Boston College v Georgia Tech @ Aviva Stadium 2016

Dodge

csirl wrote: »

On attending the game. Does anyone honestly believe that IAFA didn't have its own observers there?

"Reports" would indicate someone went, even if they can't judge a crowd

Although I had thought you said you had nothing to do with IAFA initially...

JaMarcusHustle

csirl wrote:

Does anyone honestly believe that IAFA didn't have its own observers there?

If those observers maintain there was only 20,000 people there, then:

(i) They weren't there, or
(ii) They're lying, or
(iii) You need better observers.

csirl

I get the impression that if some posters on this forum were on the IAFA Board the sanctioning process for events may go like this:

Quote:

Insurance.....who cares about the advice of the IAFA insurer. Sure it doesn't matter that our own teams wont be able to play next season because our insurers won't renew our policy. Claims. ...well they can repo our Board members houses to pay out. Lets go on the raz with the Americans.

Code of Ethics .....sure who cares. It doesn't matter that the biggest child abuse scandal ever in our sport concerned high school footballers at college football events. Why do we need to check this? Sure we got a few free tickets.

Sport Ireland, IFAF etc.....who cares about these organisations. Sure aren't the free t-shirts we got worth losing access to grants and International events.

END QUOTE.

Dodge

csirl wrote: »

Code of Ethics .....sure who cares. It doesn't matter that the biggest child abuse scandal ever in our sport concerned high school footballers at college football events. Why do we need to check this? Sure we got a few free tickets.

That's some leap you've made there. :eek:

Realt Dearg Sec

csirl wrote: »

I get the impression that if some posters on this forum were on the IAFA Board the sanctioning process for events may go like this:

Quote:

Insurance.....who cares about the advice of the IAFA insurer. Sure it doesn't matter that our own teams wont be able to play next season because our insurers won't renew our policy. Claims. ...well they can repo our Board members houses to pay out. Lets go on the raz with the Americans.

Code of Ethics .....sure who cares. It doesn't matter that the biggest child abuse scandal ever in our sport concerned high school footballers at college football events. Why do we need to check this? Sure we got a few free tickets.

Sport Ireland, IFAF etc.....who cares about these organisations. Sure aren't the free t-shirts we got worth losing access to grants and International events.

END QUOTE.

You are utterly embarrassing your association. Do they know you're posting here on their behalf?

JaMarcusHustle

csirl wrote:

Code of Ethics .....sure who cares. It doesn't matter that the biggest child abuse scandal ever in our sport concerned high school footballers at college football events. Why do we need to check this? Sure we got a few free tickets.

What the actual f*ck?

Pherekydes

The trope about insurance is just fantasy. Rest assured that every person who entered the Aviva was covered by owner/occupier liability. The Aviva couldn't operate otherwise. The IAFA have nothing to do with the Aviva's public liability policies.

The suggestion that the game was poorly attended is fantasy, too. As is the suggestion that the food was poor. I suppose the spectators at the Oman game were fed gourmet burgers on a silver service? :rolleyes:

JaMarcusHustle

Pherekydes wrote:

As is the suggestion that the food was poor. I suppose the spectators at the Oman game were fed gourmet burgers on a silver service?

Had the game been sanctioned, the IAFA would have rolled out the lobster and caviar for all in attendance.

Food tastes better when it's sanctioned.

jack presley

csirl wrote: »

Code of Ethics .....sure who cares. It doesn't matter that the biggest child abuse scandal ever in our sport concerned high school footballers at college football events. Why do we need to check this? Sure we got a few free tickets.

While we're waiting on evidence of the broken chains and unmarked pitch, I'd love to hear about the crack team of private investigators the IAFA have on retainer. How would IAFA have ensured that no child abuse was going on?

Blut2

If csirl's posts weren't so lengthy I'd almost be starting to think he was a troll deliberately trying to ruin the IAFA's public image. Hes probably single handedly done more damage to them than the IAEL people.

csirl

jack presley wrote: »

While we're waiting on evidence of the broken chains and unmarked pitch, I'd love to hear about the crack team of private investigators the IAFA have on retainer. How would IAFA have ensured that no child abuse was going on?

Go onto sportsfile.com. Picture 1210340 shows the BC sideline chains. Section missing from line to gain - hence smaller and likely why hi viz sheet is missing.

