Neil Best: Sentence first, verdict afterwards

The final verdict on the Belgium v Spain debacle has highlighted some problems for World Rugby - not least because World Rugby supported the Spanish position and themselves argued before the joint Disputes and Judicial Committee that the match should be replayed.

Spain’s complaint covered several issues including referee neutrality - yet the same referee took charge of the return fixture of Spain v Belgium earlier in qualification - the refusal to change referee when requested to do so, the pitch dimensions, the fact they didn’t get a Captain’s run and maybe most importantly the refereeing performance itself.

World Rugby took the position that there was no refereeing bias but that Spain’s request prior to the fixture for a change or referee should have been agreed by Rugby Europe, and this warranted a replay.

And despite not arguing there was bias World Rugby provided the joint Committee with a report on the referee’s performance which concluded that it had been “poor, not up to usual standards, and had focussed on refereeing one team and ignoring the other.”

Of course, the Committee were in the end unable to interfere with on-field decisions in the absence of proven bias -which was something World Rugby didn’t feel they could allege. That meant World Rugby bizarrely presented an argument that couldn’t achieve the outcome they made clear they wanted.

That left the Committee with an eligibility can of worms to resolve and within it an opportunity to remove the Spain/Romania conflict.  The simple solution was neither would go to the Japan ball for eligibility failings.

Russia and Germany were cleared of any wrongdoing. But Belgium used five players under their own version of the grandparent rule and the “Belgian great-grandparent rule” cost them a points deduction and a substantial fine -that had it not been suspended would have left the Union on serious financial thin ice.

Spain fought their corner but were found to have used two players in several matches that had been previously “captured” by France -having played for the French Under-20s. Points deduction and Spain out.

Romania had issues with one player, again previously captured, this time via the Tongan Sevens. And although the Romanians did produce evidence of making some efforts to check eligibility, transgressions are strict liability and the Romanians too found themselves with points deducted and out of qualifying. Who would have thought Wikipedia or ESPN - yes these were two of the checks cited - could be wrong?

Continue reading below

The entire process ended in no replay. And all Unions involved in the potential replay out of qualification. In a way this avoided more difficult questions and produced an acceptable outcome of sorts.

Going forward it’s clearly in World Rugby’s interest to minimise the risk of future qualification being determined in a courtroom or by a tribunal. It’s also clear that many smaller Unions don’t always have the capacity to make comprehensive eligibility checks on previously captured players.

At the end of the Joint Committee’s decision they make comment that doesn’t feature in World Rugby’s statement in response “World Rugby might want to consider whether to maintain a database showing players who have been captured by Unions.” I’d put it a little higher than “might want to consider”, I think they should and make it accessible to Unions.

Just as it’s not good enough for Unions to conduct eligibility checks on Wikipedia, it’s not good enough for World Rugby to receive team lists for one or two years and make no checks or offer any response as to eligibility. Delegating exists to compliment taking responsibility not to replace it.

You can wipe out your opponents. But if you do it unjustly you become eligible for being wiped out yourself.