-
All of a sudden david and murrey want to get things right when it doesn't suit them funny that. Who's running our sport the board that was elected by the players or the directors that, as in any business are answerable to the board. Come on. the process is fundermantlly flawed any way when the coaching director is also up for selection.
Myles.
-
-
How many shooting circles that are required for the shooting skills to be carried out in the way mentioned are there in the country?
Myles.
-
-
Am i to assume that if the board voted to leave the results as they stand then this is the directors ounce again all be it to a different board saying no we will do it our way. Message to directors. that is not how it works we have a strong board and i for one have had enough of people having their own agenda. stop thinking you are bigger than the game and it's players
and start working together for this great game don't
let your ego get in the way of progress.
Myles
-
-
-
-
It's a pity that only Myles has put his name to comments, and many comments are anonymous.
I would have thought that the Board would stay out of making a decision about a minor detail relating to the selection process. Once the decision was made to have a 2nd year with the current selection `pathway' then TDR should be left to it, and the Board evaluate the process and results afterwards.
For the skill tests to have any validity they should be done on as equal basis as possible. And it does make a difference if the rubber ring is around the circle and the fixed ball-holders are in the ground. You would expect lower scores generally with them in place.
Michael E
-
Michael is right these things should be as close as possible the same all across the testing sites. that is not the problem here. We know that a mistake has been made around the testing and that it was not all equal. Weather it was the boards right or the TDR to request a retest is eralevent. The fact is the board did make a decision and it would appear that the TDR was not happy about that and told the regions they had to retest ( Murrey feel free to correct me if i am wrong).
In the view of some the boards decision may be wrong none the less a decision has been made and please dont do what has been done in the pass and flip/flop on this one.
Myles.
-
So what you're saying Myles is that we now know who wears the pants around here ? Is that right ?
Michael E
-
What a load of usual nonsense ! everybody constantly moans about wanting transparancy and fairness, well this new system provides it. Now it suits you to moan about the people (David & Murray) who are making a stand for transparancy. It is VERY clear what is required for the skills test, if your tester/s choose to change the system for whatever the reason, perhaps you might want to speak to them !
It does not matter who said what, who is in charge, who elected who. The skills test was done incorrectly, do it again, move on.
Alan
-
-
Dirk,
This site asks for no annonymous postings.
Only you know your reasons why you insist on going against the process and not re-testing.
Tell us your score and let the rest of the players determine what your motivator is.
Joanne
-
Ah Joanne, thanks for that.
Now I get it.
Michael E
"It is the green-ey'd monster, which doth mock
The meat it feeds on" - Iago
-
Wearing the pants and making decisions. now that is an interesting assumption. As i asked earlier how many kits are there in the country that would of allowed everyone to be teated fairly? As i am outside of the process i can only look in and think this is just another thing that incompetent organisation has caused. So this is why i believe the board made a decision, weather i agree with it or not it is what is needed for our sport to move forward.
Myles.
-
The situation is simple. The perception is that the skills testing process was not standard across the country. It does not matter if any players were advantaged or disadvantaged by this. David & Murray are charged with ensuring that the interity of the system is assured. They should not be criticised for this. If anygroup should be criticesed it is the coaches (and I am one of them). Because we have not been issued with standard testing tools (read FIPJP approved shooting mats), we improvised to try and standardise the tests. It is obvious we were not very successfulat this piece of Kiwi initiative, and our actions introduced anomalies in the process.
It seems to me that there is no alternative to re-testing in regions where the process was not clear. My plea to the Board is to get enough standardised shooting mats made in NZ - the imported mats are easily copied - and issued to the regional coaches as a matter of urgency.
So Myles, get your facts right, be part of the solution instead of always looking for conspiracies.
Bryan
-
Bryan i think i have my facts right. If i am the director of something and i know that it needs to be the same across the testing sites then i make sure i do not put my staff in a position that they Can not carry out the prescribe task. That fact is you as a coach were set up to make the mistake because you were not provided with the required kit to carry out the skills test. Yes you are right in saying that the Board ( PNZ) should provides these to the coaching director. As i Have asked and not yet had answerd how many kits do we have in the country.