You should also note that the 'second sideline' which is a mandatory H&S line is also missing.

There is mandatory paperwork that needs to be completed confirming the vetting status of those travelling with the visiting High Schools who have access to minors. Local event organisers have also to submit vetting forms for staff with access to minors at the event. Garda vetting for American football can only be processed and the event can only be risk assessed by the IAFA officer trained in this roll. If IAFA sanctions an event without following these procedures its Board can be prosecuted.

kaliberbeats

This is hysterical. It's like a Trump press conference ha ha ha

jack presley

csirl wrote: »

Go onto sportsfile.com. Picture 1210340 shows the BC sideline chains. Section missing from line to gain - hence smaller and likely why hi viz sheet is missing.

You should also note that the 'second sideline' which is a mandatory H&S line is also missing.

There is mandatory paperwork that needs to be completed confirming the vetting status of those travelling with the visiting High Schools who have access to minors. Local event organisers have also to submit vetting forms for staff with access to minors at the event. Garda vetting for American football can only be processed and the event can only be risk assessed by the IAFA officer trained in this roll. If IAFA sanctions an event without following these procedures its Board can be prosecuted.

Aren't the chains the responsibility of the officiating crew and ACC/NCAA? Are you saying they didn't bring any and had the local promoter source them instead?

Thanks for the explanation on the Garda vetting though (that's a legit thanks, no sarcasm).

csirl

jack presley wrote: »

Aren't the chains the responsibility of the officiating crew and ACC/NCAA? Are you saying they didn't bring any and had the local promoter source them instead?

Thanks for the explanation on the Garda vetting though (that's a legit thanks, no sarcasm).

NCAA crews normally wouldn't bring chains or any field equipment - they belong to the venue/organisers.

Shedite27

csirl wrote: »

Go onto sportsfile.com. Picture 1210340 shows the BC sideline chains. Section missing from line to gain - hence smaller and likely why hi viz sheet is missing.

You should also note that the 'second sideline' which is a mandatory H&S line is also missing.

Are there everchain gangs on both sides of the field in college football?

jack presley

Shedite27 wrote: »

Are there everchain gangs on both sides of the field in college football?

That's a good point. CSIRL pointed out that it was the BC side that there was the issue. However according to our always reliable wikipedia,

"For games at all levels below the NFL, the chain crew operates on the side of the field opposite the press box and home team (the side of the visiting team)
For professional and college football games, an auxiliary chain crew operates on the opposite side of the field. Their function is to let players and officials look to either side of the field for information"

So the one with the issue was only for information purposes and not the 'official' one used by the officials.

I still don't believe they left it up to the organisers to source the chains though. They look as if they have the ACC logo on them anyway

TOss Sweep

Pherekydes wrote: »

The trope about insurance is just fantasy. Rest assured that every person who entered the Aviva was covered by owner/occupier liability. The Aviva couldn't operate otherwise. The IAFA have nothing to do with the Aviva's public liability policies.

The suggestion that the game was poorly attended is fantasy, too. As is the suggestion that the food was poor. I suppose the spectators at the Oman game were fed gourmet burgers on a silver service? :rolleyes:

Not only that but BC have and had their own public liability for all of their games. As do the NCAA. So the IAFA were hung up on the organiser's insurance but realistically the travelling college who were the home had it already.

Some history in the Insurance in Ireland. So I have checked this with family member over the years who is in insurance for over 20 years but from my time in the IAFA they would go through 1 insurance company who according to the IAFA over the years were the only insurance company who would offer the sport of American Football the right Public liability due to the type of sport it is. I don't know if that has changed but my family member always maintained that was incorrect but there you go.

Apparently that IAFA recommended insurance company were the only ones who offered full coverage in the case of the what ifs if something happened a member of the public was hurt.

The sad part is the both sides probably could have resolved this without all of this mess if it was handled better. Even though both sides showed "proof" I am betting there is a lot more to the discussions in the background and I am sure CSIRL is not being fully transparent nor are the IAEL

TOss Sweep

csirl wrote: »

Go onto sportsfile.com. Picture 1210340 shows the BC sideline chains. Section missing from line to gain - hence smaller and likely why hi viz sheet is missing.

You should also note that the 'second sideline' which is a mandatory H&S line is also missing.

