Questions:

20/10/06 I am hopeful that I may be able to clarify a couple of the questions people have, as these are ones I can answer. The answers are not in chronological order. -Liz Rocks.

Fourth Women Player

In Grenoble, before the team registered for the World Champs on the Tuesday, I stepped outside the PNZ directive regarding registering as the fourth player. I did this based on what I thought were purely precautionary lines, after a discussion with the whole team regarding the consequences to the women’s team in the event of injury or illness. The team had not been informed by the PNZ executive that in the event of illness or injury to a player, they were to withdraw. The women were sure that they would prefer to continue playing in the unlikely event that one of them was unable to play, and the whole team were in support of me making a call to the executive to ask that I register as a player.

This call was made in front of the team and the response was “that it was the sensible thing to do”. Approval to register as a player was given after I closely questioned the consequences of me going against a PNZ executive decision.

I was assured that I was to proceed as I had the support of the whole team and that is exactly what I did and was registered as player/chef de mission.

In the event, exactly what I was hoping for happened, everyone stayed fit and well and I never needed to play a boule in the Palais des Sports de Grenoble.

Shooting Competition

After a team discussion, the decision was that Michael would do the shooting. Ian shot in 2004 and was not interested in doing it again, and similarly Christian, who was last year’s entrant. Dirk was not that interested and Michael was keen to do it. I was not aware of any deep, meaningful reasons for who took part.

Some may think that the specialist shooter should always take part in the shooting competition, but in fact this is not the case for a number of other countries.

Last year Christian did the shooting competition after the team had a shooting contest to decide the entrant.

Singapore Selection

This is the sequence of events surrounding the second team for Singapore.

The team was selected, and on the Monday evening following the Mid Winter Doubles at Clareville, I rang David Lippard to tell him he was in the team for Singapore. He asked who was in the team and I explained what our thoughts were in choosing the team. He then said he was not available to go to Singapore.

I contacted Brian and we looked at who we could replace David with and came to the decision we did not have anybody to step into his role. We then looked at selecting another team and decided we did not have players available to make the sort of team we felt would be suitable for that competition. The decision was made not to send a second team.

At the end of the week I had a call from David saying that Andre was very keen to go and had asked him to reconsider his decision. He had done that and was now available. He said he knew it put us in an awkward position and would abide by our decision.

I then discussed the issue with Brian and we felt that it would deprive the team of the opportunity to play if we did not reverse our decision now that David was available. We knew this was not the ideal situation to be in.

The decision was therefore made to announce the second team.

Conflicts of interest

There are many conflicts of interest within petanque in New Zealand.

While Michael Emerson was a selector, two of his team mates were selected for the World Champs team in 2004, so there will always be occasions when things may look like something they are not.

If you look at who is involved in PNZ management, we have a selector who is also on the executive, an operations manager who is up for selection as is her husband, and the Council Chairman, also up for selection, whose wife is a selector. Not an ideal situation.

Eight members of the Oceania 2005 team were from the Herne Bay Club, where one of the selectors was based.

Another Oceania 2005 team member was also the playing partner of the former CEO, who was a selector at that time.

We have many people throughout petanque with a perceived conflict of interest, whether it be at a national or regional level, who are in a position to make decisions, and we will have to continue to manage this as well as possible with full disclosure at these times.

Availability of players for the Oceania and Asian Championships

To clarify the number of players available for selection, a rundown of player availability for the Asia and Oceania Championships follows. Our Wiki does not handle tables well, so please download this Players List.pdf (Tom - site administrator).

An email was sent out on 13/8/06 to all players who made themselves available for national representation, specifically asking about availability for the Asian and Oceania Championships, as I am always aware of the possibility of changes to a player’s situation. A second email was sent on 22/8/06 as a follow up for those people who did not reply to the first email.

-Liz Rocks.

Comment 1 Well done to Liz for providing some answers that had been raised on the Wiki. They're all valid answers or opinions from her position as selector and manager at the Worlds.

Of particular interest to me is the comments about conflict of interest. What she says is pretty much right, and I, just as she has, did what I could to minimize perceived conflicts of interest.

However, as I say in my (one and only!) selection proposal, the connections within our sport are too close to have a successful selection process. Most of the administrators (council, selectors and executive) are active players who compete frequently with or against, candidates for selection.

In December 2004 I also tabled a proposal to PNZ suggesting they scrap the selection process. In it I point out the perceived conflicts of interest with the current selection panel, and the possible dangers of council and executive members who were also disgruntled non-selected players and who were in a position to influence future selections.

