Boston College v Georgia Tech @ Aviva Stadium 2016

Dodge

csirl wrote: »

40,000 attendance is Walter Mitty stuff - the stadium wasnt anywhere near 90% full. (6,000 seats are covered for football giving a max of 45,000 available )

Well you weren't there so you wouldn't know but you can't claim Walter Mitty stuff when you said 20k yourself. 40k is far closer, thats for certain

nasty_crash

why would the IAFA not sanction it based on insurance.... surely its actually in the interest of the NCAA College Football Teams - i.e. Boston College and Georgia Tech to insure that all there players are covered - and im pretty sure that they wouldnt have played if this wasnt the case!

Was there truely any reason for the IAFA not to sanction it? I understand the frustrations of dealing with a promotion company that they really are just looking to make a buck - but if you honestly think that either team would allow any risk or no insurance to any of their players just seems silly.....

My issue with CSIRL is the fact that immediately after the game when there was nothing but positive reports about the game, organisation, atmosphere - that you projected negativity and reports that were unfounded - how do you know that the organisers werent happy with the impact considering that you have no contact with them anymore - how do you know the corporate boxes werent serving good food?? how can you tell how many people that there was there - you have heard reports here from everyone and the average has been from 35k-40k in attendance - which i think is a fair reflection on the crowd there

the IAFA would not have increased that by 10k supporting it - not even close to it - if that was the case as mentioned by another poster - the shamrock bowl would have serious numbers at it - and it doesnt - in fact sometimes the trojans have more players on the sideline than ppl in the stand!

I agree that the IAFA is an important organisation and has a purpose in this country to develop American Football in this country - i just dont see in any way that the current board is portraying it in the best light or putting the best foot forward! Regardless of whether were investing in an Irish Team or not - surely we should be investing in teams to increase numbers and make awareness of the irish game. An opportunity was missed to work with the organisers of last weeks game to have every team represented in jerseys on the field at half time... before game whatever - and promote each club to get more members.... who in turn will pay membership back to IAFA - 20 teams getting 10 new players each = 200 * 50 euro membership = 10,000 there is the money they owe you for sanction!!!

kaliberbeats

I think someone needs to stop drinking the IAFL Kool Aid.

Maybe counter with Shamrock Bowl attendances versus capacity versus cost for some comparison.

Bateman

nasty_crash wrote: »

An opportunity was missed to work with the organisers of last weeks game to have every team represented in jerseys on the field at half time... before game whatever - and promote each club to get more members....who in turn will pay membership back to IAFA

There’s more to life than money.

Also your point around insurance is a bit confused. There are more people to insure than the players. Pointing out that the schools are likely to have their own insurance doesn’t even begin to address the point.

nasty_crash

your point about money is valid but the point i was trying to make was increasing numbers in the game is priority here - if every club in ireland could increase rosters by 10 players they would be delighted and something like that is an opportunity to advertise the irish game

From what i understood about the insurance issue was the fact that the promotions company only had standard event insurance and it wasnt covering the teams.... so thats why i meantioned the fact that they would have there own in place! If im wrong - apologies - just the way i read it!

Bateman

You may well be right, none of us have a full understanding of the insurance angle to be fair, myself included.

But it seems to be IAFL’s main sticking point, and if it turned out they had no case at all…

I just think that, for all that some posters’ patently false claims about the event that doesn’t do them or their organisation any favours, IAFL makes too easy a scapegoat for my liking. Heap all the blame on the voluntary organisation…

Assuming IAFL are broadly correct in their claims, and the correct insurance simply was not in place for them to sanction the game (by international standards that are clearly evidenced), what do people think they could have done differently to “engage with the organisers”?

nasty_crash

obviously the organisers didnt need to engage as the game went ahead in the end... and it looked like there was nothing more that the IAFA could have done.

My first issue all along was releasing statement after statement to the media & public over this and the event still went ahead! Think that its done more damage to IAFA than anything as promoters know they dont need to liase with them for future games.

And the second issue was the immediate negative reponse to the game - 20k people there, bad food, markings on pitch etc - which were innacurate or not at all related to sanction by the IAFA

Neither of which portrayed the IAFA in a positive light

csirl

Insurance wasn't up to scratch. I believe a copy of the policy wws published by IAFA and it was clear what wasn't insured. The big issue is the EVENTs insurance, not the teams. If IAFA sanctions the event it becomes liable in the absence of adequate insurance/indemnity. Even one claim would have killed the sport in Ireland.

There is no questioning IAFAs ability to develop the sport here - participation numbers are doubling every 4 years. 23 teams played kitted football this year. No other sport has the same growth rate.

Im not aware of IAFA ever saying the game wouldn't proceed? Lack of sanction puts it in the MMA bracket as opposed to the NGB bracket - which has its own implications.

Believe me, the organisers desperately wanted sanction and tried to put a lot of pressure on IAFA. Why do you think they reacted soo strongly to the rejection?

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

jack presley

csirl wrote: »

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

Observers? So they weren't there to enjoy the game?

We're still waiting on more details about the broken chains and the balls not being ready etc. And the pitch not being marked correctly

Realt Dearg Sec

csirl wrote: »

Insurance wasn't up to scratch. I believe a copy of the policy wws published by IAFA and it was clear what wasn't insured. The big issue is the EVENTs insurance, not the teams. If IAFA sanctions the event it becomes liable in the absence of adequate insurance/indemnity. Even one claim would have killed the sport in Ireland.

There is no questioning IAFAs ability to develop the sport here - participation numbers are doubling every 4 years. 23 teams played kitted football this year. No other sport has the same growth rate.

Im not aware of IAFA ever saying the game wouldn't proceed? Lack of sanction puts it in the MMA bracket as opposed to the NGB bracket - which has its own implications.

Believe me, the organisers desperately wanted sanction and tried to put a lot of pressure on IAFA. Why do you think they reacted soo strongly to the rejection?

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

And those observers saw what they wanted to see, from what we can gather.

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?