There is mandatory paperwork that needs to be completed confirming the vetting status of those travelling with the visiting High Schools who have access to minors. Local event organisers have also to submit vetting forms for staff with access to minors at the event. Garda vetting for American football can only be processed and the event can only be risk assessed by the IAFA officer trained in this roll. If IAFA sanctions an event without following these procedures its Board can be prosecuted.

Even if all of this is true. Did it affect the game in anyway? No it didn't and the ACC and NCAA and both colleges had representation there and seemed happy it was a non issue. So basically this is the kicker for you is that you guys would done it better right?

So this hinges on you got stung for money and that you feel you would have organized it better and also filled the stadium better. Ok.

csirl

Shedite27 wrote: »

Are there everchain gangs on both sides of the field in college football?

This is required by for BCS games. Their procedures also say which is the official and which is the auxiliary chain should swap at halftime. Both sets of chains should be on a line 2yds off the sideline for H&S reasons - the 2yd space that is kept clear (except for officials) is the very thick white sideline line you see on most televised games. If there is no thick white line, there is a second line 2yds from the actual sideline.

The event circle covers simply slip over the circles on the venues existing poles - a bit like headrest covers.

Lower division college games don't need two sets.

The drive indicator mentioned by another poster is a NFL thing to assist statistics - is not officially used by NCAA.

My assumption is that Aviva purchased a set of field equipment for use in all games?

jack presley

csirl wrote: »

This is required by for BCS games. Their procedures also say which is the official and which is the auxiliary chain should swap at halftime. Both sets of chains should be on a line 2yds off the sideline for H&S reasons - the 2yd space that is kept clear (except for officials) is the very thick white sideline line you see on most televised games. If there is no thick white line, there is a second line 2yds from the actual sideline.

The event circle covers simply slip over the circles on the venues existing poles - a bit like headrest covers.

Lower division college games don't need two sets.

The drive indicator mentioned by another poster is a NFL thing to assist statistics - is not officially used by NCAA.

My assumption is that Aviva purchased a set of field equipment for use in all games?

Assume eh?

Isn't the official one not always the one opposite the press/TV side of the pitch in NCAA matches?

TOss Sweep

csirl wrote: »

I get the impression that if some posters on this forum were on the IAFA Board the sanctioning process for events may go like this:

Here it is he finally loses his cool and judges all of us. Well done.

Insurance.....who cares about the advice of the IAFA insurer. Sure it doesn't matter that our own teams wont be able to play next season because our insurers won't renew our policy. Claims. ...well they can repo our Board members houses to pay out. Lets go on the raz with the Americans.

You are having a laugh with this. Do you think the NCAA and Boston College and Georgia tech don't know how to deal with insurance in a sport they have been involved with for Oh I dont know since its existance.

Code of Ethics .....sure who cares. It doesn't matter that the biggest child abuse scandal ever in our sport concerned high school footballers at college football events. Why do we need to check this? Sure we got a few free tickets.

I am shocked with this. This is an epic reach and making out if everyone involved that didn't belong to the IAFA are absolute morons and have never run any event or game in their life. Absolute nonsense and epic reach.

Sport Ireland, IFAF etc.....who cares about these organisations. Sure aren't the free t-shirts we got worth losing access to grants and International events.

Wait how are your grants in danger? I am not sure why you think your grants are in danger. Actually they way you are representing the sport on social media and forums would be one reason if they took that into account. But in general I can't see grants being affected by this. And if they do then it sums up Sports in Ireland in general and the ISC and Gov and how big of a shamble the whole Irish Sport scene is. Not a day goes by that some sort of Irish sport is involved is some sort of scandal.

TOss Sweep

csirl wrote: »

This is required by for BCS games.

This wasn't a BCS game though. It was a regular season game.

csirl

TOss Sweep wrote: »

This wasn't a BCS game though. It was a regular season game.

Sorry, meant FBS - what used to be called NCAA 1-A in the old days.

csirl

TOss Sweep wrote: »

You are having a laugh with this. Do you think the NCAA and Boston College and Georgia tech don't know how to deal with insurance in a sport they have been involved with for Oh I dont know since its existance.

.

Are you questioning the expertise of IAFA's insurers?

Note that BC and GT are not responsible for the event insurance nor are they liable for any failures on the part of the organiser. You're making a red herring argument.