P.S
My only stance on this has been that a decision was made by the board and the directors saw fit to not recognise this.
Myles.
-
Although the mens shooting does not involve me after watching this latest saga unveil I would like to say something. A lot of people will know that I (and others) were not happy with last years assessment day process. But hey that was a year ago. Two wrongs don't make a right. The retest should be done. If you make it to Auckland next year don't you want it to be on a level playing field and know somebody isn't saying you only made it because the hoop wasn't used which they would say.
I find hard to believe with such a minority sport there are so many dominant personalities trying to drag each other down when they obviously have a great love of the game. You actually do have a great common interest - Petanque. Alot of you involved (on both sides) in this spend loads of voluntary hours on Petanque. I for one thank you for that but then some feel the need to knock each other to bits. Come on guys don't forget the Process produced a great win for NZ overseas and has produced a great womens team that will do us proud I'm sure.
Christine
Wanganui
-
The facts for Bryan sake. as i see them feel free to correct me.
1) the test was not carried out correctly by everyone across all testing site.
2) it was not possible for this to happen as there were
not enough kits across the country.
3) a decision was made by the board not to retest.
4) the TDR did not agree with this decision and requested the regions that did not comply with the correct test to do it again.
Thats how i see it, No conspiracy, no saying it is right or wrong. Just saying that a decision has been made and if anything we should learn from the past .
If that is trouble making or putting consriracies out there then i will continue to do it. Because the board and the directors need to be held accountable and to make sure they get it right.
Myles.
P.S
Bryan the solution is already decided no re test and move on.
-
Read your first entry Myles! I quote "All of a sudden David & Murray want to get things right when it doesn't suit them, funny that.--------The process is fundementally flawed any way when the coaching director is also up for selection"
No conspiracy theory? Yeah Right!
Bryan
-
Bryan.
Fair call, the first part of my comment would suggest that. However i believe that a system where the some person is judge, jury and exacutioner is fundamentally flawed Just my view
i know.
As you were the CEO when this process was implemented i fully understand that you need to be seen to support it.
Have a good day.
Myles.
-
Myles, this is getting tiresome! As the arbiter of all things "proper" you will know that the previous Board unanimously passed the current process. As the CEO I did not have a vote. The current Board contains two members of the previous Board, and this Board is on record as also unanimously agreeing to the continuation of the selection process.
I do not need to be seen to be supporting the process, and I suspect nobody gives a rat's arse if I do or don't support it.
-
-
All annonymous postings have been removed
If you cannot put your name to your comment, please do not post
Murray and David
TDRs
-
It is a pity that those that dont want to put there name to something should have it removed.
Freedom of speech is a human right.
Yes i believe that you get more credibility if you have your name on something but i also believe by
Removing their post that the story has now Changed.
Come on David and Murrey answer my question.
How many kits are in the country?
Myles.
-
The ongoing communication and answering of questions posted on the PNZ
blog site in relation to all aspects of the national representative structure.
The above is part of murray's job description.
Still no answer to my question. I wonder why?
Myles.
-
You can ask people to leave their name but you cannot enforce it. This blogsite offers the option.
Fortunately there is such a thing as 'save' - and they have been.
Let's see if Tom would like to publish all the comments - maybe he too believes in freedom of speech.
-
Myles,
As I understand it there are 2 men's shooting kits in the country, neither of which are owned by the PNZ. One is in Auckland, and was used for the candidates in that region, and one is in Masterton, and was used for the candidates in the Wellington region.
The other regional coaches improvised copies of these two FIPJP approved kits.
This improvisation is not that difficult to achieve. The FIPJP kits are, after all, merely templates which can be easily copied.
If you believe that the process is "fundementally flawed" because the TDC is a candidate for selection, remember that he is not the only official in this process who is also a candidate for selection. You also have Board members who are candidates for selection. How would you handle their desire to be selected, and exclude them from the administration of the selection process, so that all your accusations of nepotism and scull duggery can be eliminated?
Bryan
-
Thanks brian.
