RugbyRebels

The sanctions as given above are not the final word on this, rather it's WR setting out what they think should happen. Now the unions will respond, Spain with why it's a great ruling (with lobbying assistance from Pichot), and Russia and Romania with why it's not a good decision

I still have no idea what's going to happen, day by day the lobbying for Spain seems helpful, and yet today I've just had it explained to me how the facts are even worse than I thought for Spain, it had to be explained to me only as the evidence was right in front of my eyes and I still didn't see it.

That latest relates to how Spain handles dual eligibility matters.

Digby wrote:That latest relates to how Spain handles dual eligibility matters.

Surely it shouldn't matter how Spain handles dual eligibility, as WR's rules would take precedence?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:That latest relates to how Spain handles dual eligibility matters.

Surely it shouldn't matter how Spain handles dual eligibility, as WR's rules would take precedence?

Puja

I'll come back to this after the final decision is made. Though I don't have the sense WR rules are key, instead it seems it's a political call

Just seen the Russian response to the WR sanctions submissions, it's an outstanding read being pretty much an 8 page rant. It also rather misses the point as they're essentially arguing there's a strict liability when WR have already agreed the liability. What they want to argue is the sanction as that's where there's mitigation Vs what we saw with Tahiti, and I don't know they've advanced much of a case for aggravating factors. Of course I'm no lawyer, so maybe they have done enough.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:That latest relates to how Spain handles dual eligibility matters.

Surely it shouldn't matter how Spain handles dual eligibility, as WR's rules would take precedence?

Puja

I'll come back to this after the final decision is made. Though I don't have the sense WR rules are key, instead it seems it's a political call

I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Puja

Puja wrote:
I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Puja

They might be able to sit on enough rugby journalists any stories never go anywhere, or Spain opening the 2019 WC could be very embarrassing for them

I think today is the last day for the various unions to submit responses to the World Rugby submissions, or at least to submit in writing. They can submit tomorrow, but then they'd have to attend in person and at a guess they'll not be paying lawyers to travel around Europe, but you never know.

Just to add this thread is clearly being read by people outside the forum, I know this as I've had if not complaints then strongly worded requests not to post up certain details, which is actually quite reasonable seeing as some of those at WR wouldn't have mentioned certain things in the first place if they'd known I'd enter such details into a public arena. Whether people from outside the forum reading this suggests there's any influence being made by opinions expressed on here, well on that I have my doubts, it's just not enough publicity to make WR care with all five of us reading this, and WR are probably right this case will not have them needing to worry about the optics as the teams involved just aren't big enough names. However given the opening match of the WC is Japand Vs Europe 1 there is some trepidation the opening game could be make rugby a bit of a laughing stock - tbh rugby should be a laughing stock given how this has all come about.

The Russians are no doubt paying close attention to the matter due to the harsh sanctions they received after fielding a number of South African players some years ago. World Rugby has never displayed a particularly welcoming attitude toward the giant Eastern European nation, and any hint of bias or lenience in this instance will be duly noted.

Meanwhile, Friday seems the most likely date for the next announcement.

As above the Russian response is laughable. I'm not a lawyer and even I can tell they've largely if not totally missed the point with their submissions. If they're going to adopt a victim mentality if they don't like the outcome then so be it, I don't remember their problems from a few seasons back, and I don't know thusly if the cases should draw reasonable comparison, I don't think they detailed it in their submissions mind, so on the face of it they're not equating the two


Edit - I've double checked the Russian response, again I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty confident they don't bring up any comparison with previous actions they've faced. Instead they're just arguing there's a liability, that there's a liability, and that there's a liability, and again the WR submissions they're responding to already detail there's a liability, so I can't see WR changing much just 'cause Russia is saying there's really, really, really a liability. But again I'm no lawyer, so maybe the Russians have judged their response appropriately

Further edit - The liability/strict liability being established in this case is as per English law, for anyone that cares to do some background reading.

This article explains the Russian case mentioned:

The International Rugby Board have upheld last month's decision to expel Russia from this year's Rugby World Cup for fielding three ineligible players.

World rugby's governing body turned down an appeal by Russia yesterday, but a £75,000 fine imposed on the Rugby Union of Russia was suspended for three years after the appeals committee decided that the penalty could ruin the sport in that country.

The IRB added that if there were no further breaches of the regulations within that period, the fine would be deemed to have been paid.

"The penalty imposed last month was the minimum provided for under the regulations, which was well known to every union," IRB secretary general Mike Miller said.

"In ratifying expulsion from rugby World Cup, yet suspending the fine for three years, the committee have shown both determination to stamp out abuse of the regulations, and compassion for the financial circumstances of one of our most important developing unions."