Since you seem to know so much, who covers the National Federation for the risks such as those which materialised in the Michael Watson case?

csirl

TOss Sweep wrote: »

I am shocked with this. This is an epic reach and making out if everyone involved that didn't belong to the IAFA are absolute morons and have never run any event or game in their life. Absolute nonsense and epic reach.


.

Why are you advocating that IAFA should endorse games which don't comply?

Don't you think Code of Ethics is important? Why should any event be exempt?

csirl

TOss Sweep wrote: »

Wait how are your grants in danger? I am not sure why you think your grants are in danger. Actually they way you are representing the sport on social media and forums would be one reason if they took that into account. But in general I can't see grants being affected by this. And if they do then it sums up Sports in Ireland in general and the ISC and Gov and how big of a shamble the whole Irish Sport scene is. Not a day goes by that some sort of Irish sport is involved is some sort of scandal.

I believe IAFA has been instructed by ISC not to sanction non-compliant events. IFAF is also backing IAFA in this issue. IAFA grants depend on compliance with ISC instructions.

The reason sport in Ireland is in such a mess is because there are people who clearly believe that they are above the rules and only care for themselves. There is too much deference to promoters in some organisations and in officialdom. Best practice and morals go out the door when people get dollar signs in their eyes.

Unlike some sports organisations, IAFA sticks by its principals and protects its members interests.

TOss Sweep

csirl wrote: »

.

Are you questioning the expertise of IAFA's insurers?

Note that BC and GT are not responsible for the event insurance nor are they liable for any failures on the part of the organiser. You're making a red herring argument.

Since you seem to know so much, who covers the National Federation for the risks such as those which materialised in the Michael Watson case?

What are you talking about. I never questioned anyones expertise. Why are you getting all defensive about the insurers with me? I gave my opinion and now you get defensive. I can see now why the IAEL and BC and the NCAA avoided going with your insurers if that is your stance on it. Do you honestly think your Insurers are the only insurers in the world that can insure this type of event. If you do you are naive at best.

Guffy

csirl wrote: »

This whole thing smacks of, "but there is someone on the Internet who is wrong".

Unfortunately you have also identified yourself as a member of IAFA and are coming out with some very embarrassing posts. Can you please give it a rest.

TOss Sweep

csirl wrote: »

Why are you advocating that IAFA should endorse games which don't comply?

Don't you think Code of Ethics is important? Why should any event be exempt?

again with the nonsense what are you banging on about. You brought up Child abuse. No one said anything about the code of ethics but you and you use child abuse as an example. Keep moving those goalposts and throwing in irrelevant information to suit your own agenda

TOss Sweep

CSIRL give it a rest at this point you are looking for a debate that doesn't exist with the nonsense you keep adding to suit your agenda. I can only imagine how the meetings with the IAEL BC and NCAA went if this is how you act as an IAFA rep on a message board. As I said previously it doesnt surprise me though.

csirl

TOss Sweep wrote: »

What are you talking about. I never questioned anyones expertise. Why are you getting all defensive about the insurers with me? I gave my opinion and now you get defensive. I can see now why the IAEL and BC and the NCAA avoided going with your insurers if that is your stance on it. Do you honestly think your Insurers are the only insurers in the world that can insure this type of event. If you do you are naive at best.

I rest my case. This post shows how little you know.

IAFA insurers are not allowed insure the event due to a potential conflict of interest - could end up on both sides of a claim.

Stop trying to sidestep. The reality is "the match itself" (note the quote from IAELs insurance document) was listed as one of the "exclusions" on the policy.

Out of interest, which Aviva Stadium contractor do you work for? Why so worked up about IAFA not sanctioning the game?

csirl

TOss Sweep wrote: »

again with the nonsense what are you banging on about. You brought up Child abuse. No one said anything about the code of ethics but you and you use child abuse as an example. Keep moving those goalposts and throwing in irrelevant information to suit your own agenda

Straight question for you - do you agree that events involving visiting High school teams i.e. Donnybrook, should comply with the same Code of Ethics guidelines and vetting requirements as Irish organisations? (Code of Ethics is the policy and procedures put in place to help protect young athletes against abuse, among other things). ?

Realt Dearg Sec

csirl wrote: »

I rest my case. This post shows how little you know.

IAFA insurers are not allowed insure the event due to a potential conflict of interest - could end up on both sides of a claim.