I agree if you have any part in the process of selection
then you should indeed look at it and see if you think there is a conflict of interest. I dont care who it is.
That is why i withdrew from helping select the wellington team going forward.
Below you will see an extract from the coaching director. Do you think you were fully equipped to do the testing?
Regional Coaches are a new concept in petanque, in particular the responsibilities linked to the representation structure. Therefore, it is crucial that they have (and know how to use) the necessary equipment and scoring systems to be able to do the role, as well as ensuring that they have a strong mentorship and support system in place. We want to get this right from the start.
Myles.
-
Myles,
Yes, I think we were fully equipped to do the testing. In fact with one year's experiemnce under our belts, we conducted the tests more efficiently in 2009 than we did in 2008. As you can see from Murray's initial posting the concern has been whether the tests were as standardised across the board as they could have been.
I was not at the regional coaches' briefing by the TDC prior to the actual testing, but I understand from my regional coach that the tests were laid out and there was a practical session on them given by the TDC. Why the mens' shooting tests eventually deviated from the briefing is unknown to me, but they have obviously deviated enough to cause the TDC and the TDR some concerns about their "perceived" regularity.Nobody is accused of cheating or manipulating the results.
We should remember that it is only the mens' shooting tests which are at issue here. All the other tests (the great majority of them) are not in doubt. It would be a simple matter to conduct the mens' shooting tests again under more controlled conditions, and I am sure that all regional coaches and their assistants would be willing to give up their time to ensure that the process can be trusted.
Bryan
-
Question to board and Directors.
Please some one answer.
have you decided wether to take the test results as they stand or are you going to retest?
it would be good to know if the board has stuck to it's decision or if in fact the directors have run rough shod over it. If this is the case then we have the same
Situation as the last governance and i cant see the sport going forward if this is the case. I attended the forum in wellington recently and i liked a lot of what this board are looking at doing. lets give them a chance. Ifear that this situation if not resolved could see this great sport get even more backward.
Myles.
P.S
By the way just in case any one is wondering i believe they made the wrong decision but a decision they made and to flip flop on this or be pressured to change it by the directors is not what we need from a board.
-
I give up. it just shows me that not only can our directors of coaching and representation not only set up the coaches to make a mistake. They dont even seem fit to answer questions on this blog.
Have a look at your job discription.
Myles.
P.S
They would rather remove things from the blog than answer questions.
-
I believe it is now very confusing for the players - an email is sent out to players leaving them in no doubt that if they did not retest they would have no score.
However, the Board say they have made a ruling and stand by it.
Why should any of the players be put in the position of not really knowing what they need to do.
I think the Board should have kept well out of it and if Murray wanted some areas (including his own) to retest, then holding the position he has, it is his right to ask for that to happen.
The one thing that is certain is that there are not enough kits in the country so there was always going to be some improvisation - either provide the kits or make some practical suggestions as to what is acceptable to use instead.
-
Myles, the TDR & the TDC did not set up the coaches to make a mistake. The coaches were properly briefed by them at a special meeting, and then the process was not followed to the letter by a bunch of us trying to improvise as best we could.
The Directors cannot possibly be blamed for what happened subsequent to their briefing.
Let us all take a deep breath and stop this blame culture which seems to hit our sport at regular intervals. Nothing will be gained by seeking to blame everybody, and anybody, who even remotely had something to do with the issue.
We now need to find a resolution to this problem and get back to the selection process. You in perticular need to stop stirring.
Bryan
-
Bryan you miss my point.
If you were brifed and i dont doubt that you were. How were all coaches going to do the same test when there is not enough equipment in the country to perform the test on an equel footing. Like i said earlier if i ask my staff to do a job i equip them with the tools to do it. So you say you improvised what did the TDR and the TDC think you were going to do, they must of known that there were not enough kits in the country.
If asking the questions is stirring then so be it.
Does some one know the price of these shooting Kits.
