RWC Draw
-
@stargazer said in RWC Draw:
@rapido I'm sure they've had people with more expertise & less bias watching the footage of that game, and have had a better assessment of what went on, than biased people on rugby blogs/forums/social media (biased towards both sides, by the way).
The replay issue came before the eligibility issue; that's why they took that decision first, before they received info about eligibility issues. Read the statement!
If you read their statement - The replay issue is floated as they were not being happy with the referee appointment process, they haven't actually got to the nitty-gritty of reviewing the referee performance.
That's outrageous. WR themselves have plenty of history of referees in RWCs officiating games that impact their home countries. E.g. Defending champs South Africa getting knocked out one game before playing NZ in 2011.
Spain, (mostly) lost the match in their own heads because they weren't happy with referee appointment process.
I think Spain should get tougher heads, rather than matches should possibly be replayed.
I'm a bit suspicious that Pichot is a bit of a populist. Which is fine, as long as I agree with his populist opinion (such as tightening the eligibilty laws)..... but isn't fine if I disagree with it (rewarding self-defeating ref-whinging cry babies).
-
Having considered all available information, the World Rugby Executive Committee and Rugby World Cup Board felt that a replay would be in the best interests of the game.
is obviously just a typo, was supposed to say;
Having considered all available information, the World Rugby Executive Committee and Rugby World Cup Board felt that in future World Rugby will be responsible for refereeing appointments in RWC qualifying tournaments. -
Delighted about all that. Such amateurism from Europe Rugby on so many levels.
-
A Rugby Europe Independent judicial committee has sanctioned five players, including a 43-week ban handed to replacement back row Sebastien Rouet for physical abuse of a match official and verbal abuse. Scrumhalf Guillaume Rouet has received 36 weeks for the same offences, while Pierre Barthere, Lucas Guillaume and Mathieu Belie have been given 14 weeks each for threatening actions/words directed at a match official.Lengthy bans for Spanish rugby players after Belgian blow-up
-
@stargazer Good. Their behaviour was unacceptable and a clear example of pre-determination.
-
Geezus, World Rugby is really stuffing this up!
Rugby's double standards - eligibility debacle to hamstring Samoan World Cup hopes
Manu Samoa's place at the 2019 Rugby World Cup may be in further doubt - thanks to more bungling from the powers that be. The Samoans were set to play off against either Spain or Portugal in June for a place at next year's tournament in Japan. But they might not have their best players available, now that World Rugby has launched an investigation into reports of Belgium and Romania fielding ineligible players in earlier RWC qualifying rounds. And unlike the situation with Oceania neighbours Tahiti, who were disqualified after also fielding an ineligible player against the Cook Islands in March, it seems the Belgians and Romanians might get another chance to qualify. If replays of the affected matches are allowed, it'll delay the final qualifier involving Samoa from June until July-August, when some of their best players will be unavailable, due to pre-season commitments with their European clubs. Fiji star Nemani Nadolo has fired up on Twitter about the saga. "What a JOKE!!" the former Crusaders wing wrote. "This just makes it messy for the Manu Samoa players and their pro clubs overseas! July/August is an important time for prepping with the new season... It's tough as it is trying to convince our clubs to go play for our countries!" Many top Samoans play for the wealthy European clubs in leagues such as France's Top 14 and those clubs don't have to release their players outside the June test window.Pacific Rugby Players chief executive Aayden Clarke calls the situation "definitely not ideal" and points out that the vetting process around player eligibility should have been sorted out before kickoff. "We wouldn't be in this situation if all the 'i's had been dotted and the 't's crossed, but it's just about dealing with that now," Clarke told Newshub. "From a players' perspective, the uncertainty of when they'll be playing and so forth is definitely not ideal." There was already controversy around Belgium's last match against Spain in March, won 18-10 by the Belgians, but refereed by a Romanian. That result had initially sent Romania through to the next round. The Spaniards had earlier officially questioned the official's appointment over possible bias, but were ignored by governing body Rugby Europe, whose president, Octavian Morariu, is also Romanian. Rugbyworld.com reports that World Rugby had initially felt a Belgium-Spain replay would be in the game's best interests. But after news emerged of the latest eligibility debacle, the governing body convened an emergency committee to investigate, before determining what steps to take next. The fresh controversy surrounds a Tongan-born centre who played for Romania and a French-born hooker who played for Belgium. Sione Faka'osilea qualified for Romania through residency, but played one World Series tournament for Tonga's national sevens team back in 2013, ruling him ineligible for his adopted country. Victor Paquet represented France up to under-19 level and reportedly claimed a Belgian great grandmother, but only the birth nation of a grandparent or parent provides that eligibility under World Rugby regulations. Clarke expects World Rugby's hearing to conclude this week and says the Samoans will just play the cards that they've been dealt. But the eligibility saga is again set to adversely impact on the poorer Pacific Island nations, rather than more populous and wealthier European countries.Newshub
-
Yes, it's a debacle.
But, the newshub report above didn't give an accurate picture for the delay due to player eligibilty doubts. Mentioning only a 'Romanian' and a 'Belgian'. There's also a 'Spaniard' who played for France U20s at the time France had their U20s designated as their second team.