Stop trying to sidestep. The reality is "the match itself" (note the quote from IAELs insurance document) was listed as one of the "exclusions" on the policy.

Out of interest, which Aviva Stadium contractor do you work for? Why so worked up about IAFA not sanctioning the game?

But...you're the one worked up about them not sanctioning the game? Or did I miss something? Otherwise why would you care about the attendance and food stuff? Incidentally I'm still curious about the attendance and food claims you made. Even if they were true, which self evidently they weren't, what has it got to do with you sanctioning the game? Why did you mention it? Do you really believe the attendance would have been significantly higher if it was sanctioned? And would the food have been better as well?

It was such a surreal thing to bring up, I'm just curious why you did so.

TOss Sweep

csirl wrote: »

I rest my case. This post shows how little you know.

IAFA insurers are not allowed insure the event due to a potential conflict of interest - could end up on both sides of a claim.

Stop trying to sidestep. The reality is "the match itself" (note the quote from IAELs insurance document) was listed as one of the "exclusions" on the policy.

Out of interest, which Aviva Stadium contractor do you work for? Why so worked up about IAFA not sanctioning the game?

How little I know? haha Got to love it.

As for me side stepping? Absolutely brilliant. You have done nothing but side step and add drivel to this whole thread while making yourself and the IAFA look stupid.

It shows you haven't read any of my posts. I already told you my experience with the IAFA. I don't work for anyone related to the game so you can sleep tight at night. As for worked up over the sanctioning? Not worked up over the sanctioning in fact I defended you a few times in here over the actual sanctioning but what I have questioned you on is some of the false information you have provided to suit your own agenda. You keep "side stepping" and throwing in more and more irrelevant information to try and make you and the IAFA come out smelling like roses but you are actually making it worse.

In fact to end this with you. You are dragging the good name of Irish American Football through the dirt with your posts and it is sad to be honest. You are doing yourself and the IAFA no favours in here with your posts and you just come off as bitter and no matter how much information you try dig your way out of the hole with the damage is done. Well done.

Shedite27

csirl wrote: »

I rest my case.

Good idea!

Scanned the thread.

Am I right in thinking the whole vetting/child abuse thing was tacked on at the end?

If it was put front of the agenda at the start and identified as an issue, fair play...but if it's only been thrown into the mix at this stage long after the game that sounds like hijacking a very dark issue to score a cheap shot when it wasn't really a concern. That's quite ugly, and I say that as someone who felt a bit sorry for you csirl, and in particular posted here about the disgraceful efforts to put your name out there.

TOss Sweep

Code of Ethics .....sure who cares. It doesn't matter that the biggest child abuse scandal ever in our sport concerned high school footballers at college football events. Why do we need to check this? Sure we got a few free tickets.

You know this bugged me and I am coming back to it. Are you throwing out an accusation that both BC and GT have put themselves in the same position that Penn State did with visiting HS students? Are you also accusing both colleges doing so during their visit to Ireland? Honestly those are serious accusations.

But I throw the question back to you. How do you know both colleges and the NCAA don't have their own code of ethics when it involves minors visiting or being around their adult students. I can tell you that as someone that has been around college teams at a DII and DIII level they follow a serious code of ethics when it comes to minors.

So unless you have information or proof that these colleges were not following some sort of code of ethics involving minors you are making blatant accusations and just throwing it in their to try beef up your case. And before you say they didn't follow the ISC Code of Ethics just stop as it is clear these colleges and the NCAA decided to go with all of their own policies and exclude any ISC regulations because they were allowed to regardless of your objection and the ISC.

Does that make it right? Well that is another days debate and I have said all I will say on that.

Killergreene

Cillain

the facts are:
1. Event was a resounding success
2. Between 31-40 thousand people attended
3. The match was very exciting, very well run and a great spectacle
4. Lots of new American football fans were made
5. Lots of irish American business connections were formed
6. The hot dogs were delicious!
7. Iafa had nothing to do with any of the above and they didn't get a cash payment or free tickets so they wouldn't "sanction" the event
8. You have embarrassed yourself and your organisation with false accusations surrounding pedophilia, insufficient insurance, poor tasting food and confabulation surrounding the match and attendance

kaliberbeats

csirl wrote: »

The reason sport in Ireland is in such a mess....

