Thursday 11 September 2014

Rugby passport rules built on shaky foundations with Rio 2016 in view

The International Rugby Board, soon to be known as World Rugby, coveted Olympic status from the onset of professionalism, seeing that it was a way of securing more money for developing unions and so widening the sport’s boundaries.


A consequence of the IRB’s ultimately successful bid is that certain regulations have to be tailored to meet those of the International Olympic Committee. The headline one is that the strict rule on international eligibility has had to be compromised: a consequence of the Grannygate affair in Wales in 2000 was that no player was permitted to represent more than one country at Test level. So, if someone played just one minute of one match for a nation at full international level or for a team at the level below, such as an A side, or in a sevens tournament, they were committed to that country for life. That is still the rule of the IRB and will remain so for capped players who do not take part in the Olympics.


It will be different for those taking part in the 2016 Olympics in Brazil. A stand-down period of three years has been laid down for capped players representing another country, as long as they hold a passport for it, in the Olympics, although that has been cut to 18 months for the event in Rio de Janeiro. So, someone capped two years ago may appear for his or her other country in a sevens tournament that is part of the Rio de Janeiro Olympics’ cycle. Any switch will also apply to the 15-a-side game, one reason why the Toulon flanker Steffon Armitage, who won the last of his five England caps four years ago, is considering making himself available for France’s Olympic team, though he would only be able to play in next year’s World Cup if he played in what is described in the IRB’s handbook as an “Olympic Event”, which translates as a qualifying tournament.


By taking part in the Olympics, the IRB is making its regulations subject to outside interpretation. If a player disputes a refusal by the Board to allow his eligibility for another country in the Olympics, he or she will have recourse to the court of arbitration for sport, something denied to those in other forms of the game. “The Cas will resolve definitively the dispute,” the IRB handbook goes on, “in accordance with the code of sports related arbitration. The IRB has the right to appear and/or participate in any appeal to Cas involving eligibility considerations for Olympic Events.”


The IRB had to concede that passports determined eligibility otherwise it would not have gained Olympic status, and as rugby has only been included up to 2020 it has to be seen to be adopting the spirit of the IOC’s regulation, but in doing so it is being discriminatory: some players will have a way back into Test rugby at 15-a-side level well in time for the World Cup, but the majority will not.


“The objective of the regulation is that players qualify for sevens,” said the IRB chief executive, Brett Gosper. “There is a regulations committee that will look at all applications for transfer to see that it is for bona fide sevens reasons. The transfer will have to be passed by the committee: if we have huge props applying for a career in sevens, we’ll smell a rat. Obvious abuses that are counter to the spirit of why we are doing it will be caught in the net.”


Gosper failed to mention that Cas, not the IRB, would be the last resort for anyone looking to change allegiance for the Olympics. But when he implied that huge props need not apply, passport or not, the question that went unasked was why a change in the eligibility system, one that many smaller unions have been urging for years, should benefit only those proficient at the short form of the game and member unions that play on the sevens circuit.


Why not align IOC regulations with those of the IRB over eligibility and make it passport based, with the restriction that a player may only switch international allegiance once? Many of the larger unions on the board regard such a move with horror and have consistently opposed it. Some of the reasoning has been specious, not least the view that it could make the developing unions weaker because their best players could be picked off, but underlying the conservatism has been a desire to preserve the old order.


As Warren Gatland, the Wales head coach, put it this week: “I think it is going to make most teams stronger and that is what we want, isn’t it? Ideally, you get countries like New Zealand and Australia that pick their World Cup squads and there is probably a heap of players who can go back to Samoa and Fiji and make the World Cup more exciting. It will make it tougher on countries like ourselves, Ireland and Scotland, but that is part of sport. I do not see it as a bad thing.”


The Welsh Rugby Union has not agreed with those sentiments in IRB meetings when eligibility has been discussed. The former New Zealand wing Sitiveni Sivivatu won the last of his 45 caps in 2011; born in Suva, Fiji, he would meet the passport requirement to play in the Olympics and, therefore, the World Cup next year. So would Joe Rokocoko.


Sevens would be a vehicle for them back into the Test arena, should they choose. The IRB is concerned that the integrity of sevens should be preserved and that players, and countries, should not use Olympic status as a bogus means of re-entry.


If that is understandable, given that the IRB only changed to the passport rule to gain entry into the Olympics, it is patently unfair. Opening the door enough so that only those of a certain size will gain admission will have its day when a huge prop puts his shoulder to it. As will surely happen.


• This is an extract taken from the Guardian’s weekly rugby union email, the Breakdown, to subscribe just visit this page, find “The Breakdown” and follow the instructions


Article source: http://www.espnscrum.com/2015-rugby-world-cup/rugby/story/232977.html


Rugby passport rules built on shaky foundations with Rio 2016 in view

No comments:

Post a Comment