quins,

For what its worth mate I agree, the 4th International is just not needed the Regions get funding anyway and the extra game has in the past disrupted HC preparation for our Regions but the WRU and Lewis not give a flying you know what about that. maybe now things will change.

As to why the Aus games wasn't a sell out is again I guess is in the most financial, people will pick and chose which game they go to, for me this year its the ABs.

There is reportedly a bigger crowd for todays game than last weeks and when you can get a family ticket for less than the price of one ticket last week that's no surprise either.

bedfordwelsh wrote:
As to why the Aus games wasn't a sell out is again I guess is in the most financial, people will pick and chose which game they go to, for me this year its the ABs.

The ABs? Now why ever so?

SecretFly wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:
As to why the Aus games wasn't a sell out is again I guess is in the most financial, people will pick and chose which game they go to, for me this year its the ABs.

The ABs?  Now why ever so?

Fly,

Simple because they are the only team out of the top echelon I have never seen us play

bedfordwelsh wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:
As to why the Aus games wasn't a sell out is again I guess is in the most financial, people will pick and chose which game they go to, for me this year its the ABs.

The ABs?  Now why ever so?

Fly,

Simple because they are the only team out of the top echelon I have never seen us play

The cost is very expensive for most people in Wales. The economy in Wales is not on the upturn so much as it is in London.

Didn't realize it was only folks in London that went to twickenham...

nathan wrote:Didn't realize it was only folks in London that went to twickenham...

Oh Nathan, what a clever comment. I really hope that makes you happy all weekend.

maestegmafia wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Did you know that apparently the PRL are a major contributor to global warming?

I didn't but it is apparent you are.

I am surprised they have time to fit that in, what with all the seal clubbing, badger baiting and the like...!

made me chuckle.

The PRL could be called a union but not a Union. The capital makes a big difference & if you don't know why better take a grammer lesson.
If they are saying that PRL are a Union in all but name they are saying that Unions are only looking out for their own interests.

quinsforever wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

quinsforever wrote:Did you know that apparently the PRL are a major contributor to global warming?

I didn't but it is apparent you are.

I am surprised they have time to fit that in, what with all the seal clubbing, badger baiting and the like...!

made me chuckle.

I am glad, it's just a game after all..!

Quick, change it to grammar before they notice.

Didn't say I could spell, just know the difference between Union & union

broadlandboy wrote:The PRL could be called a union but not a Union. The capital makes a big difference & if you don't know why better take a grammer lesson.
If they are saying that PRL are a Union in all but name they are saying that Unions are only looking out for their own interests.

I know all about words and things and stuff that does be involving writin' and speakin' and such things like them things are  

And Yes, Unions are looking out for their own interests.  Never denied by me.  
IRFU, WRU, NZRU, RFU, PRL etc etc.... all out for their own interests by controlling the game in their own Nation and the teams under their influence

In other words, no such thing as the cliched Private little club running its own little biz as it sees fit on a not-for-profit basis and directly out of the pocket of the humble little local owner who is in it just for the love of the game and nothing else.

Ha ha ha... Ahhhh

broadlandboy wrote:The PRL could be called a union but not a Union. The capital makes a big difference & if you don't know why better take a grammer lesson.
If they are saying that PRL are a Union in all but name they are saying that Unions are only looking out for their own interests.

The PRL could be called the Profit Related League because the capital makes all the difference.

Gatland believes Hibbard may have been forced to make himself available for Gloucester.

Quote WG

"I suppose that's pressure that sometimes clubs put on them [players] and he was told he was to sit on the bench and he wouldn't come on unless there was an injury."

Bedord, you were asking about the regulations.

9.15 For International Matches (whether such Matches form part of an International Tournament or otherwise (but excluding the Rugby World Cup Tournament and any International Tours)) if a Player is not included in either the 26 or the 22 Players selected in accordance with Regulation 9.16 below then, if such Player at the time of non-selection is located in the same Regional Association of the Rugby Body or Club for whom he plays, he shall return to that Rugby Body or Club, subject always to the provisions of Regulation 9.24.

9.16 Prior to an International Match, the following shall apply:
(a) Unions shall reduce their Squad size to 26 no later than 96 hours
prior to the kick off of an International Match;
(b) 72 hours before the kick off of an International Match Unions shall announce and exchange a list of the 15 Players who will start the Match and up to 7 replacements/substitutes.

9.24 In the event of a Union having to exercise its Right of Release for Matches or the Right to Release for Squad sessions in relation to a replacement Player due to an injury or other unforeseen withdrawal of another Player named in the original squad, the 14-day period shall not apply, but notice should be given by the Union concerned to the relevant parties as soon as reasonably practicable.

