Rugby Europe International Championships

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Five of the Spanish players got lengthy bans for attacking the Romanian referee in the now infamous qualification match. Scrum half got the highest ban at 43 weeks, another guy got 36 weeks and the other three got 14 weeks each.

I don't think that is unreasonable. Their anger being justified or not, they can't lash out at the referee and threaten him on or off the pitch.

c.p.w.g.w

Any officials banned for letting the farce happen

irishbucsfan

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Any officials banned for letting the farce happen

Seperate investigation

Dubinusa

Spain were robbed. The rwc was within their grasp and the ref stole it from them. Of course they would go bat**** crazy. The ref needs a ban also as well as the fools that permitted him to officiate the match.

The Lost Sheep

Dubinusa wrote: »

Spain were robbed. The rwc was within their grasp and the ref stole it from them. Of course they would go bat**** crazy. The ref needs a ban also as well as the fools that permitted him to officiate the match.

What Spanish players did was incorrect. They had every right to be aggrieved but not do what they did.

Dubinusa

Right. But I think you would get similar reactions from other sides. We haven't seen refereeing that diabolical in our leagues. We have poor refs, but that was ridiculous. Bear in mind, Spain did ask for an alternate ref. It's wrong how they did react, but I'd lose my nut too if it happened to me.

prawnsambo

Dubinusa wrote: »

Right. But I think you would get similar reactions from other sides. We haven't seen refereeing that diabolical in our leagues. We have poor refs, but that was ridiculous. Bear in mind, Spain did ask for an alternate ref. It's wrong how they did react, but I'd lose my nut too if it happened to me.

I watched the video of the match a couple of times. The ref made a lot of mistakes, but in his defence, the breakdown and even the set-piece were a mess. There were penalties called that I felt were correct, but in all honesty he could have given two or three at each ruck. In either direction. You'd have to almost forensically examine each penalty and I wasn't that bored. My view was that at least half the penalties were correct. But the video was edited to show just the penalties he awarded, so I couldn't get a true picture of the match really.

Galego

Spain played horrible but when they eventually woke up the referee made some odd calls. Not an expert myself in Rugby but the referee should have shown a yellow card when a Belgium lad stopped a Spanish try (a pass)- I guess this is as obvious as a red card in soccer when you are the last defender. Also in the last 5 mins when Spain had all the momentum, and was within touching distance to win, the ref whistled a penalty for Belgium for God knows what. That just killed the game.

It is easy to blame the players for their reactions but they are only human and that was 2 years of hard work being thrown out of the window, Their biggest, and only, chance in a life time to play in a World Cup! These are not professional players like the soccer ones on the tv. And in the defense, there was not aggression to the ref. Buffon the other day was worst and yet to hear any bans......

LeinsterDub

The deduction of 5 points for any match in which a union fielded an ineligible player (40-point deduction for Spain, and a 30-point deduction for both Belgium and Romania). Therefore, based on a re-modelling of the Rugby Europe Championship tables in the context of Rugby World Cup 2019 qualifying, Russia would qualify as Europe 1 into Pool A replacing Romania and Germany will replace Spain in the European play-off against Portugal

World Rugby Regulation 8 stipulates mandatory financial penalties for breaches of £25,000 per ineligible player for a union not represented on the World Rugby Council and £100,000 for a union represented on Council. Therefore, the following financial sanctions will be applied, suspended for a period of five years conditional that no breaches occur during that period:
Belgium: £125,000 GBP (at a rate of £25,000 for a union not on Council x 5 ineligible players)
Spain: £50,000 GBP (at a rate of £25,000 for a union not on Council x 2 ineligible players)
Romania: £100,000 GBP (at a rate of £100,000 for a union on Council x 1 player)

https://www.worldrugby.org/news/334795?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

:eek::eek:

Rigor Mortis

WOW!
Not often the Ruskies come out the right side of an international sporting arbitration.

sydthebeat

a case of kill em all, let god sort them out

LeinsterDub

sydthebeat wrote: »

a case of kill em all, let god sort them out

The entire situation seems to be a farce. How did WE let 3 teams field ineligible players in multiple games. Why doesn't WR have a database where you can check a player's eligibility?