Well there you have it from a man who's involved.

kaliberbeats

And yes those hotdogs were lovely : )

Bateman

Lads he hasn’t made any accusations – he is explaining, quite legitimately, an example of why a code of ethics exists in the first place. They exist to reduce the possibility of bad things happening to vulnerable young people.

He is explaining, quite legitimately, an example of why certain fly-by-night promotions companies, who only care about money and not sport itself, should sometimes be treated with suspicion or at least not bowed down to.

Some people sound like they are literally punching their keyboard in their haste to land blows on this lad. It’s more pathetic as his ultimately harmless claims about the crowd, in which case he was misinformed or is bad at counting people in stadiums.

Insurance, demonstrating due care for all concerned in an event, is obviously quite rightly a requirement for the organisation to sanction the event. This issue, and the promoters’ stance on the whole idea of ethics aren’t totally separate – surely anyone can see that. It sounds like the organisation had legitimate reasons for not sanctioning it.

Bateman

Now can we get back to the hot dogs? I wasn’t happy with having to specifically ask for onions. Wouldn’t have happened if…never mind

Dodge

Bateman wrote: »

Some people sound like they are literally punching their keyboard in their haste to land blows on this lad. It’s more pathetic as his ultimately harmless claims about the crowd, in which case he was misinformed or is bad at counting people in stadiums.

Agree 100% with your post but half of csirl's problem was that initially said he had nothing to do with IAFA, when that clearly wasn't the case.

OU812

Bateman wrote: »

Now can we get back to the hot dogs? I wasn’t happy with having to specifically ask for onions. Wouldn’t have happened if…never mind

There was onions? Damn it.

I was bitching at the fact there was no relish for them. Ketchup on a hot dog is a big no-no.

Anyone know if they weren just beef, beef/pork or just pork?

Bateman

Dodge wrote: »

Agree 100% with your post but half of csirl's problem was that initially said he had nothing to do with IAFA, when that clearly wasn't the case.

True but ultimately this is a message board and not a political debate on a state-sponsored broadcaster or something, he’s not obliged to reveal his identity even if he’s been telling a few porkies. Not all his posts reflect well on him or the association but likewise he’s not the first person ever to tell a lie on the internet, and I’ll repeat we are talking about a voluntary organisation here.

People demanding to know other lads’ real-life identities is fairly bad form. Those of us who already know that in some cases could throw it out when debating with each other but there’s no real value in it unless you already have a grudge coming into the discussion…

kaliberbeats

OU812 wrote: »

Anyone know if they weren just beef, beef/pork or just pork?

My mate is one of the main chefs in there and he told me they're Irish pork sausages, just extra large.

Dodge

Bateman wrote: »

True but ultimately this is a message board and not a political debate on a state-sponsored broadcaster or something, he’s not obliged to reveal his identity even if he’s been telling a few porkies. Not all his posts reflect well on him or the association but likewise he’s not the first person ever to tell a lie on the internet, and I’ll repeat we are talking about a voluntary organisation here.

People demanding to know other lads’ real-life identities is fairly bad form. Those of us who already know that in some cases could throw it out when debating with each other but there’s no real value in it unless you already have a grudge coming into the discussion…

I'd normally agree, but in this case he ended up speaking for the IAFA here, so why not be up front about it?

(I guess the answer is the abuse he got anyway....)

Carry on...

OU812

kaliberbeats wrote: »

My mate is one of the main chefs in there and he told me they're Irish pork sausages, just extra large.

Nah, they were hot dogs, not sausage - different casings, smoked and cooked at manufacture for reheating at point of sale.

Found them - rolloverhotdogs.co.uk. No ingredient list though (lips & a-holes)

nasty_crash

Im just glad the event went ahead and there was no issues of note...... apart from the hotdogs and chains....

Whats the latest update on the next game? i thought the original plan was for it to be every 2 years - did i see some1 say there would be a game next year?

big syke

csirl wrote: »

IAFA insurers are not allowed insure the event due to a potential conflict of interest - could end up on both sides of a claim.

This is so false it is unbelievable.

I work in Commercial Insurance and know for a fact that this is simply not true. These events usually get insured as a Short Period once off policies and Insurance companies are often "on both sides". It is not a conflict of interest.

Can my car insurance company not insure your car? They could be on both sides of the claim?

your claim is false and impractical.