Planet Rugby Forum

Will there be a decision made tomorrow on what is going on with the Belgium V Spain saga ?

webbcaster wrote:Will there be a decision made tomorrow on what is going on with the Belgium V Spain saga ?

No, as far as I know they are meeting tomorrow to start discussions on all the events.

No idea at this stage what WR's involvement is, but if they aren't involved then tomorrow will just be all the people responsible for the shambles talking about who's responsible for it. Can't see much coming from it.

I just can't see anything bad enough to override how massive a precedent it would be to replay it, especially as it would also go somewhat towards rewarding Spain for their post game behaviour.

I just spotted another thread on the subject after I posted this one and it seems to those posters that there will be no replay

Even if it was to be replayed , 15 or so Belgians are facing a long looooong ban regardless.

nardol wrote:Even if it was to be replayed , 15 or so Belgians are facing a long looooong ban regardless.

I’m gonna guess you mean Spaniards.

Won’t be 15 but probs 6 o 7

Would the ref have been australian/english/kiwi (you name it) and have given 55 penalties and three red cards to Spain none would be discussing about this.

The issue is the ref was romanian.

julian wrote:Would the ref have been australian/english/kiwi (you name it) and have given 55 penalties and three red cards to Spain none would be discussing about this.

The issue is the ref was romanian.

same ref last year for the home game in madrid, spain won that 30-0

why wasn't it a problem then ?

Toro wrote:

nardol wrote:Even if it was to be replayed , 15 or so Belgians are facing a long looooong ban regardless.

I’m gonna guess you mean Spaniards.

Won’t be 15 but probs 6 o 7

Eh yeah... Spaniards indeed

So what is happening is the game going to be replayed or not ?

no decision yet, my guess is hell no

but there are other developments (ineligible players etc.) so still not clear who is going to the wc

Replaying a game when one is unhappy with the ref is lunacy.

Plato'sCave wrote:Replaying a game when one is unhappy with the ref is lunacy.

There's a little bit more to it than that, but that kinda would be the precedent set.

Akkerman wrote:

julian wrote:Would the ref have been australian/english/kiwi (you name it) and have given 55 penalties and three red cards to Spain none would be discussing about this.

The issue is the ref was romanian.

same ref last year for the home game in madrid, spain won that 30-0

why wasn't it a problem then ?

Romania didn't need a certain result to happen to go thru. Obvious to all but those who cannot see?

Will it matter if the ineligible player issues are true / cost them significant points?

Toro wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:Replaying a game when one is unhappy with the ref is lunacy.

There's a little bit more to it than that, but that kinda would be the precedent set.

There is more to it agreed, but it’s not worth going down the route that eventually has each nation hiring lawyers to get games replayed because they didn’t win. If this game is replayed the sport is on the path to fuckèd.

Plato'sCave wrote:

Toro wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:Replaying a game when one is unhappy with the ref is lunacy.

There's a little bit more to it than that, but that kinda would be the precedent set.

There is more to it agreed, but it’s not worth going down the route that eventually has each nation hiring lawyers to get games replayed because they didn’t win. If this game is replayed the sport is on the path to fuckèd.

You can watch the game and clearly tell the ref was biased but also let´s be clear that the spanish team played shitfully (if that word exists). Therefore that would fall in the category of "can´t replay a game when you lost it even if the ref was an idiot".

julian wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:

Toro wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:Replaying a game when one is unhappy with the ref is lunacy.

There's a little bit more to it than that, but that kinda would be the precedent set.

There is more to it agreed, but it’s not worth going down the route that eventually has each nation hiring lawyers to get games replayed because they didn’t win. If this game is replayed the sport is on the path to fuckèd.

You can watch the game and clearly tell the ref was biased but also let´s be clear that the spanish team played shitfully (if that word exists). Therefore that would fall in the category of "can´t replay a game when you lost it even if the ref was an idiot".

