Rugby - The Ball's Out!

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
How could you know if I was joking if I didn't know myself?

Sixth sense !

I'm going to have a close look at the AB team before I consider betting on their match with England.

Here is the french team :

De Villiers
Ibanez
Crenca
Brouzet
Pelous (Stade Toulousain)
Magne
Harinordoquy
Betsen
Galthié
Gelez
Heymans (Stade Toulousain)
Trailles
Castaignède (the return of the "Petit Prince" of Rugby)
Clerc (Stade Toulousain)
Brusque

[finbar]

The Steve Devine case - he was ruled eligible to play for the ABs - gets more and more bizarre:

Devine, 25, played for Australia in 1998, before stringent new rules designed to stop players for switching countries came into force two years ago.

The new regulation applies retroactively (sic) but New Zealand rugby chiefs asked the IRB to review Devine's case.

Under new eligibility laws implemented by the IRB in 2000, any player who has represented a country's test team, A team or in sevens, is unable to play for any other country.

According to the IRB, "the issue that required clarification was whether on the facts of this case the player's participation for an Australian sevens team on the one occasion in Dubai in 1998 meant that his eligibility was fixed for Australia."

And the game's world governing body insisted it had not ignored its own rules.

"This ruling is consistent with the rulings in previous similar cases involving players from Samoa, Australia, Canada and Hong Kong whereby in certain circumstances a player that played in a sevens match for one union prior to 2000, may be deemed eligible to play for another union," the IRB judgment said.

It added: "Having made enquires, the player (Devine) understood that participation in the Dubai tournament in 1998 would not affect his eligibility status which prior to the tournament he had committed to New Zealand."

And it maintained that he would not have participated if he had been aware that his one-off participation in a sevens tournament would have compromised his eligibility.

1. So the IRB's law that says a 7s rep appearance counts as a senior rep appearance - meaning you can't represent another country - is retrospective (not retroactive, as the NZRFU website puts it);

2. Devine had already committed to go to NZ before he represented Australia at 7s;

3. But, if he'd known the 7s appearance for Australia would affect his chances of representing New Zealand, he would have pulled out of the Australian 7s team;

4. The ABs knew he was ineligible when they selected him but did so in the hope of seeking dispensation;

5. The IRB says the decision isn't inconsistent with its own laws, and, in fact, is compatible with other decisions.

I have two observations:

(a) So a player's intent enters the equation?

(b) Why have the rules in the first place?

I don't have a problem with Steve Devine furthering his career - good luck to him, and congrats on his selection. Havak and I have had numerous discussions about the notions of eligibility - having agreed to disagree on the birth/eligibility factor - but the IRB really has a knack for making life difficult - for itself, and, in my debates with Havak, for me.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
The Steve Devine case - he was ruled eligible to play for the ABs - gets more and more bizarre...

In my own opinion, I have studied law for five years though that does not qualify me as an expert in Rugby law at all, the only thing that could be discussed is whether the sevens' team in which Steve Devine has played was a country test team or not.

I rather think the officials are actually embarassed with the fact the sevens has been included in this part of the law and that they are trying to establish a kind of "jurisprudence".

About retroactive and retrospective, my French/English dictionnary tells me they mean the same. "Rétroactif/ve is the french legal word with the same meaning.

[finbar]

Originally posted by finbar
I'm going to have a close look at the AB team before I consider betting on their match with England.

I'm quoting myself. How arrogant!

The selected AB team is nowhere near full-strength - despite John Mitchell's denials. I only wish they'd played that halves combination against the Wallabies - one rookie, and one who proved only last week that he can suffer the most amazing brain fades.

I honestly don't know enough about some of the English combination to form an opinion. I think, though, that if England can't beat this AB side, they've got problems.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
I'm quoting myself. How arrogant!

Please note no one has forced you to tell it !

The selected AB team is nowhere near full-strength - despite John Mitchell's denials.

Don't you think John Mitchell wants to test new players ? Bernard Laporte, for example, is clearly using this tests to throw new players in the arena as the RWC is nearing.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
In my own opinion, I have studied law for five years though that does not qualify me as an expert in Rugby law at all, the only thing that could be discussed is whether the sevens' team in which Steve Devine has played was a country test team or not.

He represented Australia at an international 7s tournament. Two years ago, the IRB decreed that representative 7s rugby constituted representing your country at senior level, which disqualified you from representing another country.

