Chat Forum
It is currently Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:11 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 168 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:46 am
Posts: 12543
Official WR statement. Belgium, Romania, Spain deducted points (disqualified). Russia through to RWC 2019, Germany vs Portugal for repechage. 14 days to appeal.

https://www.worldrugby.org/news/334794


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 4:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19433
Location: Wandering around Europe
so as expected then
well done russia
good news for samoa and canada as well


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19877
Location: balbriggan
spain romania and belgium kiscked out of qualifiers. according to l'equipe


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 9:32 pm
Posts: 3902
Location: look behind you
probably the fairest result


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 4:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:48 pm
Posts: 1622
Rugby Canada is now in full celebration mode. Their chances of qualifying have just gotten a huge boost.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 4:38 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3053
Quote:
For the detailed reasons set out above: (1) we have not set aside the result of the
match on 18 March 2018; and (2) we have found that Belgium, Spain and
Romania fielded ineligible players in RWCQ and Rugby European games and
determined that each Union should have deducted 5 points for each game in
which an ineligible player or players played. We have imposed financial
sanctions which are to be suspended for 5 years.


I wonder how many ineligible players have played for Tier 1 countries during the past years if any.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 4:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 5399
julian wrote:
Quote:
For the detailed reasons set out above: (1) we have not set aside the result of the
match on 18 March 2018; and (2) we have found that Belgium, Spain and
Romania fielded ineligible players in RWCQ and Rugby European games and
determined that each Union should have deducted 5 points for each game in
which an ineligible player or players played. We have imposed financial
sanctions which are to be suspended for 5 years.


I wonder how many ineligible players have played for Tier 1 countries during the past years if any.


We don't know, though we've certainly seen it. Though one issue is even if a tier 1 side had they likely wouldn't face expulsion from the World Cup as they aren't obliged to qualify in the same fashion as tier 2 and 3 nations, were a tier 1 side to make the same mistake as Wales they might face the same sanction as Wales (a fine) and simply carry on to play in the next six nations and world cup.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 5:15 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:14 am
Posts: 17988
Do world rugby not oversee these levels at all? You'd wonder how so many illegal players were able to see the field.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 5:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11983
Location: Indiana
julian wrote:
Quote:
For the detailed reasons set out above: (1) we have not set aside the result of the
match on 18 March 2018; and (2) we have found that Belgium, Spain and
Romania fielded ineligible players in RWCQ and Rugby European games and
determined that each Union should have deducted 5 points for each game in
which an ineligible player or players played. We have imposed financial
sanctions which are to be suspended for 5 years.


I wonder how many ineligible players have played for Tier 1 countries during the past years if any.


I imagine their unions' administrations are nowhere near as amateur hour.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 5:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 5399
Diego wrote:
Do world rugby not oversee these levels at all? You'd wonder how so many illegal players were able to see the field.


They set the rules and then expect others to carry out the actual work in following the rules. In many ways it's just an extension of how a club, uni or school side handles your registration


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 5:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11983
Location: Indiana
Diego wrote:
Do world rugby not oversee these levels at all? You'd wonder how so many illegal players were able to see the field.


I'm actually doing this shit right now because my club has qualified for a national playoff-level tournament and I'm in charge of making sure everyone is eligible. Just talking my national union, it's beyond ridiculous how the regulations are written. They go on and say "players must play this many games, must be registered by this date, must have an ID, yadda yadda yadda" and then state later "one club that reaches this level will be subjected to a full eligibility review". So they setup their rules and then only ensure 1 out of 8 is in compliance. :x


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11846
Diego wrote:
Do world rugby not oversee these levels at all? You'd wonder how so many illegal players were able to see the field.


I'd imagine they'll be doing a bit more oversight going forward to avoid future embarrassment like this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 6:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1340
Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 25507
Location: Gypsy Jack Nowell
It’s a handy ‘get out’ for world rugby.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10165
Location: Texas
goeagles wrote:
Diego wrote:
Do world rugby not oversee these levels at all? You'd wonder how so many illegal players were able to see the field.


I'd imagine they'll be doing a bit more oversight going forward to avoid future embarrassment like this.
Will they have (should they commit) the resources to undertake any more effective oversight than verifying by exception? Regulation 8 places the burden on individual Unions to verify and document eligibility and has some chunky penalties for failures. If standards have slipped I expect that they will sharpen up again pretty smartly and I’d rather have WR funds being used for development than comprehensive checking of individual eligibility.

