Some observations

The power that Corporate Sponsors, Broadcasters, clubs and sometimes Unions hold (or don't hold) in professional rugby is causing rugby internationally to be in shambles in my opinion.

Here we have Ireland who is playing Fiji on the weekend at an alternative venue (In Limerick) who for the conditions of a contract are not able to call it a capped international. Think of the repercussions and fallout such a test could provide if Fiji actually won that game (yeah, I know some would say impossible), Fiji would make up 2 full ranking points if they won by 15 or less points and as much as 3 full ranking points were they to win by more than 15 points.

Ireland currently on 79.04 ranking points, could potentially fall as low as 11th on the rankings in a worst case scenario. Fiji on the other hand would o the other hand be able to move into 13th position.

Then you have the clubs in France who refuses to release players for Argentina not because the matches Argentina plays fall outside the International window (in fact they do), but because some smart lawyer has added it into the fine print.

Then there are the inconsistencies with citings and the most recent ruckus sure to explode (it started here on the forum already last night) is the fact that the IRB have decided to "review" the judicial officer's decision. Surely a new precedent. (Can't think of a stuation where it occured before)

Then you have the influence of Broadcasters who forcefully encourage Unions (such as SANZAR) to expand competitions to such an extent where eventually something has to give. It seems to me that if broadcasters had their way, each competition they are currently boradcasted would only satisfy their need to expansion when each of these competitions ra for 52 weeks of the year and the actaul fact that the calendar only provides 52 weeks in a year. (unless of course they then require midweek matches as well.

To add to all of the above, you have the IRB, with all the representative unions each with their own agendas, and it seems none are able to come to a consensus to what is best for international rugby. There has been talk of a global season, there are always tinkerings with laws. But sadly, the global season has not taken a foothold in the corridors of the IRB and the laws in rugby, well you can see for yourself that referees are still up against a set of laws open to extreme opposities of interpretation.

There is also the question of the "protected" interest of the tier 1 nations when it comes to scheduling of matches during World Cups and revenue distribution to these unions by the IRB.

So where is the sanity in all of this?

It seems to me it is the passion and love for rugby that ultimately keeps it afloat and the supporters of rugby Union that drves the continued existence and sustainability of rugby union. No matter the inconsistencies and incompetence of the leaders of the IRB and/or Unions.

We have all heard of the acronym - KISS - Keep it simple stupid.

Now in my humble opinion proffessional sport, such as one as global as Rugby Union does not have to be complicated.

If we go by the mantra of KISS, then most of these issues could be erradicated by common sense.

1. Make a decision on a global test season and simply stick to it.

2. The IRB sets up standard contracts for prfessional players who contract to clubs outside their countries and no interference by smart ass lawyers can change them.

3. Simplify laws, rather than tinker with them.

4. Enforce a law that forces tier one natiions to play at least two test against tier 2 nations per year.

5. Revisit the distribution of revenue from the IRB to the point where tier two nations can fund and sustain stronger international squads.

6. The use of common sense by administrators to realise the limits of players and the management of their talent pools when it comes to broadcasting deals.

7. Make citing prcedures and judications more "offence" specific. In other words, use of the head, 6 weeks, if injured, 10 weeks, no contact 0 weeks, so wether it is a boot, head, fist etc there is no justification for leniency when players transgress, simply apply the appropriate penalty and that will be the end of it.

Why must there be extenuating circumstances for a player? the law says you don't headbutt, then simply don't do it.

Anyway, that's my take on Rugby union at the moment, it is not run as it could be, there are far too many variables in rugby union and it really can be a lot simpler.

On the contracts a part of the issue is the variable models used for top flight "club" teams.

On touring teir 2 nations - i think development teams / A teams, under 23s etc could be used for this. After all what is the point in the ABs playing Japan 3 times and putting 100 pts on them each time?

I would like to see the pacific islands tour as the lions do. So individual countries at home, PI away

One thing I'd like to see is the smaller nations (Georgia, Namibia, Romania...) touring a bigger nation (NZ, RSA, Eng...) at the same time playing against the provinces/franchises/clubs, then playing a test or two against each other at the end. It'd be a way to get those countries more matches against similiar quality opposition, and provide the clubs a novel match which would hopefully pull in the crowds. Won't happen, but it'd be nice

dallym, Namibia plays in the vodacom cup in SA whilst the Super XV is going on, Zimbabwe used to as well, in fact they were part of the currie Cup at one stage.

I am not sure why Zmbabwe aren't involved anymore.

glad to hear that about Namibia

Biltong wrote:Then you have the clubs in France who refuses to release players for Argentina not because the matches Argentina plays fall outside the International window (in fact they do), but because some smart lawyer has added it into the fine print.

That is simply not true. IRB regulation 9 (I think it's 9) states very simply that any player cannot be stopped from representing his country within an international window by any means, including by contract. Any domestic team trying to stop a player by contract will face significant sanctions including a possible expulsion from rugby union. The french have made an agreement with the Argentinian union that they will only select a maximum of 2 players from clubs (I think that's right). This is a "gentleman's" agreement which stops the Argentinians 'worth' dropping massively and them not getting contract at decent French teams.

At least that's my understanding of it.