Should Georgia & Romania be added to the 6 Nations?

[rowan]

World Rugby needs to become a more independent and democratic body. There have been rumors of a dramatic shake-up on the way with tier 2 nations, in particular, receiving more direct representation, thereby significantly reducing the amount of control tier 1 nations have, but I don't think there has been an official announcement yet (at least, not that I'm aware of). But if World Rugby are serious about globalizing the sport, they need to cut free of the foundation member unions and focus on their own agenda. Then it comes down to how much the international body can actually force the respective unions to do...

[Sandydragon]

World Rugby needs to become a more independent and democratic body. There have been rumors of a dramatic shake-up on the way with tier 2 nations, in particular, receiving more direct representation, thereby significantly reducing the amount of control tier 1 nations have, but I don't think there has been an official announcement yet (at least, not that I'm aware of). But if World Rugby are serious about globalizing the sport, they need to cut free of the foundation member unions and focus on their own agenda. Then it comes down to how much the international body can actually force the respective unions to do...

That would be an interesting battle. Could the big ten nations put two fingers up to WR at that point and create their own international organization? Incidentally, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here.

[rowan]

We could say the same about FIFA, of course. If the 10 most powerful associations in the federation decided to go AWOL, the organization and all its major events would be screwed. So there's never any getting away from that. But World Rugby needs to becom e a great deal more pro-active with regards to providing realistic pathways to elite status, or otherwise 10 big nations is all they're ever going to have.

[Mr Mwenda]

World Rugby needs to become a more independent and democratic body. There have been rumors of a dramatic shake-up on the way with tier 2 nations, in particular, receiving more direct representation, thereby significantly reducing the amount of control tier 1 nations have, but I don't think there has been an official announcement yet (at least, not that I'm aware of). But if World Rugby are serious about globalizing the sport, they need to cut free of the foundation member unions and focus on their own agenda. Then it comes down to how much the international body can actually force the respective unions to do...

That would be an interesting battle. Could the big ten nations put two fingers up to WR at that point and create their own international organization? Incidentally, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here.

I often wonder what is meant by democracy. Hypothetically if 50% of rugby players or fans were in England, would it be right if other countries could outvote their representatives regarding rules changes? At present there seems to be compromise between different models of democracy - the countries with most money/players/interest dominate. I think Rowan is arguing that power-sharing needs to be broadened, with nation-based unions as the natural basis for this - i.e. all nations are should be considered more nominally equal. Personally, I think World Rugby is probably more democratic than it would be if it was simply based purely on player numbers/market power/administrative, so I'm a bit sceptical as to how much capacity there is to improve matters beyond the richer unions being expected to support the others more. I guess perhaps allowing teams to move between the tiers more easily might improve matters for the Georgias of this world.

[Digby]

How many votes does each union currently have?

[Lizard]

From Wikipedia:


The Council manages and controls the affairs of World Rugby.[23] The Council formulates and oversees the implementation of World Rugby's strategic plan and application of policy decisions, and selects the host nation(s) for the Rugby World Cup. The Council considers recommendations of the General Assembly. The Council may admit or expel member nations. The Council is also the supreme legislative authority of World Rugby. Most Council decisions require approval of simple majority, but to amend the World Rugby's by-laws, regulations, or the Laws of the Game requires approval of three quarters of the Council. The Council meets twice a year.

The Council is composed of 28 members, representing eight unions (countries) with two votes each, four unions with one vote each, and six regional associations with one vote each. Council representation and voting is composed as follows:[24]

(16) The eight "foundation unions" have two votes each: Scotland, Ireland, Wales, England, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and France. These 16 members comprise the majority of the 28-person Council. (A 2008 report criticized the imbalance in voting structure, which allows the foundation unions to control the Council and gives emerging nations little influence.[25])
(4) Four unions have one vote each: Argentina, Canada, Italy and Japan.
(6) The six regional associations representing Europe, North America and the Caribbean, South America, Africa, Asia and Oceania each have one vote.
(2) The Chairman and Vice Chairman each have one vote. (These two individuals generally come from two of the eight foundation unions; as of June 2015, these positions are respectively held by Bernard Lapasset of France and Oregan Hoskins of South Africa.)
(In total, European countries have 12 permanent votes and 13 in all; Oceanian countries have 5 votes; African countries have 3 permanent votes and 4 in all; and Asian, South American, and North American countries have 2 votes.)