I recall SA got stung for fielding an ineligible player in the Sevens a while back, usually that’s all it takes for Unions to improve practice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 6:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14342
Location: XPAT CUNT
piquant wrote:
Zakar wrote:
Why the fudge don't world rugby maintain a register of all players playing international rugby and their eligibility?


From time to time some organisations don't volunteer for extra work and costs.


If they'd been intelligent from the start, it would be piss all work, intern level stuff, and would have prevented this farce.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19146
Location: Sarnath in the land of Mnar
julian wrote:
Quote:
For the detailed reasons set out above: (1) we have not set aside the result of the
match on 18 March 2018; and (2) we have found that Belgium, Spain and
Romania fielded ineligible players in RWCQ and Rugby European games and
determined that each Union should have deducted 5 points for each game in
which an ineligible player or players played. We have imposed financial
sanctions which are to be suspended for 5 years.


I wonder how many ineligible players have played for Tier 1 countries during the past years if any.



You'd have to go back almost 20 years to Sinkinson and Howarth for Wales and Dave Hilton for Scotland. Can't think of any that could be even be regarded as suspect since to be honest as there is simply too much to lose for a Tier 1 side.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 6:35 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11739
Zakar wrote:
piquant wrote:
Zakar wrote:
Why the fudge don't world rugby maintain a register of all players playing international rugby and their eligibility?


From time to time some organisations don't volunteer for extra work and costs.


If they'd been intelligent from the start, it would be piss all work, intern level stuff, and would have prevented this farce.


This. Really not the most difficult task in the world. I was actually surprised there wasn't one in place when this all went postal.

Seems an odd oversight


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 6:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11983
Location: Indiana
Mr Mike wrote:
Will they have (should they commit) the resources to undertake any more effective oversight than verifying by exception? Regulation 8 places the burden on individual Unions to verify and document eligibility and has some chunky penalties for failures. If standards have slipped I expect that they will sharpen up again pretty smartly and I’d rather have WR funds being used for development than comprehensive checking of individual eligibility.


Then the unions can start picking homegrown players they developed as opposed to being the Romanians, Spaniards, or Belgians and declaring "our players are shit, let's go grab some Frenchmen and Tongans".


Last edited by Flyin Ryan on Tue May 15, 2018 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 6:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 83
Location: Bucharest
When France picked David Smith authorities stepped in, pointing out he was captured.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 6:43 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3053
shereblue wrote:
Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

Excellent point, I'd say NO. Would Spain have won that game (which on paper was the expected result) nothing of this would have come afloat.

Clearly the Discipline Committee had to find some grounds for a balance decision and they relied on the inelegibility issue to issue an equalized decision, putting aside the "Romanian Union+Romanian Ref" claim that Spain was rising.

Having seen so many poaching from Tier 1 sides I am at least astonished that this same issue have not happened often in the past.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 6:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2267
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Mr Mike wrote:
Will they have (should they commit) the resources to undertake any more effective oversight than verifying by exception? Regulation 8 places the burden on individual Unions to verify and document eligibility and has some chunky penalties for failures. If standards have slipped I expect that they will sharpen up again pretty smartly and I’d rather have WR funds being used for development than comprehensive checking of individual eligibility.


Then the unions can start picking homegrown players they developed as opposed to being the Romanians, Spaniards, or Belgians and declaring "our players are shit, let's go grab some Frenchmen and Tongans".


Tighten the eligibility issue and the international game would not be the dog's breakfast it has become.

WR does not really care about developing the game in Tier 2/3 countries. If it did, the big union would do things differently.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 6:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19146
Location: Sarnath in the land of Mnar
julian wrote:
shereblue wrote:
Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

Excellent point, I'd say NO. Would Spain have won that game (which on paper was the expected result) nothing of this would have come afloat.

Clearly the Discipline Committee had to find some grounds for a balance decision and they relied on the inelegibility issue to issue an equalized decision, putting aside the "Romanian Union+Romanian Ref" claim that Spain was rising.

Having seen so many poaching from Tier 1 sides I am at least astonished that this same issue have not happened often in the past.



