Rugby’s volcanic eruption

Shock results in the Rugby World Cup have caused a seismic shift that could change the tectonic plates of what, in France, is referred to as the Oval Planet.

The feat of Argentina to become the first country from outside the old school of eight (England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, France, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia) to reach the last four of the Cup has created an undeniable case for the Pumas to be included in a major competition while it is clear that the like of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa can no longer be left out of the loop.

There are massive complications, not the least being an overcrowded fixture list choked with vested interests, but it is clear that if the IRB is serious about “growing the game” something will have to be done to grant the afore-mentioned countries what amounts to a universal franchise that for too long has been withheld.

One immediate outcome is that the travel agents of New Zealand, Australia and South Africa must start checking on the availability of flights to Suva, Apia and Nuku'alofa, the capitals of our southern hemisphere cousins.

Even though New Zealand, to a greater extent, and Australia have plundered the talent in the islands it is inexcusable that the All Blacks have never played a test in any of Fiji, Tonga or Samoa while the Wallabies have not been to Samoa and Tonga and last went to Suva in 1984.

The Springboks, too, have not been to the islands for what would be matches of enormous significance to the three minnows whose outstanding players have long graced the Tri-Nations and Super 14.

The IRB understandably is reluctant to redraw rugby’s geography for fear of the islands being unable to sustain their current resurgence – but the conundrum for them is that they are only ever at full strength during Rugby World Cups because for the rest of the time their players are scattered to the four corners of the globe.

In the case of Argentina the solution is also not as simple as it might seem – i.e. expand the Six Nations to Seven by including them.

That would be preferable to the Pumas seeing as most of their players are already in Europe – there has even been talk of their being based in Spanish-speaking Madrid – but the reality is that there is just no room given the already highly-charged atmosphere between professional clubs and country.

The solution would appear to be to include the Argentines in the Tri-Nations although this would probably be unworkable because of time differences and players’ commitment to the clubs who pay and expect them to be in Europe.

It goes without saying that to include the islands and Argentina in major tournaments could have disastrous outcomes if they are unable to compete with their best teams, but they have shown that their claims can no longer be ignored – especially when the favoured status of certain of the northern hemisphere teams is more historic than actual playing strength or current contribution to the game.

Certainly, watching Fiji, with those massive and skilful runners of theirs, taking the game to the Boks in Marseille you came to the conclusion that here was a team that could, with more time together and more exposure, win the World Cup whereas that can not be said for Wales, Italy, Scotland and even Ireland.

If there is one thing this wonderfully joyous World Cup in France is shown then it’s that the time for signal global season is now and if that entails the scrapping of the Six Nations and the Tri-Nations to incorporate to create a single international fixture list, possibly in two or three tiers with promotion and relegation, then so be it.

Le Journal de la Coupe de Monde

It had to happen: “Saracens have rushed to strengthen their back-three options with the short-term signing of Canada's Daniel van der Merwe,” read a news bulletin from England. Surely a “Van” in the Wallabies or the All Blacks can’t be far off.”

All pumped up? That’s the blokes who make the balls. “The Gilbert Synergie ball in use at the Rugby World Cup has received the thumbs up from players and administrators alike,” according to a Press Release from the IRB following complaints from some of the top kickers. It makes interesting reading:

“The ball was specifically designed to deliver the same kicking performance as the Xact ball used in the 2003 Rugby World Cup, whilst offering improved handling. Data commissioned from a leading independent sports statistics provider proves that this objective has been achieved in the tournament to date, with kicking success on a par with 2003 and superb handling and improved offloading from the tackle much in evidence. (Yeah right!)

“Although no official complaint had been made by any of the participating teams, RWC Limited requested that Gilbert investigate some comments received from New Zealand questioning the quality of the balls used in practice. Extensive research, comprising laboratory and on-field tests, discussion with players and administrators and a thorough analysis of logistics has enabled the ball manufacturer to prove without reservation that there is no difference between any of the balls used throughout the tournament nor with the Gilbert Synergie balls widely used in international matches since October 2006. It has been concluded that any perceived differences reported can be explained by incorrect inflation and natural wear and tear, and this has been explained to the teams.

“We were taken aback by the comments made and the subsequent damaging media coverage - which had no basis whatsoever,” said Gilbert Sales & Marketing Director, Richard Gray. “Of course it is sometimes more difficult to adapt to a ball if you have been used to a different product and this perhaps explains the contrast between a few comments from some quarters and the actual kicking performances overall throughout the tournament. We are delighted but not surprised that RWC Limited have accepted our findings without reservation and have once again given their stamp of approval to our products.” I’m sure this will make Dan Carter and Stirling Mortlock feel a lot better when they touch down on the far side of the globe.

Who’s fooling whom? I suppose Paddy O’Brien, the IRB’s head of referees, had to stand up for his men, particularly the cocky Wayne Barnes who has become public enemy No1 in New Zealand, but he might have been more measured in choosing his words. "The IRB believes the standard of refereeing is the highest it has ever been at a Rugby World Cup tournament.” C’mon Paddy pull the other one; the truth is it has been appallingly inconsistent; especially when it comes to offsides at the ruck & maul and what constitutes dangerous play.

On that note here are some haunting words from the Kiwi with the Irish name, taken from the programme for Match 1. “Anonymity – The referee should not be the centre of attention. (Tell that to Wayne Barnes!) He should let the players dictate the matches within the laws of the game, be accurate in his decision making and where necessary make the big calls. We are asking a referee to be a lot of things at once and hope that Rugby World Cup 2007 will be talked about for the quality of the games rather than the decision making.” I leave you to make up your own mind as to whether they’ve succeeded.

On that note… Eddie Jones should be given his money back. Remember “our” Eddie, well he is now isn’t he?, was hit with a A$10,000 fine for criticizing referee Matt Goddard’s handling of the scrums in a Super 14 match. All Eddie said was that the four-stage, touchy-feely, scrum was a mess and what do we have now at the World Cup? – the crouch-touch-pause-engage call has been replaced by a count so quick it might as well be one phase; as Eddie said it should be. If there is some honour left in this world the ARU should refund him his cheque – but then again the referees are never wrong are they?