Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

News agencies suspend coverage of Rugby World Cup

Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 11:30 AM EST 07/09/07

World's three leading news agencies continue to battle the sport's governing body over media restrictions ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. steve allan from Welland, Ontario, Canada writes: This is ridiculous and unacceptable behaviour on the part of the IRB. If they want rugby to be played in more than five countries in the world as it presently is, they need to understand the importance of the media.

    This World Cup was shaping up to be the biggest and best ever, but now it has been seriously compromised by politics. Shameful!
  2. David Demner from Vancouver, BC, Canada writes: I can understand the restrictions, since I'm sure any TV deal the IRB negotiated would be worthless if news media were able to post anything about any games in progress for free.

    Maybe they could have a $ amount attached to the restrictions, so if a news outlet wanted to post 100 images they would pay X dollars.
  3. Le Bleu from Canada writes: I think the I in IRB stands for "Idiot". And you wonder why the French league was about to pull out of the major European tournaments.
  4. M Poland from Canada writes: Great, now the woirld won't kniow about how good Canada is; after we bury the Welsh, the Wallabies and the Fijians. Japan?, well ...
  5. Mathieu Perron from Ottawa, Canada writes: It seems a little one sided for the AP to be writting about themselves. This is a shinning example of a case where readers have to remain vigilant against the source of the story... a conglomerated media can limit access to news content it doesn't agree with; or in this case doesn't get more than favorable arrangments over.

    The IRB's conditions are not unreasonably; they're still looking to encourage live attendance and arrange profitable broadcast agreements. The only thing they've limited is excessive release of content to the internet DURING games.
  6. Douglas Baard from Mississauga, Canada writes: I think that the IRB has it right. Whats the point to watching a match live when I can simply tune into one of the new agencies for live updates. I can understand (and currently follow live soccer matches in text format online) reading play by play, but to give the press free reign over the coverage is unacceptable to me. I agree with the IRB, and feel that in general, the media has too much freedom, and protection. I can't wait to WATCH the World Cup and hope that it is not ruined by the media.
  7. Rex's Experiment from Brampton, Canada writes: I don't see a problem with the conditions. Forty pics a match? How many pics do you really need? Three minutes of video from post-game conference or locker room interviews? How long do you want? The big three are being the jerks here. They openly admit that the IRB is only following the trend of other sport organizations' media contracts. The AP, EPA and Reuters are just playing the bully here because they figure since the IRB isn't as big as FIFA, FIBA or the IIHF they'll get away with it.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top