Tier 1 sides tend to do their homework on player eligibility whether it be through ancestry or residency.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11846
Mr Mike wrote:
goeagles wrote:
Diego wrote:
Do world rugby not oversee these levels at all? You'd wonder how so many illegal players were able to see the field.


I'd imagine they'll be doing a bit more oversight going forward to avoid future embarrassment like this.
Will they have (should they commit) the resources to undertake any more effective oversight than verifying by exception? Regulation 8 places the burden on individual Unions to verify and document eligibility and has some chunky penalties for failures. If standards have slipped I expect that they will sharpen up again pretty smartly and I’d rather have WR funds being used for development than comprehensive checking of individual eligibility.

I recall SA got stung for fielding an ineligible player in the Sevens a while back, usually that’s all it takes for Unions to improve practice.


How much in the way of resources would it really take to create and maintain a database that unions could check? It's probably a de minimis amount in the scheme of things.

Anyway, my comment wasn't just about eligibility but about the RWCQs in general. This whole controversy started with Rugby Europe incompetence in assigning refs with a potential conflict of interest to an important match.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 6:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:33 pm
Posts: 1942
Congrats to Russia, Germany and Canada. :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 7:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11983
Location: Indiana
Hellraiser wrote:
julian wrote:
shereblue wrote:
Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

Excellent point, I'd say NO. Would Spain have won that game (which on paper was the expected result) nothing of this would have come afloat.

Clearly the Discipline Committee had to find some grounds for a balance decision and they relied on the inelegibility issue to issue an equalized decision, putting aside the "Romanian Union+Romanian Ref" claim that Spain was rising.

Having seen so many poaching from Tier 1 sides I am at least astonished that this same issue have not happened often in the past.



Tier 1 sides tend to do their homework on player eligibility whether it be through ancestry or residency.


Those sides also get a lot more media attention to be fair. If England didn't do their homework on who is playing for them, I'm sure some journalist in Cardiff or Planet Rugby poster would and call them out on it. That doesn't really exist below the top levels.

Focusing on the long-term, what does this do to the 3 countries? I have to think it's most devastating to Romania who were probably counting on that check more than Spain or Belgium's budgets were.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 7:04 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 1363
FullbackAce wrote:
Congrats to Russia, Germany and Canada. :thumbup:


Will be interesting to see if this is ends the Heidelberg player strike, getting Germany back to full strength. If not I suspect it will be congrats to Russia, Portugal and Canada.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 7:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10165
Location: Texas
goeagles wrote:
Mr Mike wrote:
goeagles wrote:
Diego wrote:
Do world rugby not oversee these levels at all? You'd wonder how so many illegal players were able to see the field.


I'd imagine they'll be doing a bit more oversight going forward to avoid future embarrassment like this.
Will they have (should they commit) the resources to undertake any more effective oversight than verifying by exception? Regulation 8 places the burden on individual Unions to verify and document eligibility and has some chunky penalties for failures. If standards have slipped I expect that they will sharpen up again pretty smartly and I’d rather have WR funds being used for development than comprehensive checking of individual eligibility.

I recall SA got stung for fielding an ineligible player in the Sevens a while back, usually that’s all it takes for Unions to improve practice.


How much in the way of resources would it really take to create and maintain a database that unions could check? It's probably a de minimis amount in the scheme of things.

Anyway, my comment wasn't just about eligibility but about the RWCQs in general. This whole controversy started with Rugby Europe incompetence in assigning refs with a potential conflict of interest to an important match.
We are probably approaching this from different perspective. Mine is on verification instead of the database, which would be the product of information provided by the Unions. Looking at the report it illustrates quite well the challenges as each Union had very different issues, including the mess of determining which team is a second XV. I expect Romania feels most aggrieved, given the efforts they went to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 7:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:33 pm
Posts: 1942
clydecloggie wrote:
FullbackAce wrote:
Congrats to Russia, Germany and Canada. :thumbup:


Will be interesting to see if this is ends the Heidelberg player strike, getting Germany back to full strength. If not I suspect it will be congrats to Russia, Portugal and Canada.

If Germans don't get their shite together they don't deserve RWC anyway. They've been handed the biggest lifeline in rugby history, hopefully they're smart enough to take it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 7:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2267
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Hellraiser wrote:
julian wrote:
shereblue wrote:
Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

Excellent point, I'd say NO. Would Spain have won that game (which on paper was the expected result) nothing of this would have come afloat.