[Digby]

I thought there were a couple of teams who had less votes than expected even accepting it'll be a skewed affair, Argentina and Italy seem to be in that number - I had some idea South Africa were in a similar boat but seemingly not.

[Lizard]

I thought there were a couple of teams who had less votes than expected even accepting it'll be a skewed affair, Argentina and Italy seem to be in that number - I had some idea South Africa were in a similar boat but seemingly not.

There is. Samoa, Fiji and Tonga have less than one vote between them (the Oceania vote). That is hardly what you would expect if Italy, Japan and Canada get one each.

[Digby]

I thought there were a couple of teams who had less votes than expected even accepting it'll be a skewed affair, Argentina and Italy seem to be in that number - I had some idea South Africa were in a similar boat but seemingly not.

There is. Samoa, Fiji and Tonga have less than one vote between them (the Oceania vote). That is hardly what you would expect if Italy, Japan and Canada get one each.

That too is an issue

[rowan]

A report came out a while back, directly from World Rugby, stating dramatic changes in the offing. I believe the gist of it was that all tier 2 unions would get a single vote, and the federations' votes would be increased from one to two. That would reduce the collective foundation 8 members' representation to significantly under 50%. Sounds a little to good to be true. So I'll believe it when I see it.

[Sandydragon]

A report came out a while back, directly from World Rugby, stating dramatic changes in the offing. I believe the gist of it was that all tier 2 unions would get a single vote, and the federations' votes would be increased from one to two. That would reduce the collective foundation 8 members' representation to significantly under 50%. Sounds a little to good to be true. So I'll believe it when I see it.

Are you referring to this?

http://www.worldrugby.org/news/122987

[rowan]

Indeed. Thanks, for some reason I wasn't able to locate it. What are your views? Do you think it will go ahead?

So it wasn't exactly tier 2 nations that would receive direct representation on the council, but all nations which have qualified for the two previous World Cups. Of course, that would include all of the current tier 2 nations plus Namibia.

One vote and one representative: to unions who have qualified for two consecutive Rugby World Cups within last eight-year assessment period and who participate in the Six Nations or The Rugby Championship

[Sandydragon]

Indeed. Thanks, for some reason I wasn't able to locate it. What are your views? Do you think it will go ahead?

So it wasn't exactly tier 2 nations that would receive direct representation on the council, but all nations which have qualified for the two previous World Cups. Of course, that would include all of the current tier 2 nations plus Namibia.

One vote and one representative: to unions who have qualified for two consecutive Rugby World Cups within last eight-year assessment period and who participate in the Six Nations or The Rugby Championship

It was written in a way that suggests that it was happening, but I didn't have time t check for mor details.

It seems like a good move IMO, and gives some rewards to some tier 2 teams. It's not fully democratic, but equally rugby doesn't have a full spread of support and you need the support of the big units as the situation currently stands. An improvement.

[rowan]

My thoughts precisely. It would be the best thing to happen to international rugby since the advent of the World Cup. But I'll believe it when I see it

[rowan]

Great news! Does this mean they all get a vote each? Surely it must bring the Eastern Europeans a step closer to regular competition with their 6 Nations counterparts, whatever the format...

World Rugby welcomes Georgia, Romania and USA onto Council http://www.worldrugby.org/news/158700

[Digby]

Been told today (and I've not checked but I'll assume the person in question knows the exact situation) that Rom don't even have a test scheduled at tier 2 level, never mind tier 1, during the Autumn Internationals. Romania were going to play Fiji, but that game has been removed so Fiji can help out that developmental outfit the Barbarians.

I think the current feeling in Romania would be WR isn't even pretending to try and be helpful.

[rowan]

Anyway, the Guardian puts a positive spin on it and suggests it will indeed help Georgia and Romania in their quest to join the 6 Nations:

"The move enhances the prospects of Georgia and Romania joining the Six Nations, a move that the Rugby Football Union – looking for a new chairman to replace the departing Beaumont – has opposed, along with the other five members. Lapasset’s parting gift as chairman makes it harder to keep the door closed."