Squatter

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The entire situation seems to be a farce. How did WE let 3 teams field ineligible players in multiple games. Why doesn't WR have a database where you can check a player's eligibility?

"The Independent disputes committee determined that, although mistakes were made by Rugby Europe and participating unions, they had not acted in bad faith."

I don't know much about Rugby Europe, but if it's the relevant governing body then surely someone in there deserves a good kicking?

VillaMad

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The entire situation seems to be a farce. How did WE let 3 teams field ineligible players in multiple games. Why doesn't WR have a database where you can check a player's eligibility?

Have just read the file about the decisions.

Belgium breached the laws by playing 5 players who qualified through great grandparents. World Rugby's rules is that they would have had to have a parent or grandparent born in the country.

Spain played at least two guys who played for France at U20 level and therefore should have been ruled ineligible.

Romania played a Tongan Sione Faka'osilea who played in a World Sevens tournament for Tonga. When Romania went to select after he played in the Romanian league for a number of years, they asked him had he played for Tonga and he said no. They checked ESPN & Wikipedia to verify and asked Tonga who said he was available to play for Romania.

World Rugby say that it is not up to them to verify the eligibility of the player and it is up to the respective union. They say that if Romania had asked to verify with them his eligibilty, they would have told them that he had featured for Tonga.

Podge_irl

VillaMad wrote: »

Romania played a Tongan Sione Faka'osilea who played in a World Sevens tournament for Tonga. When Romania went to select after he played in the Romanian league for a number of years, they asked him had he played for Tonga and he said no. They checked ESPN & Wikipedia to verify and asked Tonga who said he was available to play for Romania.

World Rugby say that it is not up to them to verify the eligibility of the player and it is up to the respective union. They say that if Romania had asked to verify with them his eligibilty, they would have told them that he had featured for Tonga.

Ok, that is obviously by far the least egregious fault. Do World Rugby allow unions to simply ask them about a player's eligibility? Otherwise why bother going through all the other channels.

Edit: That said, the U20s committing players under certain circumstances is nonsense. That is gone now right?

VillaMad

Podge_irl wrote: »

Ok, that is obviously by far the least egregious fault. Do World Rugby allow unions to simply ask them about a player's eligibility? Otherwise why bother going through all the other channels.

Edit: That said, the U20s committing players under certain circumstances is nonsense. That is gone now right?

For the Romanian issue, they just say that Romania could have queried the selection with World Rugby and that in any case they should have done it more thoroughly. The player himself felt that playing for Tonga at a Sevens tournament didn't count so World Rugby say that Romania did not explain Regulation 8 correctly to the player.

As for the Spanish selection:

World Rugby submitted that the players were not eligible to play for Spain because although they had qualifying family connections with Spain, they had been captured by France by playing for France U20 against Wales U20 in March 2008 (in the case of Mathieu Belie) and for France U20 against Wales U20 in March 2012 (in the case of Bastien Fuster).

Quin_Dub

Podge_irl wrote: »

Ok, that is obviously by far the least egregious fault. Do World Rugby allow unions to simply ask them about a player's eligibility? Otherwise why bother going through all the other channels.

Edit: That said, the U20s committing players under certain circumstances is nonsense. That is gone now right?

It depends..

Basically if you play for a countries A or B team at Adult level in 15's or 7's then you are locked to that country. You can play youth/schools for anyone..

So - If a given country do not have a 'B' snr team, then the next one down is U20's - Which is considered "adult" rugby.

Playing for Ireland/England/Scotland and Italy U20's doesn't lock you to those countries , as they all have 'B' teams (regardless of how infrequently they actually play) but it does for Wales and France as they officially do not have a 'B' team.