Clearly the Discipline Committee had to find some grounds for a balance decision and they relied on the inelegibility issue to issue an equalized decision, putting aside the "Romanian Union+Romanian Ref" claim that Spain was rising.

Having seen so many poaching from Tier 1 sides I am at least astonished that this same issue have not happened often in the past.



Tier 1 sides tend to do their homework on player eligibility whether it be through ancestry or residency.


Those sides also get a lot more media attention to be fair. If England didn't do their homework on who is playing for them, I'm sure some journalist in Cardiff or Planet Rugby poster would and call them out on it. That doesn't really exist below the top levels.



Focusing on the long-term, what does this do to the 3 countries? I have to think it's most devastating to Romania who were probably counting on that check more than Spain or Belgium's budgets were.


I doubt WR will put Romania to a Tier Three status or schedule. Does Romania have a vote on the council? Rugby Canada has said it would be out $1-1.2 million per year if we do not make the Rugby World Cup.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 7:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10165
Location: Texas
Quote:
The higher sum for Romania is provided for by Regulation 8.5.1 because Romania is a Union that is represented on the Council.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 7:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2267
Mr Mike wrote:
Quote:
The higher sum for Romania is provided for by Regulation 8.5.1 because Romania is a Union that is represented on the Council.


Ooof. Stripped of its vote?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 7:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10165
Location: Texas
canuckles wrote:
Mr Mike wrote:
Quote:
The higher sum for Romania is provided for by Regulation 8.5.1 because Romania is a Union that is represented on the Council.


Ooof. Stripped of its vote?

I don’t believe the regulation provides for that punishment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 7:17 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3053
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Hellraiser wrote:
julian wrote:
shereblue wrote:
Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

Excellent point, I'd say NO. Would Spain have won that game (which on paper was the expected result) nothing of this would have come afloat.

Clearly the Discipline Committee had to find some grounds for a balance decision and they relied on the inelegibility issue to issue an equalized decision, putting aside the "Romanian Union+Romanian Ref" claim that Spain was rising.

Having seen so many poaching from Tier 1 sides I am at least astonished that this same issue have not happened often in the past.



Tier 1 sides tend to do their homework on player eligibility whether it be through ancestry or residency.


Those sides also get a lot more media attention to be fair. If England didn't do their homework on who is playing for them, I'm sure some journalist in Cardiff or Planet Rugby poster would and call them out on it. That doesn't really exist below the top levels.

Focusing on the long-term, what does this do to the 3 countries? I have to think it's most devastating to Romania who were probably counting on that check more than Spain or Belgium's budgets were.

I may be mixing my emotional disapproving reaction to poaching with elegbility.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 8:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11411
Good outcome.

Does this mean [Germany or Portugal] v Samoa qualifiers still go ahead in June?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 8:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 5399
julian wrote:
shereblue wrote:
Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

Excellent point, I'd say NO. Would Spain have won that game (which on paper was the expected result) nothing of this would have come afloat.

Clearly the Discipline Committee had to find some grounds for a balance decision and they relied on the inelegibility issue to issue an equalized decision, putting aside the "Romanian Union+Romanian Ref" claim that Spain was rising.

Having seen so many poaching from Tier 1 sides I am at least astonished that this same issue have not happened often in the past.


Frankly the ref wasn't that bad, he made some mistakes but so do most refs. The problem was Spain lost and weren't happy, which was the same situation when Romania lost a game to Spain they expected to win, both teams and sets of fans threw some toys out of the pram. And even that's not unique to Spain and Romania, most 6N and RC games there are complaints about the ref


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 9:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10165
Location: Texas
piquant wrote:
julian wrote:
shereblue wrote:
Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

Excellent point, I'd say NO. Would Spain have won that game (which on paper was the expected result) nothing of this would have come afloat.

Clearly the Discipline Committee had to find some grounds for a balance decision and they relied on the inelegibility issue to issue an equalized decision, putting aside the "Romanian Union+Romanian Ref" claim that Spain was rising.

Having seen so many poaching from Tier 1 sides I am at least astonished that this same issue have not happened often in the past.