While at first glance it would seem be fairly simple to me, they're both disqualified - but from my understanding i think, the investigation is needing to deal with;
- Rumania believe they did their due diligence by requesting clearance from the Tongan RU checking if the player had been captured, and Tonga replied he hadn't. So believe their 'due-diligence' had been performed but upended by TRU incompetence
- Spain claim the French U20 player needed to be informed, and sign some form, that the 20 match would 'capture' him - and he didn't/wasn't.
-
-
Spain had previously been fined for playing a French Sevens player (in REC 2015 I think). They initially had two players under question re French U20s: Belie and Fuster.
World Rugby has a real conundrum here. Tahiti were disqualified. Spain previously got fined. But, Russia made the eligibility complaint against Romania - having been investigated previously themselves. Whatever is decided, there will be some very unhappy people citing consistency and precedents.
But, I do feel sorry for the Samoan coaches and players if they have to amend travel plans, training plans etc, when they have to assemble players from all over the world outside the main international window. It is similar for Portugal, who await their opponent in a playoff to play Samoa.
-
I think it is utterly idiotic that WR lets individual unions chose whether their U20s is their second team of not. They should really decide one way or another so it's a level playing field.
That has at lease been changed. Unions can't assign their U20s as their second team anymore, that was changed last year.
Unions may no longer nominate their U20s team as their next senior national representative team, effective 1 January, 2018. (majority)
-
^^ Although there will still be confusion moving forward probably, because the unions can "nominate' who their second team is.
E.g. A confusing example from last year while the U20s were still an acceptable second team:
World Rugby announces changes to Eligibility regulations - Americas Rugby News
The votes are in, and the changes promised and spearheaded by World Rugby Vice-Chairman Agustín Pichot have been made. In fact the changes to Regulation 8 regarding international regulations have gone beyond what was hoped. The changes not only affect residency but also the ‘capturing’ of u20 and...
For example England Saxons recently traveled to play South Africa ‘A’, but because South Africa had nominated their u20 side as their ‘next senior representative team’, the matches did not count towards the eligibility regulations, an obviously ridiculous situation.
There will still be room for confusion as the IRB let the unions nominate the team, rather than create a structured sector called "A Internationals".
So the FFR last year announced they had set up a deal with French Barbarians as their second team. A historical invitation club associated with festival rugby ...
The Saxons, the JABS, Emerging Springboks, another team with festival roots Irish Wolfhounds.
The All Blacks last year played a France XV, while the Maori All Blacks played the French Barbarians, none of these are capture international games.
There will be more clusterfucks in the future.
-
^^ Although there will still be confusion moving forward probably, because the unions can "nominate' who their second team is.
E.g. A confusing example from last year while the U20s were still an acceptable second team:
The votes are in, and the changes promised and spearheaded by World Rugby Vice-Chairman Agustín Pichot have been made. In fact the changes to Regulation 8 regarding international regulations have gone beyond what was hoped. The changes not only affect residency but also the ‘capturing’ of u20 and...
For example England Saxons recently traveled to play South Africa ‘A’, but because South Africa had nominated their u20 side as their ‘next senior representative team’, the matches did not count towards the eligibility regulations, an obviously ridiculous situation.
There will still be room for confusion as the IRB let the unions nominate the team, rather than create a structured sector called "A Internationals".
So the FFR last year announced they had set up a deal with French Barbarians as their second team. A historical invitation club associated with festival rugby ...
The Saxons, the JABS, Emerging Springboks, another team with festival roots Irish Wolfhounds.
The All Blacks last year played a France XV, while the Maori All Blacks played the French Barbarians, none of these are capture international games.
There will be more clusterfucks in the future.
Actually, France designated the French Barbarians as it's second national XVs team from July 2017.
-
@stargazer said in RWC Draw:
^^ Although there will still be confusion moving forward probably, because the unions can "nominate' who their second team is.
E.g. A confusing example from last year while the U20s were still an acceptable second team:
The votes are in, and the changes promised and spearheaded by World Rugby Vice-Chairman Agustín Pichot have been made. In fact the changes to Regulation 8 regarding international regulations have gone beyond what was hoped. The changes not only affect residency but also the ‘capturing’ of u20 and...
For example England Saxons recently traveled to play South Africa ‘A’, but because South Africa had nominated their u20 side as their ‘next senior representative team’, the matches did not count towards the eligibility regulations, an obviously ridiculous situation.
There will still be room for confusion as the IRB let the unions nominate the team, rather than create a structured sector called "A Internationals".
So the FFR last year announced they had set up a deal with French Barbarians as their second team. A historical invitation club associated with festival rugby ...
The Saxons, the JABS, Emerging Springboks, another team with festival roots Irish Wolfhounds.
The All Blacks last year played a France XV, while the Maori All Blacks played the French Barbarians, none of these are capture international games.
There will be more clusterfucks in the future.
Actually, France designated the French Barbarians as it's second national XVs team from July 2017.
Yes, but they played the MABs who aren't NZ's second team.
But if the French Barbarians were to play the Emerging Springboks on a Wednesday with the wind blowing from the southeast, that will be a capture match.
-
Mess officially sorted, line drawn under and no one did it on purpose.
http://www.scottishrugby.org/news/18/05/15/russia-replace-romania-rwc2019-pool