Actually, there's a further wrinkle - Games for Wales/France only count against each other as in the case of the 2 Belgian lads.

Because they both don't have B teams it counts as an "Official" 2nd string game - But France vs Ireland for example doesn't because it's not an Official international as Ireland have a B team..

Podge_irl

VillaMad wrote: »

As for the Spanish selection:

Yeah, that is the problem. From what I recall it was literally only a France U20 v Wales U20 match that would tie players as they were the only tier 1 countries to declare their U20 teams the "next representative level". I think that rule is gone now?

On Romania - it is a bit rich of WR to claim that it is not their responsibility to check eligibility of players and then criticise Romania for not checking eligibility of players with them.

Podge_irl

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Playing for Ireland/England/Scotland and Italy U20's doesn't lock you to those countries , as they all have 'B' teams (regardless of how infrequently they actually play) but it does for Wales and France as they officially do not have a 'B' team.

It only locked you down if you played against another "next representative team". You could play for France U20 in 4 of 5 U20 6N matches and not be tied.

Quin_Dub

Podge_irl wrote: »

It only locked you down if you played against another "next representative team". You could play for France U20 in 4 of 5 U20 6N matches and not be tied.

Yes , updated my post

VillaMad

It must be also noted that the result of Belgium against Spain stands.

They felt that the appearance of bias was not enough to overturn the result. Belgium cited that the Six Nations uses referees from countries also participating in the competition and although World Rugby say that Rugby Europe should have changed the referee after Spain requested them to, that is not enough to change the result as they feel much more is needed to set aside the decisions of the referee after the event.

Eod100

VillaMad wrote: »

It must be also noted that the result of Belgium against Spain stands.

They felt that the appearance of bias was not enough to overturn the result. Belgium cited that the Six Nations uses referees from countries also participating in the competition and although World Rugby say that Rugby Europe should have changed the referee after Spain requested them to, that is not enough to change the result as they feel much more is needed to set aside the decisions of the referee after the event.

I thought at the time there was reports of multiple dubious decisions, but maybe they were exaggerated.

VillaMad

Eod100 wrote: »

I thought at the time there was reports of multiple dubious decisions, but maybe they were exaggerated.

The match performance of the referee was stated as poor on his report, so there probably was a number of dubious decisions, but unless it's proven to be match fixing, the result stands.

Eod100

VillaMad wrote: »

The match performance of the referee was stated as poor on his report, so there probably was a number of dubious decisions, but unless it's proven to be match fixing, the result stands.

That makes sense, although I didn't think there was a question of match fixing, more decisions made would have impacted result of the match. But guess usually even if that happens, there's no real comeback as such, unless as you say it was proven that these decisions were deliberate say.

Cosmo Kramer

I think the eligibility thing has allowed WR a bit of an escape route from a difficult situation here. Still feel a bit sorry for Spain as 1) they were clearly screwed over by the ref in the Belgium game and 2) the Under 20 rule involving France v Wales games only must be the stupidest in Rugby Union, and that seems to be the only eligibility rule they have fallen foul of, whereas Belgium's selection offences were much more clear cut. However, technically the decision to punish all three teams is correct.

I wonder if either Romania or Spain had qualified with no controversy would anyone at WR have picked up on the eligibility issues before the RWC? I suspect they'd never have found out.

Herpes Free Since03

All decisions are subject to appeal...and wouldn't be surprised if CAS are eventually involved

Guy:Incognito

When is the Germany - Portugal play off due to take place?

the perfect ten

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

When is the Germany - Portugal play off due to take place?

From the World Rugby website: -

Rescheduling is necessary to maximise time following the conclusion of independent disputes committee review of matters relating to the 2017-18 Rugby Europe Championship, a competition run by Rugby Europe that doubles as Rugby World Cup 2019 qualification.

Subject to any appeal of the disputes committee's decision, the winner of the European play-off between Germany and Portugal, provisionally scheduled for 9 June will play Samoa home and away in the play-off to determine the final Pool A place. The first leg will be played in Apia on 30 June with the return leg in Europe on 14 July.