Frankly the ref wasn't that bad, he made some mistakes but so do most refs. The problem was Spain lost and weren't happy, which was the same situation when Romania lost a game to Spain they expected to win, both teams and sets of fans threw some toys out of the pram. And even that's not unique to Spain and Romania, most 6N and RC games there are complaints about the ref

The report wasn’t particularly positive.
Quote:
World Rugby pointed to the analysis of the referee’s performance carried out after the game (such an analysis is carried out with all international referees) which suggested that the referee’s performance had been poor, not up to usual standards, and had focussed on refereeing one team and ignoring the other. Spain pointed to the “performance review” carried out in relation to the referee and noted the comment of one official from Rugby Europe that the referee had betrayed the trust that Rugby Europe had shown in him by not replacing him at Spain’s request before the match.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 9:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 5399
Mr Mike wrote:
piquant wrote:
julian wrote:
shereblue wrote:
Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

Excellent point, I'd say NO. Would Spain have won that game (which on paper was the expected result) nothing of this would have come afloat.

Clearly the Discipline Committee had to find some grounds for a balance decision and they relied on the inelegibility issue to issue an equalized decision, putting aside the "Romanian Union+Romanian Ref" claim that Spain was rising.

Having seen so many poaching from Tier 1 sides I am at least astonished that this same issue have not happened often in the past.


Frankly the ref wasn't that bad, he made some mistakes but so do most refs. The problem was Spain lost and weren't happy, which was the same situation when Romania lost a game to Spain they expected to win, both teams and sets of fans threw some toys out of the pram. And even that's not unique to Spain and Romania, most 6N and RC games there are complaints about the ref

The report wasn’t particularly positive.
Quote:
World Rugby pointed to the analysis of the referee’s performance carried out after the game (such an analysis is carried out with all international referees) which suggested that the referee’s performance had been poor, not up to usual standards, and had focussed on refereeing one team and ignoring the other. Spain pointed to the “performance review” carried out in relation to the referee and noted the comment of one official from Rugby Europe that the referee had betrayed the trust that Rugby Europe had shown in him by not replacing him at Spain’s request before the match.


It wasn't a great performance having watched it, but I've seen worse. And the report as reported on there was gotten to as part of a political process, originally it wasn't so bad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 10:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14418
Location: Tahstown
FullbackAce wrote:
Congrats to Russia, Germany and Canada. :thumbup:

WR should throw some coaching at these teams now or 100 point scores are back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 10:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14418
Location: Tahstown
canuckles wrote:
Flyin Ryan wrote:
Hellraiser wrote:
julian wrote:
shereblue wrote:
Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

Excellent point, I'd say NO. Would Spain have won that game (which on paper was the expected result) nothing of this would have come afloat.

Clearly the Discipline Committee had to find some grounds for a balance decision and they relied on the inelegibility issue to issue an equalized decision, putting aside the "Romanian Union+Romanian Ref" claim that Spain was rising.

Having seen so many poaching from Tier 1 sides I am at least astonished that this same issue have not happened often in the past.



Tier 1 sides tend to do their homework on player eligibility whether it be through ancestry or residency.


Those sides also get a lot more media attention to be fair. If England didn't do their homework on who is playing for them, I'm sure some journalist in Cardiff or Planet Rugby poster would and call them out on it. That doesn't really exist below the top levels.



Focusing on the long-term, what does this do to the 3 countries? I have to think it's most devastating to Romania who were probably counting on that check more than Spain or Belgium's budgets were.


I doubt WR will put Romania to a Tier Three status or schedule. Does Romania have a vote on the council? Rugby Canada has said it would be out $1-1.2 million per year if we do not make the Rugby World Cup.

This could kill rugby in Romania?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 168 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArnoldVDH, assfly, Bert, bessantj, Big Nipper, bimboman, Bing [Bot], BlackMac, Boxcar Ira, clydecloggie, crash 669, dam0, Diego, eldanielfire, etherman, feckwanker, frillage, Jumper, KnuckleDragger, koroke hangareka, Margin_Walker, MungoMan, Nolanator, penguin, PornDog, Poshprop, Rossco, ruckinhell, SASP, Short Man Syndrome, The Sun God, Toro, Turbogoat, unseenwork, Wilderbeast, Wilson's Toffee and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group