There is also a bit about not releasing due to injury...which this isn't. But, as I said before, I haven't seen (yet) anything from earlier in the week saying that Hibbard was not selected due to injury. He only things that said that were from Friday. On Thursday we had Edwards says it was simply rotation of the hookers. Edwards is wrong saying it was Gatland's choice whether they released him or not (other than he could have played him). But they were often see players and coaches not know the regulations. Mako Vunipola thought he was qualified for Wales when he first played for England.

HammerofThunor wrote:

There is also a bit about not releasing due to injury...which this isn't. But, as I said before, I haven't seen (yet) anything from earlier in the week saying that Hibbard was not selected due to injury. He only things that said that were from Friday. On Thursday we had Edwards says it was simply rotation of the hookers. Edwards is wrong saying it was Gatland's choice whether they released him or not (other than he could have played him). But they were often see players and coaches not know the regulations. Mako Vunipola thought he was qualified for Wales when he first played for England.

Can you post the bit that applies to Hibbard being an injured player as we all know that he was not included in the squad selection because he was injured, it is apparently the most important bit.

You can post the link if you want, or cut and paste.

maestegmafia wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

There is also a bit about not releasing due to injury...which this isn't. But, as I said before, I haven't seen (yet) anything from earlier in the week saying that Hibbard was not selected due to injury. He only things that said that were from Friday. On Thursday we had Edwards says it was simply rotation of the hookers. Edwards is wrong saying it was Gatland's choice whether they released him or not (other than he could have played him). But they were often see players and coaches not know the regulations. Mako Vunipola thought he was qualified for Wales when he first played for England.

Can you post the bit that applies to Hibbard being an injured player as we all know that he was not included in the squad selection because he was injured, it is apparently the most important bit.

You can post the link if you want, or cut and paste.

That regulation covers players not being released because the club says they're injured. It's all in the IRB handbook on their website. Regulation 9. Just search IRB regulation 9 and you'll bring up a .pdf. Not sure of the number, but it basically says that if the union doctor can't convince the club doctor he's fit then he can't play for the club for 10 days.

Also, we don't know that Hibbard was released because he was injured. We know that on Friday McBride said tht. We know that the day before Edwards said it was just rotation, as specifically he wasn't not picked because he was injured. We then have a non-specific, non-dated quote from Gatland that you posted. It's not said when the team was announced that Hibbard was injured. All this has come up since Friday...that I've seen.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Also, we don't know that Hibbard was released because he was injured. We know that on Friday McBride said tht. We know that the day before Edwards said it was just rotation, as specifically he wasn't not picked because he was injured. We then have a non-specific, non-dated quote from Gatland that you posted. It's not said when the team was announced that Hibbard was injured. All this has come up since Friday...that I've seen.

We know Hibbard was released from the squad back to Gloucester because of injury because that is what all of the coaches said, including Shaun Edwards in the link you posted earlier in this thread which you were claiming contradicted McBrides warning on Friday.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-vs-fiji-richard-hibbard-8104541

Shaun Edwards “He had a bit of a bad foot as well.”

Edwards doesn't say he wasn't selected because he wasn't fit. He said he was rotated. He says he had a bit of a bad foot but Gatland chose to release him anyway. As we all know players pretty much always have niggling injuries that they can play on. The context reads as though Gatland thought he was fine to play and be released.

And it does contradict McBride. One says he was not selected because he was injured (which wasn't mentioned until Friday) and the other said it was just rotation. They're not the same.

HammerofThunor wrote:Edwards doesn't say he wasn't selected because he wasn't fit. He said he was rotated. He says he had a bit of a bad foot but Gatland chose to release him anyway. As we all know players pretty much always have niggling injuries that they can play on. The context reads as though Gatland thought he was fine to play and be released.

And it does contradict McBride. One says he was not selected because he was injured (which wasn't mentioned until Friday) and the other said it was just rotation. They're not the same.

I think it is very clear that in Edwards interview he is trying to stress that Hibbard has not been dropped by form. He says he is injured in the interview,therefor we know that Hibbard is injured when released.

As Gatland stated earlier today, it looks like Hibbard has been forced into playing for Gloucester by his club, and Gatland will have words with him about being a bit stronger when dealing with his clubs demands vs his personal fitness.

It would be great to all clubs who force injured players into games to be reprimanded for it, but I fear the repercussions would be monstrous, particularly in England and France where foreign player welfare seems very low on the priority list.

Who decides how bad ''a bit of a bad foot' is?

By all accounts Hibbard did well at the end of the game when he came on & showed no signs of any injury.
If Wales agreed that Hibbard was to be on the bench which it appears they did then it seems obvious that there was a likelihood he would play & therefor the injury was never that bad in anyone's view.