Now, they're saying it doesn't necessarily constitute representing your country if (it seems) you wouldn't have played if you'd known it would count against you representing another country.

I rather think the officials are actually embarassed with the fact the sevens has been included in this part of the law and that they are trying to establish a kind of "jurisprudence".

I think you are - as always - erring on the generous side.

About retroactive and retrospective, my French/English dictionnary tells me they mean the same. "Rétroactif/ve is the french legal word with the same meaning.

Yes, they do - ultimately - mean the same thing, but I would argue for "retrospective" in that context. But then I'm perverse.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
Please note no one has forced you to tell it !

I'm not shy about boasting!

Don't you think John Mitchell wants to test new players ? Bernard Laporte, for example, is clearly using this tests to throw new players in the arena as the RWC is nearing.

I think that's exactly what he's doing - trying out alternatives. Everyone will - or should - be doing it. Ultimately, though, it's going to make the results - in statistical terms - only a measure of how well one experimental side performs against another experimental side.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
I think you are - as always - erring on the generous side.

I'am shocked! Do you mean the officials do what they want of the sacred laws of Rugby they have themselves voted, as those low grade individuals called politicians.

Yes, they do - ultimately - mean the same thing, but I would argue for "retrospective" in that context. But then I'm perverse.

Havak would say you are Australian.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
I'm not shy about boasting!

Naughty boy !

I think that's exactly what he's doing - trying out alternatives. Everyone will - or should - be doing it. Ultimately, though, it's going to make the results - in statistical terms - only a measure of how well one experimental side performs against another experimental side.

I prefer to think in term of "potential".

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
I'am shocked! Do you mean the officials do what they want of the sacred laws of Rugby they have themselves voted, as those low grade individuals called politicians.

Frankly, Tamerlin, by juxtaposing the IRB and politicians, you elevate the IRB.

Havak would say you are Australian.

And, indeed, he has said so. Nice to see him get something right.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin



Naughty boy !

Come on, Tamerlin, admit it - you think modesty's a vastly over-rated commodity, too.

I prefer to think in term of "potential".

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Now there's a colloquialism for you! Is there a French equivalent?

[Havak]

even so I will have to pay a $20 cover charge to see it.

That’s a tough break. I’m paying £10 to watch it in a London establishment myself – but that includes reserved table and a bar snack lunch.

I'm too upset to place a bet. I hope England beat the All Blacks, that way I wont be so disappointed about missing the game

You don’t really mean that.

In a word ... no way in the %#!@*^% world.

A three monkeys impression Finbar? See no good in Jonno, hear no good of Jonno, speak no good of Jonno?

Thus, yet again, Eddie Jones calls for a review of the citing system. It's getting beyond a joke.

It’s a serious situation, but you must get your own house in order first before you wag fingers excessively – remember the *cough* McCrae assault last year – six week ban in your off season. 13 punches in a combination would have you up at HQ defending a years ban in the UK. Gouging also warrants 12 months but the one player brought up on it last year got it over-turned on appeal – perhaps wrongly IMHO.
Let us not forget that Ireland take on the Wallabies too this weekend. Now I can’t bet on all the game sbecuase of the bizarre pot system we utilise whereby every time I picked the winner in the summer I lost because of the margins employed.
I therefore suggest a 21 point head start for England, France and Ireland. Sounds fair?

but the IRB really has a knack for making life difficult - for itself, and, in my debates with Havak, for me.

Not at all Finbar. But this one is as ludicrous as you suggest. Sadly this kind of court room nonsense is infiltrating rugby, but Devine should consider himself a lucky man. And I now see no problem with Larkham hopping over the England – after all had he known he would be offered the chance to play under Clive Woodward and with Jonno before he played for the Wallabies he would obviously have pulled out of the Australian side when first selected.

That is only a tiny little bit more ludicrous than the Devine case. It’s the old story, you are inside the applicable regs, or you aren’t. What does it matter that your intent was to stay within them?
Personally it beats me why a Kiwi would want to be Aussie (Paul) or vice versa (Devine) – but then you antipodeans have a very different outlook to we Anglo’s.

Loved the retroactive mistake by the way. Deliciously pedantic wordsmithying.

I think, though, that if England can't beat this AB side, they've got problems.