They were useless, but the issue is that they had asked for the ref to be changed. As for all the arguments I've had on Social media people will see what they wanna see and there's no shifting them. I've talked to people that seriously think the ref got 19 penalties completely wrong (of the supposed 28)

Plato'sCave wrote:

Toro wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:Replaying a game when one is unhappy with the ref is lunacy.

There's a little bit more to it than that, but that kinda would be the precedent set.

There is more to it agreed, but it’s not worth going down the route that eventually has each nation hiring lawyers to get games replayed because they didn’t win. If this game is replayed the sport is on the path to fuckèd.

I agree it would be a huge mistake to replay it but let's be clear it's based on the fact that the ref is from a union that had interest in Spain losing, if he wasn't it would be what you are saying, and even the drama queens here wouldn't be saying much apart from slagging off the ref.

Toro wrote:

julian wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:

Toro wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:Replaying a game when one is unhappy with the ref is lunacy.

There's a little bit more to it than that, but that kinda would be the precedent set.

There is more to it agreed, but it’s not worth going down the route that eventually has each nation hiring lawyers to get games replayed because they didn’t win. If this game is replayed the sport is on the path to fuckèd.

You can watch the game and clearly tell the ref was biased but also let´s be clear that the spanish team played shitfully (if that word exists). Therefore that would fall in the category of "can´t replay a game when you lost it even if the ref was an idiot".

They were useless, but the issue is that they had asked for the ref to be changed. As for all the arguments I've had on Social media people will see what they wanna see and there's no shifting them. I've talked to people that seriously think the ref got 19 penalties completely wrong (of the supposed 28)

That may be true but I won't get in that discussion since it does not change the fact of the absolute dire spanish performance.

Españoles del orto.

Meh, who cares?

Toro wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:Replaying a game when one is unhappy with the ref is lunacy.

There's a little bit more to it than that, but that kinda would be the precedent set.

we can then finally get RWC 2007 QF replayed

Comrade wrote:

Toro wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:Replaying a game when one is unhappy with the ref is lunacy.

There's a little bit more to it than that, but that kinda would be the precedent set.

we can then finally get RWC 2007 QF replayed

As well as RWC 2011 final.

I would also push for a replay of the RWC 1995 semi.

jolindien wrote:

Comrade wrote:

Toro wrote:

Plato'sCave wrote:Replaying a game when one is unhappy with the ref is lunacy.

There's a little bit more to it than that, but that kinda would be the precedent set.

we can then finally get RWC 2007 QF replayed

As well as RWC 2011 final.

I would also push for a replay of the RWC 1995 semi.

2011 semi final please. Choice of ref and all that.

Sorry, my heart isn't in this

Luckily some part of the press start to be less sensationalist about Belgium - Spain game and actually annalyze the facts:

Ref analysis:
http://www.lerugbynistere.fr/chroniques ... 181545.php

Game analysis:
http://www.lerugbynistere.fr/videos/les ... 181903.php

Both articles lead to a simple conclusion, Belgium won deservedly and Spain lost because didn't played well enough.

No re-match imo but the situation of qualification may be changed depending of the eligibility issues. Allegedly Romania have one non-eligible players (Fakaosilea) while Spain have 4 (Belie, Visensang, Custoja, Fuster). Belgium apparently used 1 non-eligible player but not in the match vs Spain.

Kick the teams who played ineligible players out. As with replaying the game, not going in dry here would set a dangerous precedent. Russia are next in line, correct?

lol

Tschussie wrote:Kick the teams who played ineligible players out. As with replaying the game, not going in dry here would set a dangerous precedent. Russia are next in line, correct?

lol

yeah and Germany will Portugal and if wins than will play Samoa

More complicated than that aparently as Spain (and possibly the others) had allegedly asked WR to confirm the eligibility of the players in question. Farking comedy of errors.

Zakar wrote:More complicated than that aparently as Spain (and possibly the others) had allegedly asked WR to confirm the eligibility of the players in question. Farking comedy of errors.