The only bit of disagreement that has come out between Wales & Glaws is that Wales agreed Hibbard would only come on in the event of an injury. Well that sounds nonsense because your either fit enough to be on the bench & play or you shouldn't be on the bench at all.

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Who decides how bad ''a bit of a bad foot' is?

In my experience...usually a Vet.

SecretFly wrote:

BigTrevsbigmac wrote:Who decides how bad ''a bit of a bad foot' is?

In my experience...usually a Vet.

That explains your inhuman contribution here.

maestegmafia wrote:I think it is very clear that in Edwards interview he is trying to stress that Hibbard has not been dropped by form.

I think you're right. Which begs the question...if he wasn't selected because he wasn't fit (which McBride claimed on Friday) and there were queries that he had been dropped...why not say "Hibbard wasn't selected because he was ruled not fit". Why say "We just rotated the three hookers"? Now we have Gatland saying he wasn't selected because he wasn't fit. Again, none of this was said on Thursday. Gatland also said that Hibbard had been unable to train fully for the first couple of weeks...suggesting he was injured when he played against Australia...doesn't it?

The crux of the debate here is a players welfare and that the clubs have such a fixture list that injury appears less important than results.

I would say that Wales are far less likely to release a player back to an English club because of this incident, that they will be more pressing in their stand against letting welsh players sign for English clubs and that the players will be far more wary of the compromising situation foreign clubs will challenge them with when their personal welfare is at stake.

A very sad state of affairs that Gloucester have caused, when it appears that all unions are trying to find a happy compromise between rugby played for club and for country

If Gatland did as most other coaches do and either not select or not announce the team until the last possible minute, (48 Hours if I'm not mistaken before a game) it would be to late for any foreign teams to use this rule.

wayne, above I've posted the IRB regs and you have to narrow down to a squad of 26, 96 hours before the game and the 22/23, 72 hours before the game.

HammerofThunor wrote:wayne, above I've posted the IRB regs and you have to narrow down to a squad of 26, 96 hours before the game and the 22/23, 72 hours before the game.

HOT, I know that, yet the majority of teams don't announce their teams until the Thursday before Saturday games, England didn't last week, as for the 26, I would select my 23 and if there were any conflicting issues (Hibbard) name him as well.

Gats speaks. Has a different take on it. From BBC sport:

"Warren Gatland seeks explanation after Hibbard plays for Gloucester

Coach Warren Gatland wants to hear hooker Richard Hibbard's explanation after he played for Gloucester on Friday night.
The Wales management believed Hibbard, 30, had a foot injury and Gatland said he would have put him in the squad against Fiji if he was fit.
Gloucester boss David Humphreys claimed Hibbard had Wales' permission to play.
"I just want to get some clarity on what's going on because either you're fit... [or not]," said Gatland.
The New Zealander added: "If he was fit for Wales he would have been involved. I don't see how he can somehow become fit halfway through the week."
Former Ospreys player Hibbard came on for the final seven minutes of the 22-15 loss to Harlequins .
Gatland on Hibbard playing for Gloucester:
"Sometimes a player needs to be stronger, you know. And that's the conversation we'll have with him next week."
He was not selected for the match against Fiji after a foot injury stopped him from training in the early part of the week, but he was released to Gloucester on Thursday and named on the bench for the Aviva Premiership match.
Wales forwards coach Robin McBryde said on Friday afternoon that Hibbard would be "playing with fire" if he took to the field for his club.
After his side beat Fiji, Gatland said: "He hasn't taken a full part in the first two weeks [of training].
"He's presented to us early in the week with an injury. We've put him in a boot [and he] wasn't available for selection.
"So it was a surprise to us then on the Wednesday that he presented himself to Gloucester, being able to be fit to go on the bench."
Gatland believes Hibbard may have been forced to make himself available for Gloucester.
Warren Gatland played hooker for Waikato and started his coaching career in Connacht
Gatland played hooker for Waikato and started his coaching career in Connacht
"I suppose that's pressure that sometimes clubs put on them [players] and he was told he was to sit on the bench and he wouldn't come on unless there was an injury.
"They've told us he wouldn't go on unless there was an injury so I need to check on that. But the player needs to take some responsibility as well.
"I don't blame Gloucester at all because they're playing in their own competition and wanting to put out a team that's good enough to win.
"Sometimes a player needs to be stronger, you know. And that's the conversation we'll have with him next week."
After their defeat by Harlequins, Gloucester director of rugby Humphreys said: "We agreed with Wales [on Thursday] that he would be sitting on the bench.
"As far we are concerned, Richard had been released by Wales under regulation nine and was involved, as many other players who have been released will be this weekend."
International Rugby Board regulation nine states players can be recalled from international duty by their clubs if they are not named in the match-day squad.