Believe me you would be amazed what England can contrive to lose to!!! It holds us back badly, we can face up to the World champions one week and struggle to put away the Pumas the next (autumn series 2000).

We even lost by one point to Wales back in 1998.
Seriously I’m counting no chickens - despite Mitchells word games these lads are the form players from NPC from what I gather – all the missing lads being the out of form Canterbury All Blacks who lost the semi?

Bernard Laporte, for example, is clearly using
this tests to throw new players in the arena as the RWC is nearing.

As is Woodward – Woodman at prop, Simpson-Daniel out wide.

Havak would say you are Australian.

Great line!

And, indeed, he has said so. Nice to see him get something right.

And I thought Tamerlins line was great.
In all fairness I seldom think of you in those terms – you are educated, articulate, reasoned – conforming to no stereotypes there at all. There is one of course – you see no merit in England and plenty in Australia (even if we are only talking rugby there!).

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
Frankly, Tamerlin, by juxtaposing the IRB and politicians, you elevate the IRB.

Oh !

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
Come on, Tamerlin, admit it - you think modesty's a vastly over-rated commodity, too.

I would say this is the quality (or flaw to others) that hampers me to succeed in the business world.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Now there's a colloquialism for you! Is there a French equivalent?

In France we say "une bouteille à moitié pleine ou à moitié vide" (a half-full or half-empty bottle).

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
That’s a tough break. I’m paying £10 to watch it in a London establishment myself – but that includes reserved table and a bar snack lunch.

Caligastia = US$20 = OZ$38
Havak = £10 = OZ$30

Mmmm. Looks like I'd be joining you, Havak.

A three monkeys impression Finbar? See no good in Jonno, hear no good of Jonno, speak no good of Jonno?

You forgot "think about him as little as possible".

It’s a serious situation, but you must get your own house in order first before you wag fingers excessively – remember the *cough* McCrae assault last year – six week ban in your off season.

I agree he should have got more.

Let us not forget that Ireland take on the Wallabies too this weekend.

I haven't forgotten. As I said earlier, with all the injuries, we can expect to some interesting names playing in interesting positions.

Now I can’t bet on all the game sbecuase of the bizarre pot system we utilise whereby every time I picked the winner in the summer I lost because of the margins employed.
I therefore suggest a 21 point head start for England, France and Ireland. Sounds fair?

In your dreams, bub.

As I also said earlier, I really have no idea how England and the ABs stack up against each other. You make reference later to John Mitchell's remark about form NPC players - well, I'd think there's a tad of a gap in standard between NPC and Test footy. You really should beat them. I suppose, if pushed, given the AB team, given where the match is being played, I'd give the ABs 7 1/2 points start.

France -v- Boks. It really depends on which game the Boks take onto the field. I'd, again, probably give the Boks 7 1/2 points start.

Wallabies -v- Ireland. I'd like to know the make up of the Wallaby team, but Keith Wood's missing, so I'd probably give the Irish 9 1/2 points start.

Not at all Finbar. But this one is as ludicrous as you suggest. Sadly this kind of court room nonsense is infiltrating rugby, but Devine should consider himself a lucky man. And I now see no problem with Larkham hopping over the England – after all had he known he would be offered the chance to play under Clive Woodward and with Jonno before he played for the Wallabies he would obviously have pulled out of the Australian side when first selected.

That's the logical conclusion to the IRB's thinking. It's madness.

Personally it beats me why a Kiwi would want to be Aussie (Paul) or vice versa (Devine) – but then you antipodeans have a very different outlook to we Anglo’s.

Steve Devine obviously wanted to lose two hours out of his life. (That's a very obscure gag. You might have to think about it)

Loved the retroactive mistake by the way. Deliciously pedantic wordsmithying.

What's he doing with a bloody dictionary beside his bloody computer anyway? Just because I've got two beside mine.

Seriously I’m counting no chickens - despite Mitchells word games these lads are the form players from NPC from what I gather – all the missing lads being the out of form Canterbury All Blacks who lost the semi?

I made my case earlier in the post. Good on him for giving the next tier of players a crack at the big time but it tends to make the result a tad meaningless in the real scheme of things.

In all fairness I seldom think of you in those terms – you are educated, articulate, reasoned – conforming to no stereotypes there at all.

Mmmmm. Trouble is, I don't qualify as an Italian stereotype either.