The expulsion came after the Spanish Rugby Union had issued a complaint relating to the South African-born players - Johan Hendriks, Reiner Volshenck and Werner Pieterse - after a narrow loss to Russia over two legs in qualifiers in October and November.

The RUR responded by saying the players all had a Russian grandparent and had already played for the team.

But the IRB dismissed the claim and ruled that the players were ineligible and that an independent examination of documents submitted by the RUR was not satisfactory.

Ulster's former South Africa prop, Robbie Kempson, signed a contract with SA Rugby yesterday to revive his international career.

Kempson has been loaned to South Africa for seven months and will be available for their 2003 international season, including October and November's World Cup.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugby ... -cold.html

I didn't click on the link, but if that's the article then it doesn't explain the case. One might claim it sets a broad outline, but there's no explanation of what the situation was. All we could say is Russia was found liable, and as per the recent hearings into Spain, Belgium and Romanaia those three nations have been found liable too.

Very simply, the Russians provided documents it believed proved the trio could play for Russia via Russian-born grandparents. Two of the cases looked legit. The third not so much. But all were playing domestic rugby in Russia, and had been for about two years, from memory. The necessary documents were presented to World Rugby, but were not accepted. Exhibit A: http://archive.li/bmMb8 Russia were thus denied the chance to play at heir first World Cup (2003) - 8 years before actually doing so (2011). Interesting that the complaint was made by Spain, who qualified in their place. This time it looks very much like a reversal of roles, at least as far as the Spanish case is concerned.

Another report, this time from the BBC:

Russia have said they will appeal against their expulsion from the 2003 World Cup qualifying tournament for fielding ineligible players.
The International Rugby Board took the action after Spain claimed that three South African-born players should not have been allowed to represent Russia against them last year.

But Russian Rugby Union president Yury Nikolayev said the ruling came as a shock as the IRB had already rejected a previous complaint from Georgia.

The IRB verdict is completely illogical - Russian rugby chief Yury Nikolayev

"We were astonished by the decision to exclude our squad from the World Cup and fine us," said Nikolayev.

"The IRB has already confirmed earlier that the three players of South African origin have the right to play for Russia.

"However, after Spain's complaint they have unexpectedly changed their mind.

"The IRB verdict is completely illogical. We are now set to appeal on this decision."

Not satisfied

The IRB ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Johan Hendriks, Reiner Volshenck and Werner Pieterse were eligible to play for Russia.

All three players had taken part in the victories over Spain in October and November.

"The judicial officer asked the RUR for clear and indisputable evidence to support its claim that, in the case of all three players, a grandparent had been of Russian nationality," the IRB said in a statement on Wednesday.

"The judicial officer was not, however, satisfied that the documents in question could be depended upon."

If Russia lose the appeal or decide not to contest the ruling, which also carries a £75,000 fine, Spain will replace them in the qualifiers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_u ... 685815.stm

So the necessary documents held by the Russians were specifically not the necessary documents? Also I've no idea what the recommended sanctions likely to be imposed then would perhaps have changed.

Sounds now like there might be points deductions for both Spain and Romania, which would progress Germany and Russia if all else stays the same, or ceteris paribus and all that

Well, that'd put the cat amongst the pigeons. Japan vs Russia isn't exactly the traditional big opening to the RWC. I'm guessing Europe 1 were picked as the opener as Romania was the biggest team that the IRB were 100% confident that Japan would beat, but that challenge has gradually been getting smaller and smaller as first Spain and now Russia are offered up.

I wonder if the DRV and Peter Wild will make friends if there's a place in the repechage in the offing. A fully equipped German side probably wouldn't be strong enough to take down Canada, but there's always a puncher's chance. However if they don't settle their differences, they're not even strong enough to see off Portugal let alone anyone else.

Puja

It's also possible I've been lied to and/or there are communication issues between WR and RE and any outside person or agency they talk to, the basic failures in administration this case has highlighted really shows (and as noted above) you wouldn't trust anyone involved to organise a piss up in a brewery, there is seriously not one competent body involved in this.