Unfortunately I reach a different conclusion to Liz. She seems to think that she will manage conflict of interest in the future through full disclosure. I don't think this will really make much difference, because conflict of interest is all about how it's perceived.

With regards to the shooting competition at the Worlds, I accept what she says, and I know what's done is done, and there's no use dragging it up too much. But I find it hard to believe what she say's is the full story, as even before the team left I had two separate sources (different parts of the country) tell me that the decision from Wellington/Khandallah members was already made that Michael R would do the shooting competition.

But once again, good on Liz for fronting up with some answers. I know that's what many Wiki contributors seemed to be wanting. - Michael E

Comment 2 With regards to the second team to Singapore, Liz Rocks vindicates exactly my assessment of this unfortunate selection debacle (see this page of June 20, 2006). This is the first "official" explanation by one of our national selectors (four months after the event). A lot of kudos must go to Liz Rocks for fronting up.

"The team had not been informed by the PNZ executive that in the event of illness or injury to a player, they were to withdraw." To not be informed of this is scandalous. Three female players fork out a mountain of money to represent their country, and have to hope that one of them does not get sick.

I am puzzled by "Availability of players for the Oceania and Asian Championships". Does Liz and PNZ know that New Zealand can send just three players to Oceania. This has been done in the past by NZ and other nations such as Wallis et Futuna ( winning a silver medal). All this makes a complete mockery of availability issues. As far as I know there were 4 women and 5 men who put their names forward for the all important defence of our New Zealand Oceania title. We are still waiting for an explanation as to why we are not sending at least three players across the ditch. See also Why I think we should have defended our title -Tom.

Comment 3 As the player mentioned I would like to post my account of the Singapore selection and would also like to elaborate on points raised by Liz.

Fourth Player

The matter of a fourth player and perceived risk around not having one was known and should have been addressed at the time of selection. Liz was a selector and therefore knew about this long before registering the team at Grenoble.

Singapore Selection

Liz phoned me to announce that I had not been picked for the world team, I asked what I hadn’t done this year and what I needed to do next year to make the team and was told that I didn’t need to do any more, “it was simply not your year David and was never going to be. It is time for others to have their turn”. I was told that I had the necessary attributes to play a leadership/mentor role and therefore “we” would like you to take two younger players to Singapore instead. I was very taken aback by this and responded stating that – “this was not a role PNZ had previously discussed with me nor was it one that I had considered”. Although I fully support this concept, at this time, it came from left field without any consultation. I was then given one hour to consider the proposal. On that basis I said no. Andre approached me at a winter tournament a few days later and asked me to reconsider my decision as he wanted the chance to play in an international tournament. When I made my decision, selfishly I had not considered the impact of this on the other players. The conversation with Andre caused me to reflect and I telephoned Liz the next day to ask if the decision could be reversed. The rest you all know.

Conflict of Interest

I don’t see how a PNZ executive and her husband (Joanne and Myself) is a conflict of interest pertaining to selection as neither had any input into the process whatsoever. I don’t think we can be in any doubt as to what the conflict is that has caused so much debate. It is this conflict that should be addressed specifically. -David Lippard

Comment 4 As much as I am pleased to see that Liz has addressed some topics of concern I still cannot see why the matter of the 4th player was not sorted before the team left New Zealand. I cannot understand why PNZ would not make it clear to the team what the process was. As I have already stated, I was advised by a member of the PNZ executive that the matter had been discussed and it had been decided NOT to send a 4th player. If Liz did ring someone in New Zealand to seek permission to make the changes, why did that person not advise other members of the executive. Instead they find out by reading about it on the French website.

With regard to the shooting competition - so, Ian shot in 2004. So what? Surely the team is selected on its strengths, shooting being one of Ian's. Wouldn't it be logical to ensure that your "main" shooter had a chance to compete against the "shooters". Liz's explanation is contrary to the explanation given to us by Brian. He told us that it was decided not to use the shooter in the shooting competition in case he didn't do well and lost his confidence. Both explanations are a bit wishy washy don't you think.

Imagine sending a team to the soccer world champs and the goalie saying "but I did it two years ago, I don't want to do it again" and the coach saying" OK, who wants to be goalie?" -Graeme Burnard.

Comment 5 I too am pleased to see Liz's response and well done to her for doing so upon her return from overseas. It is a shame that such a response (and the NZ Petanque community) has had to wait until her return to get some answers as one should have been provided weeks ago by the acting CEO and if this was not possible due to him being overseas also - the job should have fallen to Brian given his role in much of what has transpired.