It would appear WR don't take responsibility for researching this, they can confirm eligibility based on info sent to them but I assume but they state the union in question always has full responsibility. Having confirmation from WR doesn't mean jack in other words.

By disqualifying Tahiti WR seem to have left themselves little option other than to disqualify any other nation guilty of fielding ineligible players. Dang.

It might be a blessing in disguise for them to be able to boot both Romania and Spain thus sidestepping the issue of the referee.

amzro wrote:No re-match imo but the situation of qualification may be changed depending of the eligibility issues. Allegedly Romania have one non-eligible players (Fakaosilea) while Spain have 4 (Belie, Visensang, Custoja, Fuster). Belgium apparently used 1 non-eligible player but not in the match vs Spain.

How can this still be happening in 2018?

you don't follow much t2&3 rugby, do you ? incompetence is rife

Tschussie wrote:By disqualifying Tahiti WR seem to have left themselves little option other than to disqualify any other nation guilty of fielding ineligible players. Dang.

It might be a blessing in disguise for them to be able to boot both Romania and Spain thus sidestepping the issue of the referee.

Tahiti weren't disqualified from a two year tournament, it was one qualifier IIRC. They will lose the games where ineligible players took the field, but you're right it could still offer them an easy way of dealing with the other rubbish.

Zakar wrote:More complicated than that aparently as Spain (and possibly the others) had allegedly asked WR to confirm the eligibility of the players in question. Farking comedy of errors.

WR showing that it is unfit to run the game. Again.

Toro wrote:

Zakar wrote:More complicated than that aparently as Spain (and possibly the others) had allegedly asked WR to confirm the eligibility of the players in question. Farking comedy of errors.

It would appear WR don't take responsibility for researching this, they can confirm eligibility based on info sent to them but I assume but they state the union in question always has full responsibility. Having confirmation from WR doesn't mean jack in other words.

I agree with your opinion but there are some point which differ. In this case they hold info that player played for Tonga in 2013 or France U20 and anyway there are lists with players sent every year which are checked. Romanian Rugby Union have a letter of confirmation from Tonga that player is not capped (obtained with WR assistance!) and obviously the declaration of player himself. In Tahiti's case it was based on residency which cannot be proven, this is what I get from it and for being captured by another nation.

Since we are at WE, they have a twisted sense of humour: Frank Murphy who butchered Russian's chances is appointed to two of Russia's tests in June:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJfZj-SMq4A

http://officiating.worldrugby.org/index ... ents&id=65

amzro wrote:

Toro wrote:

Zakar wrote:More complicated than that aparently as Spain (and possibly the others) had allegedly asked WR to confirm the eligibility of the players in question. Farking comedy of errors.

It would appear WR don't take responsibility for researching this, they can confirm eligibility based on info sent to them but I assume but they state the union in question always has full responsibility. Having confirmation from WR doesn't mean jack in other words.

I agree with your opinion but there are some point which differ. In this case they hold info that player played for Tonga in 2013 or France U20 and anyway there are lists with players sent every year which are checked. Romanian Rugby Union have a letter of confirmation from Tonga that player is not capped (obtained with WR assistance!) and obviously the declaration of player himself. In Tahiti's case it was based on residency which cannot be proven, this is what I get from it and for being captured by another nation.

Since we are at WE, they have a twisted sense of humour: Frank Murphy who butchered Russian's chances is appointed to two of Russia's tests in June:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJfZj-SMq4A

http://officiating.worldrugby.org/index ... ents&id=65

Haha ffs.

On the Tongan fella I read (not that that means it's true) that the sevens appearance may never have mean mentioned, so even if WR assisted this may not be something that jumps out on their database. Playing for U20s doesn't usually rule you out either and it could also have been overlooked of those teams were official 2nd teams at the time, it would certainly be harsh.