-
Where does one begin with this debacle. Every member had the opportunity to put their name forward for the PNZ Board or if they were not keen then they could vote for the people of their choice. After exercising this choice a democratically elected Board has been formed. This Board has been charged with making decisions to progress the game of Petanque. Sometimes they will make popular decisions and sometimes they may have to make hard decisions. Whatever decision they make we should be able to trust that they are informed decisions made for the good of the sport.
The alternative to this model is have a group of people who are not elected, making decisions without being accountable and taking full control of everything that is happening in petanque.
All that is required of the Board is that they rubber stamp the decisions made by this other group thus giving the impression of a democratic organisation.
Personally I prefer democracy as a Governance model but I may be in the minority.
-
Hi Guys,
As everyone can see we have now reached an impasse. I don't think anyone would disagree that the Board is the final governance body of the sport in NZ. This does not mean that the democratic process is suspended between Board elections, and the Board can do what it likes without taking into account the wishes of the majority. Board decisions are not writ on tablets of stone (like the 10 Commandments), and there is no loss of face for the Board if it reverses a decision it subsequently finds it has made without all the facts before it. This is not a "flip/flop" as Miles describes it - it is plain common sense.
It is now high time that the Board and the TDR and TDC had a face-to-face discussion on this subjec. I have not seen much from the Board on this issue - except for Dirk's reasoned contributions (Good on you Dirk!). The opportunity for this face-to-face will occur in Christchurch in a couple of week's time when most of the Board, and the TDC & TDR will be there. I would hope that reason will prevail and that you all start to TALK TO EACH OTHER. It is high time all of you sorted this out.The selection process is bigger than all of you!!
Bryan
-
Thanks Bryan.
If what you say happens then i will then see that the sport is moving forward.
Democracy works if everyside is willing to talk and that we all realise that sometimes the decisions made will not fit in to the perfect world.
With a bit of planning and in hindsight ( which is a wonderful thing) this situation would of never occured.
Myles.
-
Is that the royal 'we'? You speak as though you have plenty of knowledge of what the Board members and the TDC and TDR are up to - I would have thought David will be away at the Women's Worlds for a little while but I guess it is just conceivable he may rush back, and all will fly to Christchurch to have a meeting.
And you were right about the rat's arse.
-
some will label me a stirer and some one that just wants to cause trouble. I am happy to have this label if all it means that when something was not done right i ask some questions. you will notice that i have not had an answer to any of my question from either the TDC or the TDR Why is this. Is Bryan wells their spin doctor.
Anyway i feel i have made my point and now it is up to the TDC , TDR and the Board to let the players that are up for selection know where they all sit as at this point i think they really dont know them salves.
I will not write on this topic any more.
See you all at the nationals.
And remember it's only a game.
Myles.
Aka.
Stirrer , conspiracy developer and all round arse hole in the eyes of some
-
you've hit the nail on the head this time Myles
-
Amen.
Retest in peace
-
I want to remain annonymous for fear of not being selected to play for my region
The board have acted terribly in this mess. Murray has sent out a communication about it and been very professional. The board have not bothered to communicate about anything
I see at tournaments board members talking to there supporters dividing the players
This has gone beyond the skills it is about control
Grame is a realy nice guy and i believe he realises he should retest but he is shadowed by others and is almost afraid to change his mind
-
Board Communication.
The Board has chosen not to debate this issue through the Forum. That does not mean that there has been no communication to the TD's.
This issue was raised at a Board meeting and on the information we had it was decided, by majority vote, not to enforce a retest. This information was communicated to the TD's who chose to totally ignore the decision and publically state that a retest would be done.
Why this course of action was taken, I have no idea. I believe it was inflammatory and designed to force the Boards hand.
Do we really need a Board or should the TD's take over the running of Petanque in NZ?
Just to clarify these are my personal thoughts, they do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Board. Having said that anything that has been said can be supported by emails and Board minutes.
-
I realise this is not to do with the current topic but as I couldn't find an appropriate place to post it this will have to do.
I would like to wish the women going to the World Champs and on to the Asian Champs all the very best - play well and have a great time!
Best wishes to Barb, Joanne, Pam and Sharon and to David as Coach/Manager.
