RWC 2011 review and a few thoughts for England 2015

Brian Moore for "The Sunday Telagraph" wrote:The 2011 Rugby World Cup will be hailed as significant in years to come for many reasons, and some of the most important do not concern the quality of the rugby, even though, overall, it was the highest ever produced.

Playing standards among the lower-ranked teams were comfortably better than in any other tournament, even though there were only one or two shocks, like Tonga’s win over France.

Nearly every team produced at least one performance that was genuinely praiseworthy when their rank, resources and expectations were taken into account. Unfortunately, England were one of the few who did not do so and it is a sad and wholly unacceptable fact that their Rugby World Cup presence in New Zealand will not be noted for any rugby they played.

You may aver that after the pool games we saw far fewer tries and that the semi-finals and the final produced just four. Yet these games were compelling and not just for narrow victory margins. Each saw willingness to play with the ball in hand and gave value for money, demonstrating that the attractiveness cannot be measured statistically.

Due tribute has been paid to New Zealand’s deserved victory, the tournament organisers’ efficiency and the welcoming host population.

What else emerged cannot be so easily dealt with, but the medium- to long-term success of global rugby depends on whether and how vital related matters are handled, on and off the pitch.

Whether video technology use is extended beyond reviewing scoring acts remains a problem. I am not in favour of an extension beyond, perhaps, the referee being able to go to a pitch-side monitor, as in the NFL, to view footage of an incident for which he or his assistants are considering a red card. Scores can and often do even themselves out, sending-offs almost never do and the latter can also affect later matches.

Sam Warburton’s sending-off also highlighted an anomaly which is important given its safety repercussions. Spear and dump tackles mean, according to the International Rugby Board, automatic dismissal. However, dangerous contact with a player jumping to catch a high ball or line-out throw which involve falls from greater heights, do not. Why?

The scrum continued to be a frustrating lottery and was another area which caused widespread dissatisfaction and incomprehension. Despite repeated vows to get to grips with the simple measures necessary, elite referees and Paddy O’Brien steadfastly refuse to apply the laws and are directly responsible for this mess. As it is they continue to focus on the wrong points and now they have proposals to enshrine the scrum as a mere shoving contest.

The ruck also remains acutely difficult to officiate and draws criticism from all quarters, usually against opposition openside flankers, but some is valid nonetheless. There is now universal use of tackles during which the tackler does not release both man and ball before getting to his feet to contest possession. Players who are notionally on their feet but who in reality cannot support their body weight make matters worse. Holding on or not releasing – you can argue over nearly every decision and it will only worsen.

Although not a panacea, banning any tackler on the ground from then playing the ball would draw more players into breakdowns and be unequivocal. If you want to create more certainty and more space, why not ban handling by any player once a ruck is formed? This would restore rucks as collective driving contests, not swimming and wrestling bouts.

IRB IN DANGER OF FOLLOWING FIFA INTO CESSPOOL

The game’s administrators’ did not match the players’ on-field standards, and the collapse of a 'Granita Blair-Brown’ deal to pass the Chair from Bernard Lapasset to Bill Beaumont during the tournament, uncovered Fifa-style empire-building, plotting and bullying. That this should occur during rugby’s worldwide showcase event only heightened its crassness.

What the revelations show is that there are many unanswered questions, not least why was such a deal acceptable? Why do candidates not publicly set out a manifesto on all major issues? Where do they stand on the democratisation of the International Rugby Board; on ending the cosy club cabal of foundation Unions; on ensuring more fixtures between tournaments in which lower-ranked teams play higher ones; on evening out the spread of games for all Rugby World Cup participants; on the introduction of a much-needed plate competition; on the Kiwi policy of more IRB money for the top Unions and, by extension, less for the poor?

The reprehensible governance revealed is worse and more serious than any player’s nefariousness, all the more so because there is no higher authority to which an appeal for sanity and necessary reform can be made. One way to at least limit personal aggrandisement is to limit a Chair’s tenure to one term and for the election to be transparent. Precedents for venal administration exist in Fifa and the IOC, and the IRB must not be allowed to repeat avoidable errors or to condone similar self-interest, personal or national.

All of which ineluctably leads to the Rugby Football Union. RWC 2011 clearly showed how important it is for the success of the competition that the host team is competitive, and world rugby is banking on a huge surplus from RWC 2015. For the global game and national pride, RWC 2015 has to be organised and the England team has to perform to the highest standards possible. In this context the present RFU is not positioned to ensure either.

Never mind the millions wasted on overlapping reviews, and that the personnel in key positions are either not engaged or are not fit for purpose.

Martyn Thomas, who was damned in the RFU’s Blackett report, appears to be inexorably marching from acting CEO to chair of the company organising RWC 2015. How can he be fit for a role that is so important? Whatever Beaumont says, the IRB cannot and will not renege on the contract given to England as hosts should Thomas be removed.

It therefore appears that the RFU’s contribution to the IRB’s problem is to appoint as its representative someone who led the RFU’s own management board so successfully that all bar one member was called on to resign and who it is investigating on possible disrepute charges.

What next? Jack Warner as Head of Corporate Compliance?