Planet Rugby Forum

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.

julian wrote:

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.

julian wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

julian wrote:

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.

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.

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.

shereblue wrote:Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

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".

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.

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.

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.

FullbackAce wrote:Congrats to Russia, Germany and Canada.

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.

clydecloggie wrote:

FullbackAce wrote:Congrats to Russia, Germany and Canada.

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.

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.

The higher sum for Romania is provided for by Regulation 8.5.1 because Romania is a Union that is represented on the Council.

Mr Mike wrote:

The higher sum for Romania is provided for by Regulation 8.5.1 because Romania is a Union that is represented on the Council.

canuckles wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

FullbackAce wrote:Congrats to Russia, Germany and Canada.

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.

piquant wrote:

Gavin Duffy wrote:

piquant wrote:

Gavin Duffy wrote:I'd love to see the full match analysis that led to the decision.

By the refs? Initially it wasn't that bad, but then Rolland got involved and insisted the report be redone as all bad. Odd that

Eh?

You wanted to see the match analysis done that led to the decision, it was done as per normal, but Rolland wasn't happy with it as it wasn't critical enough of the referee from a political standpoint so it was redone under Rolland's direction and now looks like the ref had a proper shocker. I have to say having watched the game the ref didn't get it all right imo but dear god I can't think of a game where the ref has, and it certainly didn't on a cursory viewing look like an absolute howler, we've seen worse in the 6N

LandOTurk wrote:

piquant wrote:

Gavin Duffy wrote:

piquant wrote:

Gavin Duffy wrote:I'd love to see the full match analysis that led to the decision.

By the refs? Initially it wasn't that bad, but then Rolland got involved and insisted the report be redone as all bad. Odd that

Eh?

You wanted to see the match analysis done that led to the decision, it was done as per normal, but Rolland wasn't happy with it as it wasn't critical enough of the referee from a political standpoint so it was redone under Rolland's direction and now looks like the ref had a proper shocker. I have to say having watched the game the ref didn't get it all right imo but dear god I can't think of a game where the ref has, and it certainly didn't on a cursory viewing look like an absolute howler, we've seen worse in the 6N

Clancy must be shitting himself. I can't recall a decent game from him.