The winner on aggregate will qualify for Japan 2019 as the play-off winner, joining Ireland, Scotland, Japan and Russia in Pool A. The loser will progress to the Repechage competition in November.

LeinsterDub

Herpes Free Since03 wrote: »

All decisions are subject to appeal...and wouldn't be surprised if CAS are eventually involved

Romania already saying they are appealing

https://twitter.com/RugbyRomania/status/996436286474014723

Bazzo

The Romanians are saying they followed all world rugby guidelines/protocol/whatever you want to call it when determining player eligibility

swiwi_

In other news Sepp Blatter is to take over the running of European rugby.

LeinsterDub

swiwi_ wrote: »

In other news Sepp Blatter is to take over the running of European rugby.

Great news that will be a massive cash injection

thebaz

As 6 Nations champions - I find it sad how badly run rugby is below the 6 leading Eurpean nations - the rugby authorities should be doing ther best to grow the game and run it properly so we can have more than the 5 usual suspects vying for Eurpean glory - i always find it strange how rugby just appeals to such a small number of nations - rugby would suit Poland, Germany, Sweden and other countries if the authorities organised it properly - but this WC fiasco just highlights how amateur rugby is organised below the 6 nations, at a time when Ireland is at the summit.

The Lost Sheep

thebaz wrote: »

As 6 Nations champions - I find it sad how badly run rugby is below the 6 leading Eurpean nations - the rugby authorities should be doing ther best to grow the game and run it properly so we can have more than the 5 usual suspects vying for Eurpean glory - i always find it strange how rugby just appeals to such a small number of nations - rugby would suit Poland, Germany, Sweden and other countries if the authorities organised it properly - but this WC fiasco just highlights how amateur rugby is organised below the 6 nations, at a time when Ireland is at the summit.

Rugby is virtually completely amateur in these countries. It will be a very long time before we have much more than the usual suspects in Europe. Especially with the 6 Nations being a closed shop
Rugby is simply dominated by expats in these countries and its hard to get it played enough in schools and then clubs
I dont see what Ireland at summit has to do with anything.

errlloyd

Was reading A Game for Hooligans by Huw Richards the other day, Romania first applied for (then 5 nations) membership back in 1966!

titan18

Fecks Samoa too even though they did nothing wrong. They'll lose some of their best players with the matches being moved out of the scheduled window and for when some players likely had plans

wp_rathead

No wonder Georgia are trying to get out of this comp

Rigor Mortis

titan18 wrote: »

Fecks Samoa too even though they did nothing wrong. They'll lose some of their best players with the matches being moved out of the scheduled window and for when some players likely had plans

If Samoa cant beat Portugal or this incarnation of Germany they have bigger issues.

titan18

Rigor Mortis wrote:

If Samoa cant beat Portugal or this incarnation of Germany they have bigger issues.

That is true but that's assuming that any appeal doesn't work, and there aren't further delays. I'd be pretty surprised if this was all that happened on this

Bazzo

Bazzo wrote: »

The Romanians are saying they followed all world rugby guidelines/protocol/whatever you want to call it when determining player eligibility

So in the full report it's revealed that they were using Wikipedia and ESPN to determine player eligibility. However, world rugby apparently doesn't keep any sort of database so I've no idea if that's actually considered adequate (crazy if it is).

Guy:Incognito

Wiki says he played 7s so they'd have needed to know the rule anyway. Wiki is not going to say "played 7s but if you are another countrys admin staff looking to check his availability, he's not"

irishbucsfan

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Wiki says he played 7s so they'd have needed to know the rule anyway. Wiki is not going to say "played 7s but if you are another countrys admin staff looking to check his availability, he's not"

Did Wiki say that back when they checked though?

Guy:Incognito

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Did Wiki say that back when they checked though?

Not sure , but is the EDIT in for not available for wiki?

Did the Romanians know the rule in the first place regardless?