The sevens team has been a clear 'cap' in terms of capture for a while. I still haven't seen anything clear on that Tongan sevens team status in that Gold Case tournament and whether they were in the circuit or an invitational team.

amzro wrote:Luckily some part of the press start to be less sensationalist about Belgium - Spain game and actually annalyze the facts:

Ref analysis:
http://www.lerugbynistere.fr/chroniques ... 181545.php

Game analysis:
http://www.lerugbynistere.fr/videos/les ... 181903.php

Both articles lead to a simple conclusion, Belgium won deservedly and Spain lost because didn't played well enough.

No re-match imo but the situation of qualification may be changed depending of the eligibility issues. Allegedly Romania have one non-eligible players (Fakaosilea) while Spain have 4 (Belie, Visensang, Custoja, Fuster). Belgium apparently used 1 non-eligible player but not in the match vs Spain.

Visensang isn't an issue: http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2018/0 ... icroscope/
Custoja is also not an issue: http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2018/0 ... ification/

Belie and Fuster situations are unclear.

Toro wrote:The sevens team has been a clear 'cap' in terms of capture for a while. I still haven't seen anything clear on that Tongan sevens team status in that Gold Case tournament and whether they were in the circuit or an invitational team.

They were certainly invitational to make the numbers but not part of core group which played for qualifiers to JO. U20 cap can be spotted as easy as this one, I spotted it and made the checking without WR database.

goeagles wrote:
Belie and Fuster situations are unclear.

Belie's situation is crystal clear Those clarification don't count for past, it wasn't like they cleared what Unions declared back than. It wasn't made to clear players who were captured to be able to pick another nation. This is where the site get it wrong. Also read 8.3.

amzro wrote:

Toro wrote:The sevens team has been a clear 'cap' in terms of capture for a while. I still haven't seen anything clear on that Tongan sevens team status in that Gold Case tournament and whether they were in the circuit or an invitational team.

They were certainly invitational to make the numbers but not part of core group which played for qualifiers to JO. U20 cap can be spotted as easy as this one, I spotted it and made the checking without WR database.

Ok, and does that 100% not count him as capped or is it a grey area?

I also read that you can get capped for sevens as a U20 player and not be captured, not sure if this applies from U20 teams as well even though the team may be classified at that time as the official 2nd team.

Toro wrote:

amzro wrote:

Toro wrote:The sevens team has been a clear 'cap' in terms of capture for a while. I still haven't seen anything clear on that Tongan sevens team status in that Gold Case tournament and whether they were in the circuit or an invitational team.

They were certainly invitational to make the numbers but not part of core group which played for qualifiers to JO. U20 cap can be spotted as easy as this one, I spotted it and made the checking without WR database.

Ok, and does that 100% not count him as capped or is it a grey area?

I also read that you can get capped for sevens as a U20 player and not be captured, not sure if this applies from U20 teams as well even though the team may be classified at that time as the official 2nd team.

U20 only captured a player if the U20 team was the designated 2nd national team that year for that nation AND the player played for that team in a match against another nation who had declared their U20 team to be its 2nd national team. Check out those links I posted in response to amz. They have all the details on the situations of all 4 Spanish players.

You can get capped for 7s if you are under 18 and it does not capture you as you are still a minor but once you hit 18 you're captured. That holds true for any of the ways of being captured. This actually happened with Thretton Palamo years ago as he played for Samoa 7s as a 17 year old but subsequently decided to play for the US once he turned 18.

goeagles wrote:Check out those links I posted in response to amz.

Belie played a match where France U20 was Next Senior Rep team vs a Next Senior Rep Team (Wales u20). Even with the clarifications, this cannot act as a clearance for past once the player are captured.

The new wording of the Explanatory Guideline 6(c) suggests that retroactive application is not the case: “With effect from January 1, 2018, Unions may not designate their Under 20s National Representative Team as their next senior National Representative Team.”

Look from another perspective, the scope of the explanatory guideline was not to release players from capture but to clarify some aspects so it cannot be argue also from this perspective that once it is captured it was released by the new clarification.

More, it is a guideline not a regulation, it is meant to explain how regulations are applied for future and not to change them.