My comments are as follows:

Fourth Women Player

"I stepped outside the PNZ directive..."

"I did this based on what I thought were purely precautionary lines"

"The team had not been informed by the PNZ executive"

"the response was “that it was the sensible thing to do”.

All fair and sensible statements, but they all indicate poor planning given this issue crops up every year whenever we send away a team to the worlds. I assume this will be the precedent from now on????

Shooting Competition

I'm sorry but I find this all very hard to believe. Why was there no decision as to who was the shooter prior to the team leaving our shores? Can I suggest here poor planning again?

Singapore Selection

"I explained what our thoughts were in choosing the team."

"we did not have anybody to step into his role"

"we felt we did not have the players available to make the sort of team we felt would be suitable for that competition. The decision was made not to send a second team."

My comments regarding the Singapore Selection are well documented throughout this Wiki and like Tom, I feel completely vindicated by Liz's comments that demonstrate we have had a couple of people completely ignoring their own processes and decision making on the hoof. Accountability to the wider petanque community, particularly those who bought into the selection process like myself was completely forgotten in the self interest of wanting the NZ team "to be suitable for that competition" - whatever that means.

However, once again the Singapore Selection comes down to one thing - a lack of direction, and this comes from having no plan. Having no plan has resulted in selectors forgetting their mandate, selecting on the run, and picking teams that they had no mandate to pick. In the case of Singapore, a developmental squad for lack of a better term. While I actually applaud the selection of a development type team, who knew prior to Liz's words that this was the purpose of the Singapore selection?is I am all for picking development teams but I want to know this before hand. You can warn people about what your basis for selection by doing something very simple before hand. PLAN and INFORM - it's not rocket science.

Conflicts of interest

I repeat as I have said elsewhere, you avoid conflicts of interest by selecting people based on results - not soft attributes.

Availability of players for the Oceania and Asian Championships

"This is another fine mess you've gotten us into Stanley" - Oliver Hardy.

When you make your bed you have to sleep in it. IMO Liz's comments indicate the selectors cannot admit they have no one but themselves to blame for people making themselves unavailable after the "Singapore Affair".

Please note I want to make it perfectly clear that I have no issue with WHO went to Singapore, my issues is with HOW the team was selected.

If you've managed to stay awake through what I have written above, you will have hopefully picked up that the theme of my comment is around the lack of thinking and planning that appears to be taking place in the PNZ. Early this year Tom asked on the Wiki for things that we felt were needed by the petanque community from the PNZ. I advised then that I would like to see a Strategic Plan. I pointed out (back then) that the Aussies had one and I felt it was important we have one also. This was for 2 reasons, in order that I knew in what direction our representatives were wanting to take our sport, and also for them to be accountable.

I did not make a comment on Seb's page as I felt at the time that while I agreed with him, much of what he raised was the direct result of a directionless executive leading an increasingly frustrated petanque community. While I too was frustrated, I wasn't clear in my own mind what the solution was.

I am now convinced that we are all in the dark as to what the future of our sport is. Everything on Seb's page and all of what is on this page is IMO symptomatic of where we currently are, directionless with the blind leading the blind into god only knows where.

Our executive needs to provide us with direction and make it a priority. I for one do not wish to see any more directives such as a "Players Code" coming out of the PNZ until we have a direction developed in consultation with the petanque community. I would like our executive to make their NO 1 priority the development of a Strategic Plan. Seeking funding for establishing a SP should not be difficult from SPARC and Co. I would even dig into my own pocket to help pay for it.

I think that this Wiki could help with the exercise by providing seperate pages for doing a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) on petanque in New Zealand and for providing a list into which people could list their priorities for what they think are important for growing our sport over the next 5 years.

I again suggest that people go to the Australian Website to see a model of a Petanque Strategic Plan, (I am sure Tom would provide a link here). Australian strategic plan (this is a PDF document)

I am not one for instigating votes of no confidence but if by this time next year we do not have a Strategic Plan to demonstrate that we have got the future direction of our sport by the scuff of the neck - you can be sure I will be wondering aloud as to what our representatives have been doing for the last 12 months.

I would vote for any CEO who stands and makes this their no 1 priority (followed by a return to Public AGM's).

-Maurice

Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.

Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.

Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.

Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.

Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.

Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.

Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.

Click on "Edit page" or hit "ALT + E" on your keyboard, and replace this line of text with your views and opinions.

If you do not know our password but would still like to make a contribution - email it to tom@bindu-design.co.nz

Back to Top

This page has been viewed times