Liz Rocks
-
A number of issues have arisen over the past few weeks between governance and operational matters.
Many comments have been posted on the Forum site concerning this.
The Board plans to meet with the TDs in the very near future.
Please all enjoy the National Doubles in Christchurch this weekend.
Lorraine Brock
President Petanque New Zealand
-
In Christchurch today 07/11/09 I was alerted to all these postings. It's good that people are providing their opinions but why are a good number of them without the name of the author?.
After all, we read:
"All annonymous postings have been removed
If you cannot put your name to your comment, please do not post
Murray and David
TDRs"
It has been shown again that a good number of people are just not strong enough to provide their name with their post. Many people live in constant fear of reprisals and this is sad indeed. This author uses this line:
"I want to remain annonymous for fear of not being selected to play for my region" He/she proceeds to attack the board.
It really sums it all up. -Tom van B
-
In Christchurch today 07/11/09 I was alerted to all these postings. It's good that people are providing their opinions but why are a good number of them without the name of the author?.
After all, we read:
"All annonymous postings have been removed
If you cannot put your name to your comment, please do not post
Murray and David
TDRs"
It has been shown again that a good number of people are just not strong enough to provide their name with their post. Many people live in constant fear of reprisals and this is sad indeed. This author uses this line:
"I want to remain annonymous for fear of not being selected to play for my region" He/she proceeds to attack the board.
It really sums it all up. -Tom van B
-
It seems inconceivable to me that coaches / testers did not at any point ask "where is the equipment?". Instead they went ahead without - improvising and making do, because they had not received the required equipment.
It's not right to ask students to turn on their computer if they have no computers to turn on.
It's interesting that Bryan Wells says: "If anygroup should be criticesed it is the coaches (and I am one of them). Because we have not been issued with standard testing tools (read FIPJP approved shooting mats), we improvised to try and standardise the tests."
A strange logic indeed. -Tom.
-
I wish you wouldn't drag this discussion down to the level of your intelligence Tom!!
Of course the coaches asked for the regulation shooting mats.You do not have a moratorium on this simple logic.
Questions relating to why shooting mats were not available to all regions in time for this year's skills testing should be referred to the Board, who have control of the finance required to procure the mats - not the coaches.
In the absence of the mats the coaches improvised as best they could - as they did last year.
I hope this is logical enough for you.
Bryan
At 9:11 PM, NZPC Editor (Tom) said...
Then why blame the coaches "If anygroup should be criticesed it is the coaches..."
If the coaches asked for the regulation equipment as you say they did, what was the answer from PNZ to that request. Please do not tell us to ask the board - you must know what they told you - share it with us.
PS. what do you mean with: "You do not have a moratorium on this simple logic". Is "moratorium" the right word here? Please excuse my simple intelligence. Tom van B.
-
Poor Diddums!!
Bryan
-
I posed the question to Bryan in my previous post: "what was the answer from PNZ to that request". Bryan knows the answer, but he elects to resort to mocking instead of providing us with the answer. - why? -Tom van B.
-
After a very good weekend of Petanque in Christchurch, I want to ask questions of Murray. These are questions I have as a player, still concerned about the skills test.
1. On 19 September all registered players took the skills tests in their region. Where in the material published beforehand does it allow for retests by the end of November ?
2. Is it likely that by asking for a partial retest by the end of November that the players doing the retest get an advantage over those who had to test back in September?
3. Why didn't you order a full retest of the shooting of all players on a nominated date?
These questions obviously point to my concerns that the retest was never part of the published process, and by being ordered now may create a disparity or unfairness greater than the original errors. Retested Players have had 2 months of the Petanque season since the first test- two national champs etc.
A reply to this from Murray would be great, or from other players with thoughts on this.
Michael E
-
Tom, you cannot expect anyone to take you seriously with your track record.
You should consult the COD when you do not understand the meaning of words - it stops you from looking silly.
Bryan
-
Please explain. -Tom.
At 10:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...
Tom, Go away! I haven't got time for this.
Read the over 50 comments above yours, and you will get a very good idea of what the facts are in this case.