I'm looking at the decision, and I have to say I don't understand it (not the argument but what happens next)

There are points deductions for Spain and Romania and Belgium to go alongside the fines. So, Georgia are already qualified, Russia take the place of EU1 and Germany are the new EU2. However, and this is where I lose the plot, they seem to be saying the replay will go ahead and they don't think that's a problem as this is the one time anyone will be able to cite a perception of bias (and we'll ignored as perceptions go that's clearly rubbish) and that following the replay Spain could still overtake Germany to become the EU2 team who'll play Samoa. What I can't fathom in this instance is how Spain are behind Romania before this ruling, will lose 10 more points than Romania by dint of selecting ineligible players in more games, and can still move ahead of Romania and Germany to be the EU2 side, something is amiss

But it's getting closer

Digby wrote:I'm looking at the decision, and I have to say I don't understand it (not the argument but what happens next)

There are points deductions for Spain and Romania and Belgium to go alongside the fines. So, Georgia are already qualified, Russia take the place of EU1 and Germany are the new EU2. However, and this is where I lose the plot, they seem to be saying the replay will go ahead and they don't think that's a problem as this is the one time anyone will be able to cite a perception of bias (and we'll ignored as perceptions go that's clearly rubbish) and that following the replay Spain could still overtake Germany to become the EU2 team who'll play Samoa. What I can't fathom in this instance is how Spain are behind Romania before this ruling, will lose 10 more points than Romania by dint of selecting ineligible players in more games, and can still move ahead of Romania and Germany to be the EU2 side, something is amiss

But it's getting closer

If some of Spain's points deductions are for playing ineligible players in the Belgium game, then maybe that deduction would be wiped out by the replay? Maybe? Who knows.

While that is not an emotionally satisfying conclusion, you get the feeling that it would be the morally right one, especially given the previous treatment of Russia wrt ineligible players.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:I'm looking at the decision, and I have to say I don't understand it (not the argument but what happens next)

There are points deductions for Spain and Romania and Belgium to go alongside the fines. So, Georgia are already qualified, Russia take the place of EU1 and Germany are the new EU2. However, and this is where I lose the plot, they seem to be saying the replay will go ahead and they don't think that's a problem as this is the one time anyone will be able to cite a perception of bias (and we'll ignored as perceptions go that's clearly rubbish) and that following the replay Spain could still overtake Germany to become the EU2 team who'll play Samoa. What I can't fathom in this instance is how Spain are behind Romania before this ruling, will lose 10 more points than Romania by dint of selecting ineligible players in more games, and can still move ahead of Romania and Germany to be the EU2 side, something is amiss

But it's getting closer

If some of Spain's points deductions are for playing ineligible players in the Belgium game, then maybe that deduction would be wiped out by the replay? Maybe? Who knows.

While that is not an emotionally satisfying conclusion, you get the feeling that it would be the morally right one, especially given the previous treatment of Russia wrt ineligible players.

Puja

The Russia situation was different to the Spanish situation, which was different to the Beglian, which was different....

In all scenarios they're guilty as per the strict liability. But WR does no favours by not having a database the various unions can utilise, and too these sanctions are very different when applied to the tier 2 and tier 3 nations Vs what would happen to a tier 1 side. The tier 1 sides could be hit with a financial sanction, or dropped down the RC or 6N table, but they couldn't be excluded from the WC by dropping points as they auto qualify

So there's a de facto double standard to parties who might be hit by the same sanction, that doesn't see right even before it seems worse we'd hit tier 2 and below sides harder

I can understand entirely why the IRB doesn't want to set up a database and put all the historical records in, as that would be a lot of work, but if they started one now just recording tied players from the next set of internationals, then it would be nearly comprehensive in about 5-6 years and completely comprehensive in 10-12. And yes, having something that won't be 100% for several years sounds flawed, but it's a hell of a lot better than never starting.

Puja

As before I think they don't want to do it as they outsource the risk of fecking this up to the respective unions. And yes it's a lot of admin, but if you want to be the global administrative body then it shouldn't be a surprise it entails a lot of admin.

This situation might get worse in some senses now we're moving to 60 month residency. As we see in the news with Windrush accurate record keeping over many years isn't remotely decent even in a country with a civil service as well funded as the UKs

Meanwhile, Heidelberg apparently played the European Challenge Cup qualification with many players who don’t normally play for the Club. They play for other clubs in Germany or even in another country (Switzerland).

- Marcel Henn (Neckarsulm Rugby)
- Mark Fairhurst (Neckarsulm Rugby)
- Nikolai Klewinghaus (SC Neuenheim)
- Paul Schuele (Handschuhsheim)
- Wynston Cameron-Dow (Frankfurt 80)
- Donovan O’Grady (Swiss Rugby), he can’t have a playing license for Germany. Please check with the german federation.

Also they have registered three players from Tonga and South Africa last minute who are not allowed to play for Heidelberg in the 1st division (Bundesliga). They haven’t played one single game for Heidelberg before except in the semifinal and final in Europe.

- Marcel Human
- Siegfried Fisiihoi
- Vian Riekert

2 more weeks of suspense in store? Apparently the final decision announcement on eligibility issues is set for 10th of May.