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/ ... -expansion

[Sandydragon]

There was an interview with Beaumont who in his new role suggests that the six nations should move to later in the season as part of a general shakeup of the global season. He, and his deputy Pinchot, are sounding like a force for change.

[rowan]

This issue is not going to go away:

[Digby]

http://www.rugbytv.ro/2016/12/03/cupare ... -mare.html

King's Cup final being played now if anyone cares to watch

The bronze match earlier was a bit of a shocker so I didn't post it up, hopefully this one will be better. A couple of my mates at this game, and they're suggesting in their texts that they've watched rugby on warmer days

[Digby]

One point in this going into the last 10 minutes

[rowan]

Sad news for international rugby:

Six Nations chief executive John Feehan says relegation from the tournament will not be introduced in the short to medium term.

Georgia and Romania have been pushing to be included in the top tier of European rugby.

Six Nations boss Feehan is keen to keep the status quo and dismissed relegation talk.

"In the short to medium term there is not any genuine likelihood of that happening," said Feehan.

Italy were added to the old Five Nations tournament in 2000 and have propped up the table 11 times in the 17 tournaments since.

But Feehan has dismissed any immediate prospect of relegating the Italians who open their campaign against Wales next Sunday in Rome.

"Some comments are very unfair about Italy," Feehan told BBC Radio Wales.

"We think they have been a good addition to the Championship since they have entered.

"They have improved dramatically but other teams have improved dramatically - it's a relative thing.

"It's not that long ago they beat South Africa in the autumn series so they are capable of beating anyone on their day and worthy participants.

"We are very happy with how the Italians are approaching things.

"There is a long way to go in terms of being competitive to win the title. But on any given day they can beat any of the sides and they have done that, apart from England."

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/38794222

[Which Tyler]

Not all that sad - it reads to me like he's talking about simply relegating Italy; rather than a system of promotion/relegation, play-offs or expansion of the tournie (such as an increase to 8 with 2 tiers of 4, for example).#

He's also dead right that Italy have added to the tournie. Didn't it take France something like 20 (competition) years before getting their first win against England/Wales? and another 20 before they challenged for the title?
Wasn't prevailing opinion that both France and the 5N were hurt by expelling the French in the 30s.

Why would the 6N want history to repeat itself by expelling Italy?

[rowan]

In that case I've misinterpreted the comments, assuming they were primarily in rejection of promotion-relegation and Italy was simply being held up as the most likely candidate for replacement. I actually agree with your comments about the Azzurri, who have beaten all-comers bar England and are almost 50/50 with Scotland. They have improved a great deal and bear no resemblance at all to the side which ranked behind Romania and even the USSR in European competition just a few decades ago. As recently as 1999 they conceded a ton to NZ at the World Cup and also lost to Tonga, of course. In fact, I would personally advocate a two-leg promotion-relegation series, to ensure that the challenger would have to prove itself decidedly superior in order to move up; and with all due respect to the Georgians, who are ranked ahead of Italy, I think it would be quite some time before that scenario eventuated. But at least there would be the prospect, and therefore the motivation; not to mention the fact an ENC team would get a couple of meaningful fixtures against a tier 1 opponent each year. I certainly wouldn't support automatic promotion-relegation. That would be absurd.

[Which Tyler]

If I had to think of a favoured option; more-or-less on the hop; it'd be expansion to a 2 pool tournament of; say 8 teams; with a specific space set aside for a play-off for promotion and relegation.

2 pools of 4 playing home and away; with the week before the June international's being the play-off for promotion/relegation - maybe held at a neutral country half-way to the tour destinations? (not ideal, but the best I can come up with right now).
That's the trouble with expansion; there's no obvious way to do it; simply expanding to 8 teams and 7 matches won't be palatable for the clubs; and possibly not for the semi-professional unions. Whilst 8 teams isn't enough for a good split for tiers or pools; whilst 10 leads to uneven pools/tiers and 12 is basically no change. There's also nowhere really available in the callendar to put a promotion/relegation match; and just straight promotion/relegation is unlikely to do anyone any favours at the moment; potentially bankrupting Italy/Scotland; whilst it's likely that Georgia/Romania would be more at sea that It/Sco if brought up...


If there was an easy/obvious answer; it would probably have been taken by now.