-Bryan
At 12:33 PM, Blogger NZPC Editor (Tom) said...
Bryan now avoids (I wonder why) explaining the word I apparently do not understand, and brings us back on topic.
Michael E makes the interesting observation that any disparity or unfairness could actually be greater than the original errors if retesting proceeds. -Tom.
At 1:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...
Well, well, what an interesting discussion.
As I am not involved at a competing level this does not really effect me, but I do wonder why an excercise is set for such an important aspect of our game i.e selection, when the equipment required is not readily available for everybody involved. It is the old apples of apples trick isn't it? Why should some regions have to improvise with equipment? If it is not available in all regions, then make sure it is before you set the rules, or make different rules. It is all about fairness! and that has been my gripe for many years when I have been critical of certain aspects of our organistion. We seem to have a problem with fairness!!!
Maybe the easy solution would be to get Hone Hawira to pick up some more shooting kits when he next visits Paris and then you can all have one!
Graeme Burnard
-
Tom - COD = Concise Oxford Dictionary.
Bryan
-
What word should I look up Bryan?
-
Tom, Go away you silly boy!
Bryan
-
Mr Wells, you need to chill out.
The questions and comments Tom has made are quite legitimate and sensible. It is your silly remarks and off hand manner that is lowering the tone of this discussion. If you don't like what is being said - sign out!
Tom, don't rise to the bait - he has no class!
Graeme Burnard
At 4:40 PM, NZPC Editor (Tom) said...
"Forum
For comments and information on the PNZ Representative Process and Coaching Structure. The Technical Director of Coaching (TDC) and Technical Director of Representation (TDR) will answer any queries and respond to comments."
The above text is taken from the PNZ website.
The TCD and TDR have not answered queries or responded to any comments.
-
Apparently the TDR hasn't responded because he has technical problems with his PC.
However Murray has phoned me to discuss my questions which I appreciate.
I still think ordering a full re-test of the mens open shooting skills test on a specific date could (and probably still would) be a win/win for both the PNZ board and the TD's, and be more fair to all players affected than the partial retest currently required.
Michael E
-
Michael, after talking to Murray over the phone, do you now believe a shooting re-test is warranted? If yes, why? How badly did the testers/coaches deviate from the agreed shooting test?
-
We see again and again that PNZ or the TCD and TDR do not want to be on record. They say they will answer questions/comments on the PNZ Blog, but in reality this will be done only by phone to selected people (in this case Michael E). It seems that the status of the petanque player asking the question including the tone used to ask the question, determines whether a phone reply will be made. By only informing a selected small group by phone, we create more confusion and misunderstanding. Interesting that technical problems with PCs were not severe enough to remove comments from contributors.
-
Well Tom, not sure I agree with what you say. However, what I do think is a pity is that there's not more comments by players affected on the forum. It could be that the players don't really care too much, they just play the game and get on with it.
With this latest spat between the board and the TD's I think many in the petanque community don't understand how damaging it's been. I think whether the retest should have been called or not is now irrelevant.
Those of us who care for the sport should have been trying to help find a resolution that kept the elected board in place, and the TD's doing their job.
My initial comments on this particular thread I still stand by - ideally the board doesn't get involved in operational matters. However they have, and they should be the ultimate authority in the sport.
Ironically back in 2004 when I was chairman of Selectors I was told by the then national committee that we had to accept a player into a camp that the selectors had not chosen. We accepted the Boards authority, even though we didn't like it or agree with it. That was the right thing for us to do.
Michael E
- Dirk Winnie said...
-
The Petanque New Zealand president has overturned the decision in regard to retesting without consultation of the full Board.
Is this constitutionally acceptable or is that immaterial?
- Anonymous said...
-
I know i said i would not comment any further. however this is no longer about a retest or who did or didn't get something right. I now believe that our sport has reached a crisis point and this weeks board meeting is the last chance saloon. Please for the sake of this sport get sport auckland to facilitate and mediate that meeting.
Myles.
P..S
Or else it's RIP petanque as we know it.
Editor note: 26/11/2009 Dirk has now written an Open Letter.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.